U.S. Military Spending – Investment or Waste?

Is it good or bad for the United States to be the nation with the greatest military might?  Or would it be better to have it more evenly dispersed internationally?  This question was recently asked of me by someone I hold very dear to my heart, so after a rather long hiatus, I am back with my uninformed opinions on matters far beyond my understanding.

I write this as a Democrat, so the natural assumption would be that I am likely in favor of reduced military spending.

I am not.

I am a businessman, and I engage in international trade in my role.  I am also a student of history, and someone who appreciates not being conscripted into global conflicts.

Thusly, I fully support the current high levels of, if not increased, military spending by the United States.  I view this issue not as a matter of ‘spending’, but rather of ‘investment’.

The National Interest

There is a strong argument to be made in favor of reducing America’s military spending.  Per Jeff Stein in the Washington Post, in 2018 the United States spent $623 billion on national defense, which is about 3.5% of its GDP.  Were that to be reduced to European levels, we could fund any great number of programs.  Universal preschool.  Debt-free college.  Student debt jubilee.  Dramatic reductions in childhood poverty and homelessness.  These all sound like investments within ourselves.  How could someone be opposed to that?

Would that not, in turn, offer a greater domestic return than continued spending on Hellfire missiles or Aegis systems?

I disagree.

That 3.5% of our GDP is an investment, not just for the United States, but for the world.

For Americans, it is an investment in security.  In continued superpower status.  In a continued, monolithic role as the Arsenal of Democracy. 

To reduce it to European levels the United States would be expediting the bridging of the gap between itself and China – a recipe for disaster, given China’s both interest and willingness to challenge the West in the South China Sea. 

If you have a stick, you do not challenge someone with a gun to a fight.  If you have a gun, you do not challenge someone with a tank to a fight.  If you both have nukes, ideally neither of you fight.

The point is simple – by our very nature as human beings, we prefer to avoid picking fights with people we definitively know can win.  At the same time, by our very nature as human beings, we are always willing to take on unlikely, even seemingly impossible, odds.  But if there is zero chance of victory?  And it is a fight that may be avoided?  We avoid it.

That is America’s strength as the sole military superpower.  If no one can challenge us traditionally, then they are limited to asymmetrical warfare.  And asymmetrical warfare is far less likely to result in tens of hundreds of millions dead, and a nuclear landscape.

National & International Psyche

Being a global superpower has become the norm for the United States, and for the world.

We secure international trade routes.  We provide stability not just for ourselves, but for the world.

I can speak from a business standpoint.  Were I concerned about trade routes, that would complicate business relations.  That could, in turn, at the international level, sour relations.

Globalization, for all the crap it gets, helps prevent wars, not start them.  If you are intrinsically tied to another then you are less likely to want to hurt them, as you would be hurting yourself.

Undersecretary of the Navy Thomas B. Modly wrote in a 2019 Defense News article “The American system, as envisioned by Hamilton and others to this very day, is fairly simple: As our markets grow, so do we. As the seas are free, our entrepreneurial and competitive edge shines. As our naval forces ensure freedom of navigation and commerce, our nation endures and thrives. It is well past time to recognize the vital nature of American sea power for what it is: the force that ensures liberty and prosperity for our own citizens, and extends it beyond our shores.”

With secure trade routes we may watch nations engage freely in commerce, without fear.  We may develop greater ties with people around the globe.  And prosperity has the chance to flourish.

Securing sea lanes to the United Kingdom in World War II was one of the immediate and foremost challenges faced by the United States.  A soldier or sailor is no good if they are starving.  A welder is no good without supplies.  A nation may not function without raw materials.  And in the modern age, no nation has a monopoly on the raw materials it requires to function.

Both for security reasons, and to ensure that security, the United States must continually invest in its military superpower status.

A Neutral Arbitrator

The United States is also unique in its role not only as a military superpower, but one with minimal historical ties to conflict.  A young nation that fought one of its closest modern allies for its independence.  A fledgling experiment that entered both World Wars late, and invested heavily in rebuilding its defeated opposition, then endeavoring to forge them into strong and independent allies.

America stands between historical animosities dating back thousands of years.  Britain and France.  Japan and China.  Iran and Israel.

Neutral in its alliances?  No.  Neutral in its willingness to ensure everyone receives equal access to sea lanes, trade, and opportunity?  Yes.

This, again, is an investment.

Because for all of the programs the United States may fund were it to reduce spending, those same children receiving free preschool educations would be far more likely to see themselves marched off to war to die.  The homeless may instead die of starvation in their own domicile as crops are irradiated in a nuclear war.  And the dead may be buried unburdened of student debt.

Peace Through Power

Americans are at the helm of a benevolent empire.  They may receive flak for the conflicts they do engage in, they may receive strong criticism for domestic policies, and they may endure international ridicule.  But make no mistake about it, they are part of the most benign, altruistic, and downright philanthropic empire in history.

The world is lucky to have the United States as an arbiter of neutrality, as a benefactor of international free trade, and as a young nation untethered to millennia old hostilities.

Would it be better to have military expenditures more evenly dispersed between western powers?  Or even globally?

No.  As much as people may argue it, or not wish to hear it, or vehemently disagree with it, the United States is the only nation demonstrably proven capable of exercising this great power with the maturity it necessitates for the good of the world.