In general, I think of defense spending as insurance more than a jobs program. You have to spend a certain amount (relative to your adversary) in order to be protected.
Different countries have to spend more or less depending on their policy goals. The U.S. wants to maintain a global maritime order, fund NATO, combat Russia, deter China/NK, fight terrorism, and protect allies across the globe. This wishlist requires an expensive military, though existing budget could probably be spent more effectively.
Military spending data across countries is somewhat uncertain and is sometimes willfully misinterpreted by partisans. Michael Kofman argues that adjusting for purchasing power parity China spends almost as much as the U.S.:
Related idea: reduce the number of siloed nuclear missiles while keeping the silos open. This would maintain all the jobs in the small towns that depend on them and spread out the targets of a nuclear attack. Seems like a politically-feasible route to nuclear disarmament.
To a certain extent, this is already happening and has been since the end of the Cold War, it just got interrupted by fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. But it's important to recognize that yes we do use that military might and not just in a soft power sense. The US has spent 90% of the time since WWII involved in some conflict or the other. Sometimes for decent reasons, sometimes terrible ones, sometimes great ones, but whatever the reasons we've been fighting. And part of the reason we've been able to fight so well and with such low impact on the American homefront is that we've spent such large amount of money oiling the war machine.
Military spending on items like tanks and fighter planes which we produce at far above our current utilization rate function in the same category as stockpiling supplies for a potential disaster.
If for example China decides to invade Taiwan or Russia implodes and invades a Nato ally or some other unlikely but possible scenario we will be very glad we had both the stockpiles and the manufacturing capacity as we'll need to ramp it up even higher.
Yes, thank you. I have updated it to read "Globally, the US accounts for 40% of the world's defense spending." Strictly speaking, this is redundant, but it gets the point across better than simply leading with "globally".
In general, I think of defense spending as insurance more than a jobs program. You have to spend a certain amount (relative to your adversary) in order to be protected.
Different countries have to spend more or less depending on their policy goals. The U.S. wants to maintain a global maritime order, fund NATO, combat Russia, deter China/NK, fight terrorism, and protect allies across the globe. This wishlist requires an expensive military, though existing budget could probably be spent more effectively.
Military spending data across countries is somewhat uncertain and is sometimes willfully misinterpreted by partisans. Michael Kofman argues that adjusting for purchasing power parity China spends almost as much as the U.S.:
https://warontherocks.com/2019/12/why-russian-military-expenditure-is-much-higher-than-commonly-understood-as-is-chinas/
Great context, thank you
Related idea: reduce the number of siloed nuclear missiles while keeping the silos open. This would maintain all the jobs in the small towns that depend on them and spread out the targets of a nuclear attack. Seems like a politically-feasible route to nuclear disarmament.
To a certain extent, this is already happening and has been since the end of the Cold War, it just got interrupted by fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. But it's important to recognize that yes we do use that military might and not just in a soft power sense. The US has spent 90% of the time since WWII involved in some conflict or the other. Sometimes for decent reasons, sometimes terrible ones, sometimes great ones, but whatever the reasons we've been fighting. And part of the reason we've been able to fight so well and with such low impact on the American homefront is that we've spent such large amount of money oiling the war machine.
Military spending on items like tanks and fighter planes which we produce at far above our current utilization rate function in the same category as stockpiling supplies for a potential disaster.
If for example China decides to invade Taiwan or Russia implodes and invades a Nato ally or some other unlikely but possible scenario we will be very glad we had both the stockpiles and the manufacturing capacity as we'll need to ramp it up even higher.
> Globally, the US accounts for 40% of the US defense budget.
Is this a typo?
Yes, thank you. I have updated it to read "Globally, the US accounts for 40% of the world's defense spending." Strictly speaking, this is redundant, but it gets the point across better than simply leading with "globally".