4 ms·
> As a result of a sharp economic recovery in 2021, the global military burden—world military expenditure as a share of world gross domestic product (GDP)—fell
by jessriedel 5y ago
> As a result of a sharp economic recovery in 2021, the global military burden—world military expenditure as a share of world gross domestic product (GDP)—fell by 0.1 percentage points, from 2.3 per cent in 2020 to 2.2 per cent in 2021.
Indeed, this is continuing a long general trend of decreased military spending by both the US and the world since the end of WW2:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/military-expenditure-as-a-share-of-gdp?time=1951..2016&country=USA~OWID_WRL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/military-expenditure-as-a...
Major buildups like Vietnam and the Cold War were in fact only mild bumps:
https://media.defense.gov/2019/Mar/12/2002099941/-1/-1/0/190312-D-ZZ999-001.JPG https://media.defense.gov/2019/Mar/12/2002099941/-1/-1/0/190...
2.2% seems like a very bearable price, especially in light of ~3% annual real GDP growth. Wanting/expecting military spending to be much less than a percentage point of GDP doesn't make any more sense to me than wanting/expecting similar for other expenditures on law and order like police and courts.
The better criticism of our current military order is that peace largely relies on the threat of nuclear annihilation, and each year we incur a small chance of this horrific outcome, which is not reflected in spending. Naively, I'd like to see more spending on conventional weaponry insofar as it is allows us to reduce strategic nuclear weapon counts and cut down the long tail of truly terrible scenarios.
- causi 5y agoInteresting. I draw the opposite conclusion. Seeing that nuclear weapons are the only realistic threat against the United States, I believe a majority of our military budget should be dedicated to the development and deployment of anti-missile defense systems, be they based on kinetic interception, lasers, or even nuclear interceptors.
- jessriedel 5y agoGreater US investment in strategic nuclear weapons defense is compatible with everything I said above. Whether thats a good idea depends on what equilibrium it drives the world military order to. If you propose adjustments to US policy, you can't pretend that the world response is fixed. There are strong but not irrefutable arguments that strategic nuke defense spending by the US just induces the same by Russia/China, but puts us in a new nuke equilibrium with less stability than the current MAD situation. The relative stability of those two scenarios can not be figured out by you or me thinking in our armchairs. It depends sensitively on the technological and economic details.