How much does $1,000,000,000,000 a year in defense cost?

[_Analytics]

How many of you would agree that the U.S. needs to continue to invest in defense weaponry research in an effort to be the most technologically advanced military in the world?

How much of that trillion dollars goes to paying soldiers? I'm sure other countries save on military expenses by drafting young men and forcing them to do a year or two of military service.

I'm all in favor of giving all soldiers six-figure incomes and I'm in favor of investing aggresively in order to have the best killing technology on the planet. I'm also in favor of having the lowest tax rates in the world and of giving every little girl a pony for her 8th birthday.

But let's take a step back and weigh our priorities. How much money do you think each man, woman, and child in America ought to be taxed in order to fund the military? Should the average household of four have to pay $200 a month in taxes for national defense? $500 a month? $1000 a month? $2000 a month? On a per-citizen basis, how much should we be expected to pony-up?

If we decreased spending on national defense by 90% what do you think would happen? Would we be attacked? By whom?

[_ajax18]

If we decreased spending on national defense by 90% what do you think would happen? Would we be attacked? By whom?

Would you agree that Americans became more interested in maintaining a strong army after Pearl Harbor?

Are you in favor of cutting defense spending by 90%? Do you have any concerns about doing that or do you think every consequence of that would be positive?

Spending millions to blow things up seems like it would create more economic hardship to me. But several economist have countered that war helps the economy. I think you have a point and I'm a little unsure what to think on this one. What do you think would happen if we cut defense spending by 90%?

[_cinepro]

But several economist have countered that war helps the economy.

How can war "help" an economy?

War is probably the worst thing that can happen to an economy. Instead of putting a country's resources to useful purposes, those resources are wasted (and killed) in a useless (but admittedly sometimes necessary) endeavor.

Sure, there may be benefits to the economy from war if you are acquiring new resources (oil, wood, slave labor, etc.), but that's not the kind of war anyone is talking about. American war is terrible for our economy, and will either result in shortages and rationing, or deficit spending and fiscal ruin.

[_ajax18]

That makes sense to me Cinepro. These economists were referring to World War II helping America get out of the Great Depression. As far as I know we didn't get any slaves or resources out of that. And we've had to spend money having troops occupy these countries up until the present day.

[_Analytics]

If we decreased spending on national defense by 90% what do you think would happen? Would we be attacked? By whom?

Would you agree that Americans became more interested in maintaining a strong army after Pearl Harbor?

Of course, but that isn’t a good thing; it isn't 1941 anymore.

Are you in favor of cutting defense spending by 90%? Do you have any concerns about doing that or do you think every consequence of that would be positive?

Yes. If we reduced our military size by 90%, we’d still be one of the top three military spenders in the world. Like any choice there would good consequences and bad ones. But the good consequences would far outweigh the bad ones.

Spending millions to blow things up seems like it would create more economic hardship to me. But several economist have countered that war helps the economy. I think you have a point and I'm a little unsure what to think on this one. What do you think would happen if we cut defense spending by 90%?

1- We would go to war less often, and consequently tens of thousands of Americans would no longer die or become disabled, as has happened over the last decade. Fewer Americans dead and disabled would be great for the economy.

2- It would free trillions of dollars that could be used for paying down the national debt, responsible reductions in tax rates, modernization of our infrastructure, energy, health care, research, and education. All of these things would be great for the economy.

Defense spending is good for the economy in the sense that any other type of corporate welfare and stimulus spending is good for the economy. But if the government is going to try to help the economy by stimulus spending, it’s infinitely better to spend it on productive things as opposed to non-productive or destructive things, which is how most military spending ought to be classified.

[_cinepro]

That makes sense to me Cinepro. These economists were referring to World War II helping America get out of the Great Depression. As far as I know we didn't get any slaves or resources out of that. And we've had to spend money having troops occupy these countries up until the present day.

I've heard that before (that WWII helped "get us out" of the depression), and it's absurd. If you just think about it, it makes no sense that sending hundreds of thousands of soldiers to fight and die on foreign soil could "stimulate the economy" or create more wealth unless those soldiers are bringing home the wealth. And Hitler's silver doesn't count.

This is a good article about that:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns ... epression/

Wars are terribly wasteful and detrimental to economies. America did well after WWII because of our free market principles and the change in leadership away from the erratic interventionism of FDR.

[_ajax18]

America also had the advantage that the war was not fought on American soil and American infrastructure was not destroyed. Opponents would argue that if there is going to be war, than isn't it better to take the war to your opponent than to take on an isolationist policy and allow the war to come to your door?

If the U.S. lessens it's international influence by not being capable or willing to fight, does that not leave a power vacuum for another world power to be created and fill even though there may not be one right now?

[_Analytics]

America also had the advantage that the war was not fought on American soil and American infrastructure was not destroyed. Opponents would argue that if there is going to be war, than isn't it better to take the war to your opponent than to take on an isolationist policy and allow the war to come to your door?

If the U.S. lessens it's international influence by not being capable or willing to fight, does that not leave a power vacuum for another world power to be created and fill even though there may not be one right now?

if there is going to be a war, I'd rather it be somewhere else, all other things being equal. But what if there isn't going to be a war anyway? And what if having the war elsewhere costs us more lives and money than having the war here? Case in point: 9/11 caused, perhaps $50 billion in damage and killed what, 3,000 Americans? Our response to it in Iraq and Afghanistan has cost perhaps $1.5 trillion and has killed perhaps 7,000 Americans. So, which is worse? Furthermore, if we had taken a more peaceful position towards world events, in all likelihood we wouldn’t have been targeted in the first place.

Is there a need for the modern world to have strong military powers? Why? World military powers are inherently unsustainable and self-destructive. The only one in history that hasn’t self-destructed is the United States, but we are on that path.

[_ajax18]

Our response to it in Iraq and Afghanistan has cost perhaps $1.5 trillion and has killed perhaps 7,000 Americans. So, which is worse?

I can't disagree with you there. But how would you have handled it?

Furthermore, if we had taken a more peaceful position towards world events, in all likelihood we wouldn’t have been targeted in the first place.

I do disagree with that, but it's not worth digressing into that much argument, and losing a productive discussion.

[_Analytics]

Our response to it in Iraq and Afghanistan has cost perhaps $1.5 trillion and has killed perhaps 7,000 Americans. So, which is worse?

I can't disagree with you there. But how would you have handled it?

I would have ignored Iraq all together. I would have had NATO destroy the terrorist training camps. I'd have the CIA aggressively go after the terrorists. Maybe I would have put a bounty on the head of terrorists--say a cool $1 Billion for Bin Laden, dead or alive.