3 ms·

Despite all the Smedley Butler memes the US actually spends a pretty normal amount of money for a country with a large economy. Most people don't grasp how much

Despite all the Smedley Butler memes the US actually spends a pretty normal amount of money for a country with a large economy. Most people don't grasp how much the US economy dwarfs that of other nations.

jedberg 6y ago
Sort of. We spend 4% of our GDP, the average is 2%. So we still spend double as a percent of GDP, and yeah, we have the biggest GDP.
- 75675446875444 6y ago
  I agree that our spending doesn't scale perfectly but I think some of that is explained by context. The US is the single largest contributor to NATO in terms of the value of the equipment and vehicle support they provide, they are the primary naval force policing shipping lanes, random acts of high tension diplomacy (like that time they parked an aircraft carrier to guard one part of China from another part of China), and you can probably see at this point that my argument boils down to "yeah but the US uses their military for real things."
Retric 6y ago
Germany and Canada both spend 1.3% of their GDP’s on the military. United Kingdom and China are at 1.9%. However, the US is all the way up at 3.4%. A 30% cut would still leave the US well above the international average and due to it’s sheer economic might result in a clear military advantage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_... Consider the US Air-force is unquestionably the #1 most powerful Air-force in the world with the US Navy comfortably holding the #2. That’s frankly expensive.
- 75675446875444 6y ago
  Why do you feel these are good comparisons to the US? None of those countries are as involved in conflict zones as the US and I'd argue can afford to keep their costs down because of the support implied by the US's presence in NATO. It's easy to keep costs down when you're not doing much in the world. The only exception amongst the countries you specified is China who, despite memes, has primarily been focused on countering a potential American offensive rather than taking a serious role in the world as a projector of military power. On top of that, things like their hypersonic missiles have been attributed to espionage programs (Raytheon hack in the case of hypersonics) so you could also argue that their spending is lower than it would otherwise be because their focus has been on catching up rather than leapfrogging to a dominant position. Overall, your criticism that it's expensive mainly applies when compared to the European nations who are famous for favoring idealism and speeches over getting their hands dirty and making a material difference. Exemplifying this, The Hague itself has often been ridiculed for mostly being a playpen to lock up poor african warlords and people who were only able to be caught as a result of actions taken by the US and Russia as they stomp around the Middle East. In your same link we see that US allies in conflict zones spend much higher than the countries you cited. Saudi Arabia spends 8.8% gdp, and Israel spends 4.4%. Branching out from US allies to countries of military significance either globally or regionally we see Russia at 3.9%, and Pakistan 4.0%, even Ukraine spends 3.8%. The US isn't even in the top 15 in terms of military spending relative to gdp. I do agree that if you're a country with no responsibilities then spending around 2% is fine but American foreign policy has generally tried to dream a little bigger than sitting in their laurels and finger waggling at the world.
- Alupis 6y ago
  Well, all members of NATO have agreed to spend at least 2% of their GDP on military defense - the idea being mutual defense spending based on your ability to spend the money. Unfortunately, many NATO countries are currently spending far less than 2% (as you showed above)... and the US is spending far more than 2%, in part, to make up for the shortfall (ie, why we have tens of thousands of troops stationed in Europe, etc).
  - 75675446875444 6y ago
    I don't think perfectly fair contributions are that relevant honestly because the US constitutes roughly 2/3rds of total spending contribution towards NATO and that's before acknowledging the value of their military assets like their Navy, Airforce, and Navy (but in the sky). When discussing America's contributions to the world and the benefits of its military there's no reason to not include NATO's role in maintaining regional stability as a US military accomplishment. Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spending-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spen...
  - Retric 6y ago
    Quite reasonably the question arises, defense vs what? Even without the US, NATO is still extremely well protected with a giant and extremely advanced military. They even have a strong Nuclear deterrent. Really the US is the only roughly equivalent military force on the planet.
    - onepointsixC 6y ago
      This is an extremely over confident view of NATO and the US. In wargames NATO loses the Baltic states to Russia [1]. And that's WITH US forces. And lets not bring up nukes, no EU member is willing to go nuclear over Tallinn. [1]: https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/03/if-russia-started-a-war-in-the-baltics-nato-would-lose-quickly/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/03/if-russia-started-a-war...
      - Retric 6y ago

jedberg 6y ago

Sort of. We spend 4% of our GDP, the average is 2%. So we still spend double as a percent of GDP, and yeah, we have the biggest GDP.

75675446875444 6y ago
I agree that our spending doesn't scale perfectly but I think some of that is explained by context. The US is the single largest contributor to NATO in terms of the value of the equipment and vehicle support they provide, they are the primary naval force policing shipping lanes, random acts of high tension diplomacy (like that time they parked an aircraft carrier to guard one part of China from another part of China), and you can probably see at this point that my argument boils down to "yeah but the US uses their military for real things."

Retric 6y ago

Germany and Canada both spend 1.3% of their GDP’s on the military. United Kingdom and China are at 1.9%. However, the US is all the way up at 3.4%. A 30% cut would still leave the US well above the international average and due to it’s sheer economic might result in a clear military advantage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_... Consider the US Air-force is unquestionably the #1 most powerful Air-force in the world with the US Navy comfortably holding the #2. That’s frankly expensive.

75675446875444 6y ago
Why do you feel these are good comparisons to the US? None of those countries are as involved in conflict zones as the US and I'd argue can afford to keep their costs down because of the support implied by the US's presence in NATO. It's easy to keep costs down when you're not doing much in the world. The only exception amongst the countries you specified is China who, despite memes, has primarily been focused on countering a potential American offensive rather than taking a serious role in the world as a projector of military power. On top of that, things like their hypersonic missiles have been attributed to espionage programs (Raytheon hack in the case of hypersonics) so you could also argue that their spending is lower than it would otherwise be because their focus has been on catching up rather than leapfrogging to a dominant position. Overall, your criticism that it's expensive mainly applies when compared to the European nations who are famous for favoring idealism and speeches over getting their hands dirty and making a material difference. Exemplifying this, The Hague itself has often been ridiculed for mostly being a playpen to lock up poor african warlords and people who were only able to be caught as a result of actions taken by the US and Russia as they stomp around the Middle East. In your same link we see that US allies in conflict zones spend much higher than the countries you cited. Saudi Arabia spends 8.8% gdp, and Israel spends 4.4%. Branching out from US allies to countries of military significance either globally or regionally we see Russia at 3.9%, and Pakistan 4.0%, even Ukraine spends 3.8%. The US isn't even in the top 15 in terms of military spending relative to gdp. I do agree that if you're a country with no responsibilities then spending around 2% is fine but American foreign policy has generally tried to dream a little bigger than sitting in their laurels and finger waggling at the world.
Alupis 6y ago
Well, all members of NATO have agreed to spend at least 2% of their GDP on military defense - the idea being mutual defense spending based on your ability to spend the money. Unfortunately, many NATO countries are currently spending far less than 2% (as you showed above)... and the US is spending far more than 2%, in part, to make up for the shortfall (ie, why we have tens of thousands of troops stationed in Europe, etc).
- 75675446875444 6y ago
  I don't think perfectly fair contributions are that relevant honestly because the US constitutes roughly 2/3rds of total spending contribution towards NATO and that's before acknowledging the value of their military assets like their Navy, Airforce, and Navy (but in the sky). When discussing America's contributions to the world and the benefits of its military there's no reason to not include NATO's role in maintaining regional stability as a US military accomplishment. Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spending-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spen...
- Retric 6y ago
  Quite reasonably the question arises, defense vs what? Even without the US, NATO is still extremely well protected with a giant and extremely advanced military. They even have a strong Nuclear deterrent. Really the US is the only roughly equivalent military force on the planet.
  - onepointsixC 6y ago
    This is an extremely over confident view of NATO and the US. In wargames NATO loses the Baltic states to Russia [1]. And that's WITH US forces. And lets not bring up nukes, no EU member is willing to go nuclear over Tallinn. [1]: https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/03/if-russia-started-a-war-in-the-baltics-nato-would-lose-quickly/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/03/if-russia-started-a-war...
    - Retric 6y ago