I am very interested in learning Forum participants’ views on U.S. military spending (as well as any official Objectivist position, if there is such a thing).
But I am interested in specifics about what the federal budget should look like. I have heard that U.S. military spending is greater than the next 7 countries combined and think that is obscene. There is no possibility that that level of spending could only be about defense - obviously it is largely about aggression.
I have heard numbers like a 50% reduction thrown out. I believe Ralph Nadar used this number - not sure what Rand Paul has said. This is clearly an area where a robust multi-party system could result in coalitions that move the country away from the nightmare uniformity of both major parties.
I also do not know the detailed components of proposed defense reductions. Components of spending worth discussing are: advanced weaponry, foreign bases, standing army, retirement benefits. There are surely others.
One last tidbit: I heard an interview with Ayn Rand where she argued that any military action against the Soviet Bloc would have been acceptable as an action of self-defense. Do folks think the threat posed by Islamic extremism is comparable?
I am very interested in learning Forum participants’ views on U.S. military spending (as well as any official Objectivist position, if there is such a thing).
The U.S. spends too much on its military, but most definitely not because it wants to be an aggressor. Quite the opposite. If we wanted to be aggressive with Iran, a few nukes dropped on them would probably be relatively inexpensive. Not saying we should nuke them; just trying to illustrate that cost/size does not correlate with aggressiveness.
Take Iraq. I think its a good guess that the amount spent going in, wiping out Sadaam’s army, and figuring out that he was lying about WMDs was dwarfed by all the nation building that we did later. So, an aggressive stance of shrugging and leaving would have been the cheaper stance.
If it’s about aggression, where on Earth has the United States been aggressive?
And Ayn Rand didn’t just say that action against the Soviet-Bloc would be acceptable as an action of self-defense, she said that it is the right (but not obligation) of any free nation to attack any slave state, regardless of the issue of self-defense. Of course, much of the Islamic world is waging Jihad against the West, so not only is it our moral right to attack them, it is our moral obligation.
But I am interested in specifics about what the federal budget should look like. I have heard that U.S. military spending is greater than the next 7 countries combined and think that is obscene.
US GDP is about the same as the next three countries combined. Add to that two of those countries are pacifistic (Japan and Germany) and incapable of defending themselves, and all of a sudden that out-of-context talking point the left throws around is more misguiding than “obscene”.
In a more honest look at US military spending as percentage of GDP, it is nowhere near the highest in the world (and in fact, at 4.7%, somewhere in the middle between countries that spend up to 10% of their GDP on their military and countries which spend almost nothing and rely on others to defend them), and in line with Russian spending (Russia is the greatest strategic threat to US alliances around the world, and officially spends 4% of their GDP on the military). While Chinese military spending appears significantly lower than the US’s, there is no guarantee that the figures coming out of China are accurate. In fact, it’s pretty much guaranteed that they’re not.
And, even more importantly, China and Russia both rely on conscription, which is a massive extra tax (and military expenditure) that doesn’t show up in statistics that fail to quantify the value of all those man-hours (which, in China’s case, I’m pretty confident run into the billions/year).
If the US was as stingy on welfare and entitlement spending as it is on military spending (if the leftist welfare hawks were as dove-ish as the right wing “hawks” they criticize for wasteful spending and aggression), the American economy (and the world’s economy, as a result) would be in excellent shape right now.
The first priority should be to craft a military that adequately defends the rights of Americans (I can’t say what “adequately” means). The second should be to justly reward those who’ve contributed to the military. I couldn’t possibly give a detailed analysis, but I do suspect that we massively overspend for the first priority and slightly underspend for the second.
I think the comparison between Communism and Islamism is ok, but I like OSO’s distinction that Islamism is a greater threat than the Soviets were.
Thank you, Nicky, for that excellent post. Do you personally think that 4.7% of GDP is “about right”? If my understanding is correct that Rand Paul advocates significant cuts, where do you disagree with him?
And, oso, thank you for clarifying Ayn Rand’s views on taking action against the Soviet Bloc. That is exactly what I was referring to.
If my understanding is correct that Rand Paul advocates significant cuts, where do you disagree with him?
Again, the money is not the most important aspect. The Paul clan advocate self-determination and nationalism as a virtue. With this basis, Ron Paul says that Iran has a right to develop weapons that they think they need. That is completely contrary to an Objectivist view which would say that the government of Iran is illegitimate and has no right of any type to anything.
Thank you, Nicky, for that excellent post. Do you personally think that 4.7% of GDP is “about right”?
I have no idea. I would have to look at all the different areas of spending, decide which are necessary and why, then look at areas that would require more spending (like missile defense) and how much, add them all up, and see what the result is. Then I could tell you if the right amount is less than the $700bn being spent now.
I don’t plan on doing that. What I am doing is looking at what resources are spent, and what they buy. 4.7% of GDP is spent, and what is being bought is unprecedented military supremacy. I’m sure there are plenty of issues that could be fixed, but even so, seems like a pretty good deal.
In the meantime, the 25-30% being spent on welfare and entitlements buys nothing. So, I find it suspicious whenever someone’s main concern is fixing the 4.7% spending that buys the mightiest military in human history. When that happens, I am suspicious that their goal isn’t to just fix military spending by trimming some of the edges, it’s to cripple the military because they don’t think the US should wield that kind of power. So, even though it’s not perfect, I’d prefer if the likes of pacifist Libertarians and Liberals just left it alone. I’d rather take the imperfect military the Republican party and centrist Democrats built up, with all its pork and imperfections, over something Rand Paul or Liberals “fixed”.
P.S. Let’s just put it this way: if building a military that can defeat Iran and contain Russia would require 10% of GDP, then the “right” percentage would be 10%. Luckily, it doesn’t, 4.7% is plenty. But let’s not complain that it’s too much. Countries like Israel would love being in a situation where 4.7% of GDP bought them a military that can protect them.
I think Nicky nailed it but I will add to round out the OP’s question that there are places we could look for legitimate cuts, not for pacifist anti-military reasons, but to increase effectiveness and efficiency. For example, do we really need to have a military base in some countries? South Korea makes sense but Germany would be debatable. I’m fairly positive the strongest economy in central Europe can defend itself versus charge the American tax payer so they can have the privilege of blowing money on their welfare system. Another area is all the military support we give to Israel. Israel can blow Iran up something like 14 times over so they don’t need money from us; they need moral support and logistic support in region. Another example in the philosophy department would be the reevaluation of engagement strategies that draw out conflicts versus end them quickly. It’s obscene we have spend more time in Afghanistan than we did in occupied Japan.
I get your overall point, and I agree that the US military is spread thin for no good reason, but it’s not because of troops stationed in Germany. The purpose of Ramstein Air Base isn’t to protect Germany from would-be invaders. It’s a strategically positioned US support center and a NATO command base, used for operations that often have very little to do with German interests.
It’s an asset to the US, not a liability. Without it, the US would just have to set up an air base in a less safe and friendly country.
Again, the money is not the most important aspect. The Paul clan advocate self-determination and nationalism as a virtue. With this basis, Ron Paul says that Iran has a right to develop weapons that they think they need. That is completely contrary to an Objectivist view which would say that the government of Iran is illegitimate and has no right of any type to anything.
To be fair, RP hasn’t ever said specifically that the Iranian government has a right to anything, just (1) that it would make sense why they would want to develop nuclear weapons, and (2) there’s no way to justify only the US and its allies possessing them.
Another example in the philosophy department would be the reevaluation of engagement strategies that draw out conflicts versus end them quickly. It’s obscene we have spend more time in Afghanistan than we did in occupied Japan.
This is an important point that deserves a second thought. It’s not news to the regulars on this forum but it might be interesting to he OP.
I get your overall point, and I agree that the US military is spread thin for no good reason, but it’s not because of troops stationed in Germany. The purpose of Ramstein Air Base isn’t to protect Germany from would-be invaders. It’s a strategically positioned US support center and a NATO command base, used for operations that often have very little to do with German interests.
It’s an asset to the US, not a liability. Without it, the US would just have to set up an air base in a less safe and friendly country.
Fair enough. I’m not well enough informed on the strategic value for each base in Europe (at least post Cold War) to make an educated guess on each bases current use. I just look at the fact we have a presence in Germany, Italy, and Greece and have to wonder if it is overkill and some streamlining is in order.
This is an important point that deserves a second thought. It’s not news to the regulars on this forum but it might be interesting to he OP.
Good point.
Ultimately one source of waste (financial and human) is the fact that we are fighting wars poorly with no definition of the values involved, our self-interests, and certainly not objective criteria as rules of engagement. We have not properly identified the enemy, victory conditions, entrance strategy, exit strategy, updates on strategic goals for financing let alone a time-table for victory conditions, and certainly we have poor tactical definitions when we have a soldier getting the Metal of Honor for breaking orders to save comrades stranded in enemy territory since he was ordered to NOT SAVE THEM since we might injure someone else. Makes the blood boil just thinking about it.
We have spent more time in Afghanistan trying to kill a bunch of Bronze Age thugs who admit they want to die for their religion then we did occupying and exiting Japan, an invasion and transition that was handled so superbly that they are one of our best allies and trade partners despite the fact we nuked them. The mind reels.
Anyway, one reason that we have waste in the military is that we spend time invading countries with no plan but the principle we don’t want to hurt anyone and offend anyone. Just imagine Patton racing across Europe waging that kind of war. The sad fact is we are so ethically and philosophically backwards we are literally shooting our foot off with inept rules of engagement and a lack of rules of victory to the point we are indefinitely wasting money and human life trying to maintain a war since we have evaded the idea of winning it.
To be fair, RP hasn’t ever said specifically that the Iranian government has a right to anything, just (1) that it would make sense why they would want to develop nuclear weapons, and (2) there’s no way to justify only the US and its allies possessing them.
RP knows English and can be clear when he wishes. So, to be fair, I take his meaning for exactly what he means: that Iran has a right to nukes.