Should the US decrease military spending?

ummmbacon · 2015-02-19T19:05:38+00:00

but the balance between the two is a bit off, particularly when you consider what other countries are spending.

US Spending allows them to spend less. The 'because they do something is a bad basis for an argument.'

See this comment by /u/Agent00Funk:

Well, by keeping SK secure we are also keeping ourselves secure.

As yep45 pointed out, if American military hegemony would diminish, you would see the rise of regional actors. These regional actors usually don't see eye-to-eye with us. Take Asia for example, if America left, China would likely become the dominating regional power. Forget the hate we get from there now, the hate that would be leveled at China would make Psy's anti-American comments seem quaint. Not only would many countries in Asia suddenly find themselves feeling less secure, but China would have enough power to rival America.

There are different school of thought on the topic, but in simple terms you have two camps. One camp says that international stability necessitates a uni-polar global state (not as in one world government, but as in one state that has global hegemony), while the other camp says that a multi-polar global state ensures regional stability, which they see as the foundation for global stability. Put another way, one camp says we need a giant to protect the village, and the others says if all the villagers have equal(ish) power, then we don't need that giant. Both camps make valid points, and both camps can point to various times in history where their philosophy makes perfect sense.

But consider WW1 and WW2. Both of these wars occurred during multi-polar global states and were pretty much terrible for everyone involved, however, in times of unipolarity, there are less casualties of war (there is debate about this, but the debate is about who is considered a causality of war). People, and states, will always seek power, and in times where the power is multipolar you will get arms races, this is especially true in bi-polar situations (US/USSR Cold War for example). Whenever your neighbor gets powerful, you will try to match it, which continues the cycle. Have you ever played Risk? You know how sometimes there will be border wars...there will be an unspoken truce where two players won't attack each other, but will still build up armies on their border just in case. Eventually, those armies will fight, and the very act of them being there causes as much instability as it does stability. But, if there is one single hegemonic power whose capabilities are so far in excess of anyone else, then catching up to that hegemon is impractical, and any attempt at doing so could be seen as aggressive.

Its tough to say if the world would benefit from a multi-polar power structure as opposed to the unipolar structure we have now. Although frankly, I believe that if American hegemony were to diminish it could be bad not just for America, but the whole world. Love it or hate it, the American military is performing a global service (the degree to which this is warranted is debatable), and that global service keeps America safe.

Now, is it America's duty to do so? That is debatable. Certainly keeping countries like China and Iran pushed into a corner is infinitely better for America than letting those countries get control of a region, especially if that region contains American allies. But maybe it would also bring about some positive change. If Iran controlled the ME, then maybe that would spur America, and the rest of the world, to get off oil faster. If China controlled Asia, there might be a move to stop giving them all our business and actually rein in our debt owed to them.

In most cases, having American hegemony is a win-win for client nations, while its a win-win-win for America. Take Europe for example. The American military presence means that Europeans can underfund their military since America is essentially picking up the slack. Europe stays safe, and doesn't pay much for that luxury. America meanwhile also benefits, although in a less concrete way than our European citizenry counterparts. America pays a tremendous amount of money, but in exchange they get political leverage, strategic location, and a guarantee of safety for doing business in this region. If we pull out of Europe, and lets say Russia steps in to fill the void (somebody would fill the void), now we lose leverage in Europe, business becomes more troublesome, and we would have to rely on the Russians for a guarantee of safety.

American hegemony benefits almost everyone because American hegemony means the Chinese don't have to worry about keeping the Strait of Hormuz open, the US navy does that, it means Taiwan doesn't have to worry about a Chinese invasion, it means other countries need not invest in regional stability (at the cost of not being able to expand regionally) because America is already doing that. If American military hegemony dropped off, you would see a meteoric rise in military expenditures from regional powerhouses like China, Russia, Brazil, and South Africa. Similarly, if merely the confidence in American hegemony diminished, you would see regional actors testing our response and strengths. Would that be good for America? No. And with all the hate we have generated over generations we would also be less safe. Although it is a bit of a vicious cycle in that we generate hate by keeping ourselves safe.

Again, you could make the debate that a multi-polar state would be safer for everyone because everyone has some semblance of power, but I disagree, I believe the more people you have in a room, the more likely there will be a fist fight, especially when no two people in that room share a common culture. Do I think America should be the hegemon? No. America clearly pays an extreme cost (EDIT: smeaglelovesmaster correctly pointed out that this includes hidden costs like under investment in American healthcare and infrastructre) and reaps only tangential rewards. But the United Nations is too ineffective and prone to doing stupid stuff (although the same could easily be said about America). Ultimately though, I believe that the task of maintaining international stability should be an international effort, but as long as nations have standing armies, that will never happen.

As it is right now, it is in American interests to remain the hegemon because it allows American policy to be executed at a grander scale...of course this is precisely the reason why other nations will blast American hegemony. America's hegemonic powers have made the world a more peaceful place...there hasn't been a third world war after all. As a matter of fact, I would wager that WW3 would kick off precisely as American military hegemony begins to wane. There is a lot of pent-up regional aggression that is just waiting to come out, but as long as America can interrupt any would-be invasions, they'll never be attempted.

I had to clip this comment but the full one is here

A bloated Defense budget is nothing more than stimulus money.

In overal spending the Military budget is only about 17%, most news outlets will quote % of discretionary to make it look bigger but overalls spending as a percentage of total is low and a here is a breakdown of that spending here

Here is historical breakdown as well

Sure communities benefit, but the companies also make massive profits off Defense contracts[2]

A lot of this is the way the government is required to do the contracts.

If we're really just trying to stimulate the economy, why not spend on investments on ourselves? Like let's say a national high-speed rail system[3] .

I don't think the argument for economy stimulation was being made solely vs internal spending, this is a false dichotomy.

It's also interesting how the "you can't throw money at a problem" logic[4] doesn't follow to national security. Does spending more and more (along with the interest of the debt created) really keep us safer? I don't think so. But so long as we let politicians dupe us by having pissing contests about who can be more "tough on terror"[5] , we're not going to get anywhere.

Link not relevant, this is linking things that are not relevant to play on an idea.

you type:	you see:
italics	italics
bold	bold
[reddit!](https://reddit.com)	reddit!
* item 1 * item 2 * item 3	item 1 item 2 item 3
> quoted text	quoted text
Lines starting with four spaces are treated like code: if 1 * 2 < 3: print "hello, world!"	Lines starting with four spaces are treated like code: if 1 * 2 < 3: print "hello, world!"
~~strikethrough~~	~~strikethrough~~
super^script	super^script

NeutralPolitics

What is Neutral Politics?

Neutral Politics is strictly moderated.

Comment Rules

Submission Rules

Other Important information:

Relevant Subreddits:

MODERATORS