USA Defence Budget Realities

To correct some gross misstatements of fact circulating in these
newsgroups, some facts:

The USA Defence budget for FY2004 is 3.4% of the USA GDP, one of the
smallest in recent history. Since the end of WW II the USA Defence
budget has averaged about 6% (ignoring the Korean war spikes of
10%-14%). So overall the USA Defence budget is down about -40% from Cold
War averages.

By other measures:
1990 2004 Change

Total Active Duty Manpower 2.065.000, 1.388.000, -33%
Air Force Active Duty Wings 24 12 -50%
Army Active Divisions 18 10 -44%
Navy Aircraft Carriers 15 10 -33%

Max annual time away from home is supposed to be no more than 120 days
per year. For many specialized units, it is over 180 and in some cases
over 210 due to budget cuts.

Many Air Force planes and Navy ships are as old as their crews (in some
cases, as old as their crews parents).


Opinion:
The USA (and the rest of the world) faces a significantly greater threat
than during the Cold War. Where the two superpowers once faced off over
nuclear fences, now the entire world is at risk from uprisings national,
tribal and religious; NGOs waging asymmetric warfare, and a return to
the generally chaotic world state more prevalant in the 2000 years
before the relatively stable "Pax Cold War" enforced by the USSR and the
USA between 1945 and 1989. This certainly requires someone in the world
to remain an effective force; neither the UN or the EU (i.e., France and
Germany) have the political will necessary to fund, train and maintain
an effective military, further they are lacking the political will
necessary to use force when necessary; rather, they revert back to the
1939 position of appeasement at any cost.

And yet the UN and the EU castigate the USA for continuing to maintain a
reasonable military when they themselves are unable gather the political
will to intercede anywhere, much less being able to field even a
minimally effective force.

If the UN or the EU wish to become world players again they must develop
the strength to do so; whining from the sidelines because they are
unable to influence world events due to lack of a military able to
project sufficient force to overcome even a third-world dictator who
cunningly refuses to roll over and die when threatened with being bored
to death with pronouncements instead of actions translates to a
second-rate place in the world.

In sci.military.naval Stop SPAM! wrote:
: To correct some gross misstatements of fact circulating in these
: newsgroups, some facts:

: The USA Defence budget for FY2004 is 3.4% of the USA GDP, one of the
: smallest in recent history. Since the end of WW II the USA Defence
: budget has averaged about 6% (ignoring the Korean war spikes of
: 10%-14%). So overall the USA Defence budget is down about -40% from Cold
: War averages.

But compare the total dollars spent by the US military with the
total dollars spent by the rest-of-world -- especially now that there is
no USSR stripping itself to build a military that can compete with ours.
Manpower is down (Rumsfeld wants it lower) and there are fewer 'units', but
the US has very intentionally been 'transforming' into much higher capability
and lethality units, even if it can't afford them in great numbers. In WWII
we had a lot more ships, yet, but the modern navy is very much more powerful.
And, to use a favorite tax argument, if the US economy grows then
you can have a smaller percentage of the economy and still have growth in
'real' terms. The diminishing of military budget in terms of percentage of
GDP might represent the growth of the budget more than any kind of disarmament.

regards,
------------------------------------------

Fred J. McCall wrote:

Steven James Forsberg wrote:

: And, to use a favorite tax argument, if the US economy grows then
:you can have a smaller percentage of the economy and still have growth in
:'real' terms. The diminishing of military budget in terms of percentage of
:GDP might represent the growth of the budget more than any kind of disarmament.

It might, but it doesn't.



The military budget is like buying bicycle locks instead of a better
bicycle. Military spenidng is un productive but a certian amount is
necessary. . The trick is to spend the minimum since every dollar you
spend means less production in the future. The more we spend on the
military, the less the GDP. As many people pointed out the high
expenditure of the Soviet union on military systems eventually
bankrupted the country.

Vince

The military budget is like buying bicycle locks instead of a better
bicycle. Military spenidng is un productive but a certian amount is
necessary. . The trick is to spend the minimum since every dollar you
spend means less production in the future. The more we spend on the
military, the less the GDP. As many people pointed out the high
expenditure of the Soviet union on military systems eventually
bankrupted the country.

Vince

Depends on the way how you use military power.
If you cannot buy a better bicycle ,buying bicycle locks might be the best
solution.
(At least they help you to keep your current bike)

The trick is to spend the minimum since every dollar you
spend means less production in the future. The more we spend on the
military, the less the GDP.

What part of "spending as a percentage of GDP" do you clearly not get?


As many people pointed out the high
expenditure of the Soviet union on military systems eventually
bankrupted the country.

Want to take a guess at Soviet GDP figures and the percentage spent on
military applications?

Vince Brannigan wrote in message ...
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Steven James Forsberg wrote:

: And, to use a favorite tax argument, if the US economy grows then
:you can have a smaller percentage of the economy and still have growth in
:'real' terms. The diminishing of military budget in terms of percentage of
:GDP might represent the growth of the budget more than any kind of disarmament.

It might, but it doesn't.



The military budget is like buying bicycle locks instead of a better
bicycle. Military spenidng is un productive but a certian amount is
necessary. .

Unproductive? Seems to keep a lot of folks working, and new products
rolling off the assembly lines, many of which are sold to other
customer nations, generating foreign income (which contributes to the
GDP, if you had not noticed).

The trick is to spend the minimum since every dollar you
spend means less production in the future. The more we spend on the
military, the less the GDP.

Not so fast. We spend X dollars developing weapons system Z, then we
sell 1000 of Z to nation Y--that means you *add* to the GDP.

As many people pointed out the high
expenditure of the Soviet union on military systems eventually
bankrupted the country.

Apples, meet oranges, courtesy of Vkince.

Brooks


Vince

In sci.military.naval Kevin Brooks wrote:
: Vince Brannigan wrote in message ...
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Steven James Forsberg wrote:
:
: : And, to use a favorite tax argument, if the US economy grows then
: :you can have a smaller percentage of the economy and still have growth in
: :'real' terms. The diminishing of military budget in terms of percentage of
: :GDP might represent the growth of the budget more than any kind of disarmament.
:
: It might, but it doesn't.
:
:
:
: The military budget is like buying bicycle locks instead of a better
: bicycle. Military spenidng is un productive but a certian amount is
: necessary. .

: Unproductive? Seems to keep a lot of folks working, and new products
: rolling off the assembly lines, many of which are sold to other
: customer nations, generating foreign income (which contributes to the
: GDP, if you had not noticed).

: The trick is to spend the minimum since every dollar you
: spend means less production in the future. The more we spend on the
: military, the less the GDP.

: Not so fast. We spend X dollars developing weapons system Z, then we
: sell 1000 of Z to nation Y--that means you *add* to the GDP.

And, of course, add to the sum worldwide total of military
threat, thereby justifying another round of development, which you'll sell
to make money, which will raise threat..... hmmmm? Like the AF justifying
F-22 because "so many" (like Canada and UK) nations have high-tech fighters.
Well, maybe we should embargo them....

regards,
-------------------------------------------


`ZZ

Steven James Forsberg wrote in message ...
In sci.military.naval Kevin Brooks wrote:
: Vince Brannigan wrote in message ...
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Steven James Forsberg wrote:
:
: : And, to use a favorite tax argument, if the US economy grows then
: :you can have a smaller percentage of the economy and still have growth in
: :'real' terms. The diminishing of military budget in terms of percentage of
: :GDP might represent the growth of the budget more than any kind of disarmament.
:
: It might, but it doesn't.
:
:
:
: The military budget is like buying bicycle locks instead of a better
: bicycle. Military spenidng is un productive but a certian amount is
: necessary. .

: Unproductive? Seems to keep a lot of folks working, and new products
: rolling off the assembly lines, many of which are sold to other
: customer nations, generating foreign income (which contributes to the
: GDP, if you had not noticed).

: The trick is to spend the minimum since every dollar you
: spend means less production in the future. The more we spend on the
: military, the less the GDP.

: Not so fast. We spend X dollars developing weapons system Z, then we
: sell 1000 of Z to nation Y--that means you *add* to the GDP.

And, of course, add to the sum worldwide total of military
threat, thereby justifying another round of development, which you'll sell
to make money, which will raise threat..... hmmmm? Like the AF justifying
F-22 because "so many" (like Canada and UK) nations have high-tech fighters.
Well, maybe we should embargo them....

You want to debate the morality of weapons development, find somebody
else. The issue here was the impact of defense spending upon the GDP.

Brooks


regards,
-------------------------------------------


`ZZ

Vince Brannigan wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
:Steven James Forsberg wrote:
:
:: And, to use a favorite tax argument, if the US economy grows then
::you can have a smaller percentage of the economy and still have growth in
::'real' terms. The diminishing of military budget in terms of percentage of
::GDP might represent the growth of the budget more than any kind of disarmament.
:
:It might, but it doesn't.
:
:The military budget is like buying bicycle locks instead of a better
:bicycle.

Note that buying a better bicycle doesn't do anything for the economy,
either. Reinvesting to DEVELOP the better bicycle does that.
Speaking broadly, there is no difference between the production of
military goods and the production of consumer goods insofar as
economic growth is concerned.

:Military spenidng is un productive but a certian amount is
:necessary. . The trick is to spend the minimum since every dollar you
:spend means less production in the future. The more we spend on the
:military, the less the GDP.

Not necessarily. It depends on what alternative use the resources
would have been put to.

:As many people pointed out the high
:expenditure of the Soviet union on military systems eventually
:bankrupted the country.

It certainly helped, but they were an extreme case. In the general
case, the dividing line for real economic damage is generally regarded
to be around 10% of GDP diverted to military spending. Note that the
Soviet Union FAR exceeded that level in real economic terms and it was
the BEST part of their economy being redirected, which heightens the
impact.

Explain Japan's economic problems, given that they spend a minuscule
amount on military development and procurement, if you believe this is
the root of economic problems.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

Kevin Brooks wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote in message ...

Fred J. McCall wrote:


Steven James Forsberg wrote:

: And, to use a favorite tax argument, if the US economy grows then
:you can have a smaller percentage of the economy and still have growth in
:'real' terms. The diminishing of military budget in terms of percentage of
:GDP might represent the growth of the budget more than any kind of disarmament.

It might, but it doesn't.




The military budget is like buying bicycle locks instead of a better
bicycle. Military spenidng is un productive but a certian amount is
necessary. .


Unproductive? Seems to keep a lot of folks working,

you can keep folks "working" as prison guards, but it doesnt make crime
"productive" Producte work produces new goods, service and human
capital that supports future productivity. Now being 'unproductive"
does not in and of itself make an expenditure wrong. as adam smith
said the whole end of society is consumption, productivity is a means ot
an end.

and new products
rolling off the assembly lines, many of which are sold to other
customer nations, generating foreign income (which contributes to the
GDP, if you had not noticed).

Selling weapons overses is not unproductive in terms of the GDP.
howeverif it was a good busness decison, comapnies woudl fund the R& D
themselves. Tehy dont becsue it sint. it does reduce the loss but it
does nto turn it into a productive investment.


The trick is to spend the minimum since every dollar you

spend means less production in the future. The more we spend on the
military, the less the GDP.


Not so fast. We spend X dollars developing weapons system Z, then we
sell 1000 of Z to nation Y--that means you *add* to the GDP.


Not on net.. you only add to the GDP if tge investment iws greater than
the opportunity cost. its liek borrowing money at 10 percent to ivest
at 5 percent. you dont get to count just the profit.

if weapons exports were a good business, comanies would and used to go
into the business. they are not a very good busness anymore. which is
why companies rely on start up purchases by government ot fund the
overhead cost.

It has cost the USA over 10 Billion dollars in development costs for the
V-22. At the moment its as productive as a non working bicycle lock.
Even if it works it is unclear that the investment will ever be recoved
in any way shape or form.


Vince