Recent Trends in World Spending
United States Military Spending
Is Current U.S. Spending Justified?
How World Military Spending Could be Better Used
The main reason United States military spending is criticized is because it is so much higher than the rest of the world. But you can't denounce a large defense budget if it is needed to protect the country and its citizens. During the Cold War large U.S. military expenditures were needed to protect itself from the Soviet Union. After the attacks of 9/11 the U.S. defense system needed to respond to protect national security. The question is whether of not the massive military spending by the United States in recent year has made the U.S. safer. If it has than such massive defense funding was justified and if it hasn't than the U.S. wasted billions of dollars that have increased worldwide global spending.
Quick Facts about U.S. Spending:
1. The United States now accounts for almost half of world military spending, meaning its budget is nearly as much as the rest of the worlds combined.
2. The 2005 U.S. military budget is more than 8 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest military spender.
3. Its spending is also more than 29 times larger than the combined spending of the seven potential "enemy" states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria).
4. These seven countries, Russia and China, the United State's two biggest rivals, together only spent 116.2 billion dollars on military expenditures in 2003, 27.6% of the military budget.
*Above Statistics come from the Center for Defense Infomation, as well as, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Poliferation.
Military Spending in 2003
Based on Data by the CIA World Factbook
United States Spending Relative to Threats to United States Security:
"For 45 years of the Cold War we were in an arms race with the Soviet Union. Now it appears we're in an arms race with ourselves."
-Admiral Eugene Carroll Jr., Deputy Director for the Center for Defense Information
With figures like the ones above it is obvious that no other country can challenge the United States military. Even if the United States was attacked by another nation it would have the economic support and force of NATO and other allies. The U.S. and its close allies account for about 66 to 75 percent of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, and South Korea). [2]
From all these facts we can see that no enemy of could come close to
the resources the United States has for it's armed forces, technology,
or government defense agencies. Such large spending to outdo all other
countries could be justified if there were many threats by other countries
against the U.S. However, in the 21st century traditional military threats
to the USA are fairly remote. All of their enemies, former enemies,
and even allies can not challenge them. But today the biggest threats
to U.S. national security are terrorist attacks, not conventional warfare.
However, most of the United States military budget is geared towards
nation against nation confrontations and Cold-War type scenarios. [4]
" Despite President Bush's rhetoric about realinging military forces, the new [2005] military budget still funds cold war weapons designed to counter expected Soviet Developments. But the Soviet Union hasn't existed for more than a decade."
- Natalie J Goldring, executive director of the program on global security and disarment at the University of Maryland
The U.S. Response to Terrorism and Whether Budget Increases Were Justifiable:
In the past, the United States may have needed a large military budget in order to maintain it's standing of world leader, against rival and enemy nations. In the current age however, it’s hard to determine how much money the U.S. needs for national protection with current terrorist threats. Countering these attackers may require strengthening the diplomatic, economic, law-enforcement, and informational tools of national security, as much as funding of conventional military tools. [4] After 2001 President George Bush and Congress decided to increase the military budget and spend large sums of money on the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, in order to protect the U.S. in this new age of terrorist threats. After the attacks of 9/11 such spending would be justifiable if these wars indeed strengthened national security. The money spent on the war in Afghanistan was necessary because it overthrew the corrupt government that harbored terrorists threatening U.S. security. The large expense from the war against Iraq, however, can be criticized.
Overthrowing Sadam Hussein did get rid of an enemy to the United States, but there were no connections to the terrorists threading U.S. security. This war then has to be seen in conventional warfare terms, when a nation goes to war because another nation threatens its security. However, Iraq was not a threat to the United States because it never attacked the United States and did not have any nuclear weapons. Thus the large sums of money spent on the war were unwarranted because Iraq did not pose a threat to the United States. Also the administrations choice of a pre-emptive and unilateral approach to Iraq has inspired opposition, mistrust, and more hatred around the world, adding fuel to the terrorist cause. [4] Therefore, the massive military expenditures spent on Iraq were a waste because the war has actually weakened national security by creating greater U.S. hostility around the world.
