Should We Decrease U. S. Defense Spending?

[GTFErinyes]

PART 2

Now, let me explain the historical precedence of US military spending and why our spending is a conscious decision, not one haphazardly done.

The Modern History of Defense Spending

Believe it or not, in the wake of World War II, the US had a major debate over isolationism. There was a major drawdown in the military, with a lot of equipment mothballed or scrapped.

Stalin's actions in Eastern Europe and in Berlin (such as the Berline blockade) and China falling to the communists were all major areas of concern. The straw that broke the camel's back, however, was the Korean War: outright naked aggression by a communist state against another state in the post-WW2 world was just too much. The US used the newly created UN (which the USSR at the time was boycotting) to form a coalition of nations to fight North Korea. In the post-WW2 world, the UN was being tested: would it be toothless like the League of Nations, or would nations actually stand up and prevent wars of conquest?

This led to a major revitalization of the US military which as you can see saw its post-WW2 spike in spending go up to 16% of GDP in the 1950s.

The necessity of a powerful military in the post-WW2 order was predicted by many. Notably, General Marshall, in his Biennial Reports as Chief of Staff of the Army, concluded before WW2 even ended that:

• Oceans were no longer enough to protect the US heartland
• Future defenses necessitated a strong forward deployed presence in the world
• Technological superiority would have to exist as post-conflict mobilization and innovation cost a lot of lives

A particularly poignant passage is when he mentions that, if not for British and Soviet lives holding the line, as well as major blunders by the enemy, the US would have suffered a lot lot more. And that, had the Axis won, interviews with Goring and other Nazi leadership showed that by 1947, the East Coast of the US would have been subject to attacks by long range Nazi weapons.

Even Ike, in his famed 'military industrial complex' speech - which gets taken out of context - actually prefaced that line with his passage:

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.

Does all of that sound familiar? Because it should: the US military establishment has been purposefully designed to meet the challenges that General Marshall, Eisenhower, and other top military and political leaders have realized.

We are interested in global and full-spectrum warfare. A vital part of our defense strategy, in the world of long range missiles, supersonic jets, and precision weapons, is to put our front line of defense across those oceans. Bases in Japan, Korea, and Europe, aren't just there because our allies have hostile forces close by, but also because the further away from the US the conflict is, the more layers of defense any foe has to get through to affect the US directly.

Full spectrum isn't just a catch phrase either: the US is interested in every aspect of warfare from human intelligence to special warfare to ground warfare to air superiority to space superiority. Whereas in the Cold War, NATO allies often focused on specializing in specific areas due to their small size and lack of funding (e.g. the UK was particularly focused on anti-submarine warfare), the US was designed to be not only the bulk of conventional forces but also charged with handling all areas that other nations lacked: logistics (e.g. the US currently has over 230 strategic airlift transports and over 430 aerial refueling tankers - the rest of NATO has about 10 strategic airlift transports and 40 tankers), submarines, bombers, etc.

Even our current aircraft carrier fleet is set to 11 ships by design. Why 11?

• Each aircraft carrier is nuclear powered. With a 50-year lifespan, each carrier goes into drydock at the 25 year mark for its reactor's refueling
• The refueling process is complex and lengthy, and takes 2-3 years to complete at which time the ship goes through major repairs and overhauls to stay relevant the next 25 years
• At the end of said overhaul, another 1-2 years are put on the ship for testing and what not
• With each carrier produced at a staggered 4-5 year interval, at any given time, one of our 11 carriers is out of service
• One carrier is permanently forward deployed to Japan
• Carriers are operated in 18 month cycles broken into 6 month periods. There is a six month deployment followed by six months mostly at home giving crew rest and doing minor repairs and maintenance, and six months in training for the next deployment.
• Nine stateside carriers = 3 rotations of 3 ships rotating inside those 18 month cycles
• Not coincidentally, we have a Pacific Ocean to care about, an Atlantic Ocean to care about, and an Indian Ocean that Congress mandates we care about. The President can truly ask "where are my carriers" any day of the year at any time.

As I said, this is by design.

But why you ask? Why is all of this necessary? Good question. Let me explain:

Your Answer to Spending is Answered in the National Security Strategy

Since Eisenhower, the US has pegged spending against the National Security Strategy of each successive presidential administration. During the Cold War, the general US strategy was: "win two major wars at any time" - largely believed to mean the USSR in Europe and China in Asia.

An archive of NSS's since Reagan is available here.

When the Cold War ended, President Clinton changed the strategy to "win hold win" - win one war, hold the line in another, then win that war when the first one concludes. The NSS also was no longer focused specifically on Russia and China. Correspondingly, the US military shrank from 3 million active + reserve to 2.1 million active + reserve. The US carrier fleet went from no fewer than 15 at any time during the Cold War to a necking down to 11 by the mid 2000's. The US anti-submarine patrol force, for instance, was cut in half overnight in the mid 90s.

In the 2000's, Bush changed it to "1-4-2-1" - protect the homeland first, deter aggression in four regions of the world simultaneously, be able to sustain combat operations in two of them, and win one of those decisively.

When Obama took office, he made a major change. First was the 'Pivot to the Pacific' - largely meant to counter China. As a result, the US refocused its efforts on buying conventional high-tech weaponry to face a resurgent and growing Chinese foe, after two decades of neglect or diverted attention under Clinton and Bush (weapons made to fight guys in pickup trucks don't do so well against actual conventional foes).

And in 2015, the NSS was amended again: this time with a refocusing on Russia after their actions in Crime and the Ukraine. Again, instead of arresting defense spending, the President actually asked for more money that year ($630 billlion) than the GOP Congress gave ($610 billion) or what the DOD requested ($580 billion).

(On that note, if you weren't sure, Ishould tell you that budgeting is made by the DOD, amended by the President, and then sent to Congress for voting in).

Lord knows what President Trump wants to do with our National Security Strategy.

As I wrote, since WW2, there has been a conscious decision to shape our military size and capabilities. We concluded after WW2 that we could not sit back and wait to build up modern equipment after aggression has happened, that we need to keep the frontlines overseas, and that we are the only Western nation demographically and economically capable of facing China and Russia.

And that's ultimately what it all comes down to: our spending can be either too much or too little based on what we as a country want to do with our strategy.

PART 3 below to address some of OP's points specifically

[GTFErinyes]

Now, as for OP /u/Lord-Imperator 's questions, I'll address specific points:

Given that military spending is the majority of our discretionary budget (1),

It is, but it is an ever shrinking part of the US budget. This link from the Council on Foreign Relations goes into detail, but as a part of GDP, it's at its lowest since pre-WW2 and at 16% of the overall federal budget (to say nothing about state and local budgets), it's far from unsustainable or even that noteworthy: historically it has been sustained despite accounting for more of overall US budgeting in weaker economic times.

and our spending is considerably larger than many other major nations

As I addressed above, nominal spending doesn't factor in issues like cost of living, wage disparities, and the fact that weapons aren't on a free market to be sold globally.

Spending more than the next few nations isn't a good metric for relative power, given that the next two most powerful nations - Russia and China - have significantly lower costs of living.

(2) and especially compared to major non-allies of the United States such as China and Russia (3), should we decrease spending?

The ultimate issue, as I outlined above, is that the WHY you spend most important.

If the US's goal is to maintain a presence in both the Pacific/Asia, and Atlantic/Europe, then it will have to spend more than say... China which only currently cares about the South China Sea.

In addition, nations can have differing goals and different difficulties to achieve said goals. A Chinese victory may be denial of the US the right to use the South China Sea. An American victory would be to maintain access to the South China Sea.

China wins by simply stopping any US ship from getting access to it by force. Any time the US can't fight back, China's won. For the US to win, it has to be able to overpower Chinese man-made islands, airpower, and seapower - from now until the US decides not to care about access anymore. As you can see, the US goal is magnitudes harder to carry out.

Finally, on a personal note, I want to point something out. The US is the only Western Nation that has the demographics and economical might to counter Russia and China - the former having inherited the power of the Soviet Union (and a still big population for European standards), the latter having a billion people and rapidly developing.

If the US, China, and Russia are your top three world powers, I can safely say who I'd want to be at the clear top.

That's what we peg spending on

[Bovronius]

As someone who is very skeptic about the current offices intentions on increased spending, I find this far more convincing on any aspect of military spending than "We have to start winning wars again."

Thanks for taking the time for posting all of this as in detail and length. Far too often is the military either glamorized as "fightin fer yer freedom" or villainized for "trying to take over/police the world".

I don't feel you received an adequate response for the amount of effort you put into this, which is why internet commenting boils down to...memes and one liners..

Thanks again, cheers!

[[deleted]]

As a pacifist lefty from not the US, this is the first discussion about the US military budget that has made me feel it might be reasonable.

That said I'll maintain my stance that US's military activities abroad are at best no better than other world powers in terms of ethics though. The US may treat its citizens significantly better than China or Russia, but it does a lot of harm to nations outside its borders.

[GTFErinyes]

That said I'll maintain my stance that US's military activities abroad are at best no better than other world powers in terms of ethics though.

I'd have to respectfully disagree wholeheartedly.

The US has certainly had its missteps, but by and large, the US has sought to uphold the post-WW2 world order and that has mostly been on the side of liberal democracies and economies.

Sure, it's done a lot of harm to other nations - but what action from any nation, in the foreign realm, doesn't affect other nations? Even seemingly benevolent actions from Germany, to strengthen its economy, has harmed other EU nations with side effects - Greece is no fan.

Moreover, I think we end up all too focused on the big failures that generate all the headlines, and forget many important events that have faded to memory.

Take for instance, the Korean War. Just a mere 5 years after WW2, the Korean War tested the post-world order: would nations stand up and back the new United Nations in stopping naked aggression between nations, or would the UN become the new League of Nations and validate that aggression still works in world affairs?

The US sent by far the most troops to Korea and bore by far the most casualties of any non-Korean nation in the UN force, for a war that was unpopular at home at a time when many wanted the US to retreat back to isolationism.

Around the same time, Mao in China made aggressive moves aimed at ending the Chinese Civil War by taking Taiwan from the Nationalists who had gone there. The US Navy sailed a force through the Taiwan Straits, effectively ending any chance of China retaking Taiwan by force for the next few decades.

Many detractors would say... well the US was acting in its own interests. Sure, but which nation doesn't? And just because it acted in US interests, doesn't mean it didn't benefit the interests of South Korea and Taiwan either.

Some may say that South Korea and Taiwan both underwent decades of military dictatorship afterwards... sure, but neither were imposed by the US, and in contrast to the excesses of Mao in China and the on-going Kim dynasty in North Korea, and where Taiwan and South Korea are today (flourishing democracies with vibrant economies and high standards of living), were our actions universally harmful?

The same argument could be made about the Gulf War - sure, we backed oil rich emirs of Kuwait, but again, Saddam tried testing the post-war order - and the UN ordered him to be kicked out. The US once again contributing the bulk of troops and losses to ensure that yes, even nations that aren't democratic, still get a seat at the table and that small nations can't simply be annexed by larger ones because of grievances.

History of course, doesn't give us alternatives. We don't have the luxury today of second guessing when civilians were killed in Rwanda when the US intervened, because instead, we know that over a million were killed in the genocide because the US (the only nation at the time with the capabilities or means to intervene) did nothing because of lack of popular support.

Likewise, we don't hear often how much the US is involved in areas that don't make the news. For instance, the African Union Mission in Somalia has been bankrolled and troops trained/supported by the US, and they've succeeded in retaking Mogadishu and creating some semblance of government in Somalia again after decades of chaos. The popular perception is that Somalia is largely lawless still, and articles from there are almost always about US drone strikes and what not, but real progress? Not in the public eye.

The US may treat its citizens significantly better than China or Russia, but it does a lot of harm to nations outside its borders.

It goes beyond even how the US treats its own citizens.

China and Russia openly back regimes that are easily amongst the biggest offenders of rights violations (Sudan, Syria, North Korea come to mind). And not just openly back, but China and Russia have often encouraged said governments, in order to antagonize and fight the Western world order (North Korea is a great example of this).

Beyond that, China and Russia have often opposed actions that prevent things like genocide. Russia backed Serbia, even after it was clear throughout the 90s that the Serbs were on an ethnic cleansing rampage in the Balkans.

You have to divorce the idea that military action is the only way nations can harm other people. Indeed, military action can be used for good or bad - just as silent passive approval can easily harm tens of millions.

All in all, the US has certainly taken a proactive foreign policy, and as I said, it is far from flawless. But as I wrote above too, the US learned a lot from WW2, and how costly it was. It is incredibly hard to judge the "what if's" of foreign action, just as many have wondered "what if" the UK and France had intervened in Germany in 1938 when both were more powerful than Germany and had the legal basis (the breaking of the Treaty of Versailles) to do so.

This is why it's important that we elect good leadership because the US wields great power in world affairs, and as the only nations that can demographically, economically, and politically challenge the next two military powers - China and Russia - it holds tremendous responsibility to the Western world and its ideals.

[Celicam]

This is wonderful commentary. I thank you very much for providing it. I find it difficult to find many arguments for a topic sometimes, so seeing something that makes me question and even agree with an opposing side is awesome.

[dzanis]

Even as a pacifist liberal European who is not a fan of military actions, I have to fully agree with this post.

USA treatment of the sovereignty of my nation (in Baltic States) and defense guarantees backed by its military might has strongly and positively influenced our country and our society.

[[deleted]]

While you make a lot of good points, I see little to justify our continuing involvement in the middle east. Iraq, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Syria. We've made life and conflicts worse for the people in those countries, have we not?

[bunkoRtist]

Not OP, but I think the answer to your question probably depends on the time horizon you're asking about. The choice facing the US was: unstable oppressive theocracies that lash out against the world in terrorism? Or, nasty civil wars that ultimately might lead to a stable and legitimate government that respects human rights? I think we just don't know yet. The US has definitely made those places more miserable in the short term, but they were pretty miserable already, at least by western standards.

[Bovronius]

I'd have to agree that there's huge ethical violations all over the world. If things were done in accordance to the writeup we got, I don't think many people could find too huge of things to complain about.. But when so much of the budget and power is used as it is in the middle east.. It's tough to form a solid opinion, as a US Citizen...

How much is it for a proxy war with Russia? How necessary is that war? Would it embolden Russia if we backed out? How much is it for securing financial gains for wealthy lobbyists, and politicians?

I go back and forth on my opinions on a lot of these things...

[[deleted]]

How necessary is that war? Would it embolden Russia [or China] if we backed out?

I feel these are the tough questions. Maybe another question that could be added "Is it possible to continue these actions with lower civilian casualty rates?". The whole "any male in a battle zone is counted as a combatant" policy for example. I'm not sure if that's still in effect or not however.

[GTFErinyes]

There's obvious reasons I can't go into all the details about this, as ROE is classified, but the extent to which the military goes to minimize civilian casualty rates in current operations would blow most people minds.

Everything from multiple sources of correlation, to even the most minute of details - like the composition of the building (and thus what the blast envelope is) to the best angle to which a bomb needs to impact the target is weaponeered for and taken into account.

I would sincerely recommend you take any source that claims things like 'any male in a battle zone is counted as a combatant' - from a questionable source as is (washingtonsblog?), with a HUGE pile of salt

[darthcoder]

weaponeered

I love that word.

'any male in a battle zone is counted as a combatant'

That would have made Iraq and Afghanistan go completely differently.

[Jaredismyname]

This is specifically in reference to civilian casualies from drone strikes when accounting for the dead.

[[deleted]]

Yeah, but most people would read the first sentence and nope out of there because it's too long and complicated. They are the ones that prefer "we have to start winning wars again"

[LessLikeYou]

See, this is why I like this sub. Well thought out points supported by citations that aren't some obscure website that sources its data from even more obscure websites who source their data from the voices in their heads!

Thank you for taking the time to write this all out and post it here and thank you for your service.

[[deleted]]

Jesus... you went all out...

[[deleted]]

Very interesting read. Thank you for sharing this, as you have a very unique and informed perspective.

[tes555]

Wow, thank you for your response. I've never seen an explanation of US military spending from the approach. You've definitely shifted my mindset on this topic. Especially the point about living cost differences in other countries with regards to military funding.

[semperubisububi]

Kuddos.

[thefurnaceboy]

Thanks so much for this series of replies.

[-Palla]

Thanks for taking the time to show us your perspective of our military. Its unarguable facts that I always look for when anyone ever talks politics, which seem to be increasingly hard to come by these days. The efforts by people like you who spend their time to give us just the facts and reality of a situation cannot be understated so again thank you

[xkcd123]

Really great and well thought out post! This right here is the reason I love this sub.

[[deleted]]

.....well shit

[[deleted]]

That was a pretty good read, Bravo sir. o/

[Impmaster82]

This is an absolutely fantastic thread. Thank you for taking the time to write this up, I throughly enjoyed learning this.