Know Your Defense Budget

Prior to the WTC attacks, the Bush administration proposed that Congress fund a defense budget for FY 2002 in the amount of $343.2 billion, including a $32.6 billion increase over the defense budget for FY 2001, surpassing in real terms the average defense budget during the cold war. I suppose most people on this forum know this stuff already, but some might find the comparisons interesting. (Answers at bottom).


1. The list of countries likely to be military adversaries of the U.S. in the near future typically includes the "rogue states" of Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Libya, Syria and Sudan. Compared to the combined defense budgets of all of these countries, the U.S. defense budget for FY 2001 was more than:


a. Twice as large


b. Five times as large


c. Ten times as large


d. Twenty times as large


2. Compared to the amount of money the federal government spends annually on higher education, the defense budget will be more than


a. Twice as large


b. Five times as large


c. Ten times as large


d. Twenty times as large


3. In March 2001, the People's Republic of China announced that it would increase defense spending next year by 18%. In dollar terms, compared to China's increase in defense spending, the proposed increase in the U.S. Defense budget will be more than


a. Twice as large


b. Five times as large


c. Ten times as large


d. Twenty times as large


4. For the last ten years, federal statute has required the U.S. Department of Defense to produce financial statements that are certifiably in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The DOD has failed to this:


a. For the last two years.


b. For the last three years.


c. For the last five years.


d. For the last ten years.


5. Since the 1980's, combined military spending by all countries, including the United States, has


a. Increased by a third.


b. Stayed the same.


c. Decreased slightly.


d. Decreased by a third


6. A CBS poll conducted in December 2000 asked 1,105 adults the following question: "What is the single most important thing that you would like to see George W. Bush accomplish in the next four years as President?" The percentage of respondents that identified changes in defense and the military was


a. Less than 30%


b. Less than 20%


c. Less than 10%


d. Less than 3%


Answers:.......................

...............................

...............................

...............................

...............................

...............................

d, d, d, d, d, d. Source: Council for a Liveable World.

I've always found in interesting that the people who most criticize the government for "throwing money" at social problems are the same people who are usually in favor of bigger defense budgets.


A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking serious money (Everett Dirkson).

When comparing % of GDP spent on military, I believe our country is nowhere near the highest. Don't get me wrong, I don't like spending 350 billion on the military either, but some of these comparisons aren't exactly fair.


For instance, China's 18% increase is a bigger increase percentage-wise, which is of course the more relevant aspect to look at. China's military spending has increased dramatically over the last decade and I believe I read that the % of their GDP spent on military is over twice that of the U.S. In any case, it's certiainly higher than the U.S.


With regard to the education spending comparison, I don't believe our federal government should spend any money on education at all. It's a state issue... but that's for another thread! /images/smile.gif


Again, I believe we way overspend on military, but I'm opposed to misleading statistics wherever they are used, even when used to support my own views.


natedogg

I would be more interested to know how much we spend on keeping forces stationed in Europe (and some breakdown by categories), as this strikes me as an area we very well might be able to cut (hugely).


I think thAT if one believes that peace is more easily attained and maintained through a position of strength than through parity or weakness (which I do believe), then we should indeed be spending a lot more than our potential adversaries. If they came near to achieving anything like parity, the chances of attacks against us would RISE, not fall. And quite a few of the countries you listed would love to attack us if they thought they might have a decent chance to win.


Let's not forget that China is still hard-line communist and totalitarian. The threat of nuclear war seems to have diminished now that the USSR can no longer speculate rationally that they might be able to win a war against us. Let's not give trhe Chinese hard-liners the chance to speculate along similar lines.


These other countries do not have nearly our regard, even, for human rights and the sovereignty of nations. While we have at times abused our position as the "guy with the biggest billy club", what we have done bad is probably miniscule compared to what many other nations would have done if they had had our power. If any of those rogue states were in our shoes, they would brutally and swiftly try to own the whole world as fast as they could. Not to mention what the USSr, Germany or China would have done if they had ever truly had the sole superpower position. We need our strength. Many countries would not hesitate to attack us otherwise.

Measuring defense spending as something relative to GDP doesn't get you very far. Military power is measured by the number and nature of troops and weapons, not the value of the home turf. You're right, however, as a percentage of GDP the U.S. budget is far from the highest. That honor goes to miserable Eritrea, at 50%. By this measure, Eritrea "spends more" than the U.S., even though it spends one-thousandth as much in dollar terms. So which measure is more misleading?


Measuring defense needs based on what we can afford instead of what we want or need is backwards economics. It gets a lot of currency from market-loving Republicans like Dick Cheney and George Will because it's the only measurement that conceals the system's girth.

The threat of nuclear war today is greater than ever. Israel, Pakistan, and India all have nuclear weapons. Nuclear material is a hot item in European organized crime. With the fall of the USSR, the Russian mafiocracy has increased the liklihood of a nuclear attack. It would only take one large city to be destroyed to set off Armagedon.


US propaganda supporting the military industrial complex grows tiresome. I'm st arting to wondeer if the Bush administration is going to openly attack anyone. Covert actions, I'm sure, have already begun. Limiting those blames to Bin Laden and Afghanistan makes sense. They have little impact on the price of oil. If issue turns into a Islamic Jihad v. The West, oil will rise dramatically. It therefore becomes imperative to keep the US response focussed on relatively powerless states such as Afghanistan.

Natedogg,


If the Feds don't spend money on education, they begin to lose control of education. Hell, Bush don't wanna see any of those poor inner city kids on the alumnae rosters of Exeter, Philips Andover, or Yale. Without federal "support" of public education, you can't keep good public education just what it is--lousy.


John

Today, the threat of a nuclear bomb or two being dropped may be greater, but I don't think the threat of a complete global nuclear Armageddon is nearly as high. The Russian Mafiacracy is essentially only interested in making money and could probably care less about political goals or worldwide politics other than as a means to this end.