A Few Words on Runaway U.S. Military Spending

Two months ago I wrote a very detailed post, with numerous factual referents and links, on Why I am Not a Republican. Over the next week leading up to the U.S. Presidential and Congressional elections I'll be highlighting some of the most important subjects.  I am not an ideologue; there are aspects of the Democrat's approach I dislike, too, and I'll mention those.

Chart from The International Institute for Strategic Studies

The United States is not in danger of being attacked by another nation. Yet military spending by the United States constitutes 45.7% of all military spending by the entire world (2011 numbers). This is incredible. But it is indisputable. And it is unjustifiable.

The United States is not a war with the rest of the world. It would have to be to justify spending about half the world's military spending.

The Iraq War is over. The U.S. does not have an extensive troop presence there. The U.S. presence in Afghanistan cannot justify this level of spending. U.S. involvement in Libya was de minimis; it does not have a presence in Syria. The threat of terror attacks, based on one horrific surreptitious attack in the U.S., does not justify this level of spending. Indeed, the billions budgeted are only direct costs; the reaction to potential terrorism has numerous and substantial indirect costs to the U.S.

The United States is the wealthiest and most economically powerful in the world. It could dominate the world simply economically and simply through markets. Yet it spends far far more overall, per capita, and as a percentage of GDP, on military spending than any other westernized nation on Earth.  This is the opposite of what it should be. Given the U.S.'s scale and compactness, it should be able to achieve the same level of defense for less; there should have economy of scales compared with other nations.

The United States budget has discretionary and non-discretionary components. Military spending constitutes more than 60% of of the nation's discretionary spending.

There is an irony here: the greatest threat to the "American way of life" is economic disaster not military invasion. Indeed, it has been argued that is what led to the U.S.S.R.s's demise. The irony is that spending such extraordinary amounts on the military is a danger to a country.

It is also ironic that what would "win" for the "American way of life" is simply the American way of life itself. For most people in most countries want to live like Americans. As U.S. citizens and companies buy and sell goods and services with those in the rest of the world, and as they become better off and more educated, they are less interested in hating America and hurting its people, and more interested in having stuff and living good lives. The US. can win in the marketplace. It does not need to blow people up.

Update: All the aircraft carriers in the world according to Global Security.org (found via Reddit):