Cue 1

Geoffrey Cue
Burchett 6
10/24/15
Defense Spending
The United States has 1,361,755 active service members that ensure the safety
and protection of its people as well as its allies, while Iceland accomplishes this with
zero active service members. Should the United States adopt Icelands strategy and
eliminate its military? This, of course, is not in the best interest of Americans, however,
the United States can learn from countries with smaller militaries. Calculating the total
amount of money that a country should allocate to its military is complicated to say the
least. No matter what the budget is, a country can always justify increasing its military
budget to increase its military strength. Our president could argue that we need more
aircraft carriers for the unlikely scenario that all significant naval powers collude against
us. There is no limit to what we can set our military budget at to ensure the best
possible protection of our people; more is always better. Similarly, it is easy for a country
to justify spending less on military because there are always thousands of other
programs that the money can be used for. Our president could argue to eliminate our
naval operations because far more Americans die from starvation than from Russian
warships. Just as we can logically explain increasing the budget with no end, we can
logically explain reducing it with no end, with a budget less than zero being the obvious
exception. If we can always argue spending more, and we can always argue spending
less, how should a country determine its defense spending? The United States should
reduce its military spending because the current defense budget is disproportionately

Cue 2

inflated compared to our allies, is relatively excessive for non-wartime as a percent of

GDP, and does not reflect the opinions of the people.
The United States is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, an
agreement now adopted by 28 countries of North America and Europe for the common
interest of collective defense. With a common threat of a Soviet attack, 28 countries
formed an alliance for protection. If every country commits mutual defense, then no
country has to be stronger than the Soviets, but collectively they are all stronger than
the Soviets. While Soviet attack is now unlikely, the treaty applies to other foreign
threats. But how much defense should each country provide? Logically, a small country
like Iceland should not have to provide the same defense as a larger country like the
United States. Using defense spending per capita allows us to compare how much a
country is spending in relation to others, independent of population. From the CIA World
Factbook data, the United States leads NATO, spending $1,891 per person, followed by
Norway at $1,328 per person, France and the United Kingdom around $955 per person,
Denmark at $800, four countries between $600 and $500, and the remaining 19
countries spending below $500 per capita. If the alliance was formed for a mutual
benefit, one country should not have a greater burden of upholding the agreement. To
maintain a consistent NATO defense, the United States should not simply increase the
amount that Americans pay. Instead, the United States should demand appropriate
burden-sharing by our allies (Epstein). If the United States decided to pay per person
as much as Norway, still leading the 26 other NATO alliances, they military budget
would be $425 billion. Moreover, because the United States has powerful allies
contractually bound to provide support in wartime, the need for a strong military

Cue 3

inherently decreases. In 2009, our countrys battle fleet is [was] still larger than the next
13 navies combinedand 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners (Gates).
This statistic measured naval size based on number of aircraft carriers and shows the
overwhelming power of the United States without even accounting for its allies. Allies
included, naval power can be described as overkill.
One of the most common ways to analyze military spending for any country is as
a percent of Gross Domestic Product. While comparing our spending to allies, as done
previously with defense spending per capita, gives insight to the burden-holders of the
NATO agreement, comparing our spending as a percent of GDP to what it has been
historically is possibly a more revealing statistic. This number, which is almost always
higher during times of war tells us how invested a country is to its defense. While a
defense spending as a percent of GDP of 3.5 may not seem high compared to a value
of 41 % at the height of World War II, we have to compare that value of 3.5 to what it
has been during a non-wartime. Prior to World War I, defense spending was between
one and two percent. Then it spiked to 22 percent at the end of World War I (Burnett).
At the height of World War II, defense spending peaked at 41 percent of GDP, and then
declined to about 10 percent during the height of the Cold War (Burnett). The percent
of GDP then dropped to 3 to 5 percent of GDP, with surges during the 1980s and the
2000s (US). With little threat of another country directly waring with the United States,
defense spending as a percent of GDP should decrease as we have just reduced our
presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Burnett would argue that because we are no longer
actively in Iraq and Afghanistan, The United States can reduce the size of its military
force because after every major war, like the end of the War in Vietnam and the end

Cue 4

of the Cold War our spending decreases (Burnett). We no longer have troops in two
countries in which we were previously heavily engaged with $92 billion in Overseas
Contingency Operations (Reason), the military does not need as much funding as we
are no longer financing a war.
From the comparison to our allies, our defense spending is excessive to say the
least; from the comparison to our history as a percent of non-wartime GDP, our military
spending is relatively high, but what if that is what the people want? If the whole nation
wants our spending to be, as it currently is, more on defense than the next 7 countries
combined (Defense), our representative democracy should accommodate to the
demands of the people. So what do the people want? Rasmussen reports conducted a
survey in 2011 that found that 67 percent favor finding spending cuts in all government
programs (Rasmussen). The poll question included all major government programs:
entitlements, defense, Medicare and Medicaid. Not only do Americans want us to spend
less on the military, they want us to isolate in the process, 47% of respondents wanted
their government to become less politically active, compared with just 19% favoring
more intervention (Epstein). It turns out that the majority oppose our unsustainable
spending habits, and favor a smaller, less dominating military. Government should
recognize the will of the people-- a desire to decrease defense spending.
There are many critics of a smaller military who say that United States will be
weak and open to attack. Mitt Romney said that defense cuts would, shrink our Navy
below a level that is already not adequate for protecting our national security
(Rasmussen). This, however, is not the case. The United States military is so far ahead
of any other countrys capabilities that suggesting that we can't cut military spending

Cue 5

without rendering ourselves a weakling relative to the competition is absurd (Blodget).

The truth is that we can sizably reduce our military and still have little to no competition
for top dog. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates would agree. From a 2009
speech, one thing that all foreign threats from terrorist cells to rogue nations to rising
powershave in common is that they have learned that it is unwise to confront the
United States directly on conventional military terms (Gates). Stated more simply, no
one is dumb enough to mess with the United States, with or without defense cuts. Some
have argued that we need to spend more to prevent terrorists groups from acquiring
nuclear weapons, but as of 1999, no terrorist has ever, seriously attempted to seize
nuclear weapons (Hurley). Another point that critics fabricate is that defense cuts will
increase unemployment. They argue that throughout history, military spending has put
people to work, decreased unemployment, and stimulated the economy. For the most
part this is true, but cutting the military budget, wouldn't reduce employment (Blodget),
because those jobs are not lost, they are simply replaced. Taking one hundred billion
dollars from defense and re-allocating it to domestic infrastructure spending would not
harm the economy--because we would still be spending this money (Blodget). Defense
cuts do not put our nation at risk and do not negatively impact the economy. The United
States should consider a gradual redistribution of funding from the military to where it is
needed more.
The United States increases its own debt while supporting free loading allies who
do not provide appropriate military relief. Our defense spending as a percent of GDP is
far too high for a time that we are not in or preparing for a war. There are no direct
threats of war to the United States and the people evidently believe that we spend too

Cue 6

much money and resources on our defense. Our representative nation should give the
people what they want, a decrease in defense spending.

Works Cited
Book SourcesHurley, Jennifer A. Weapons of Mass Destruction: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego, CA:
Greenhaven, 1999. Print.
Web SourcesBlodget, Henry. "Yes, Of Course We Should Cut Military Spending!" Business Insider. Business
Insider, Inc, 10 Feb. 2013. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.
Burnett, Bob. "Why We Should Reduce the Defense Budget." The Huffington Post.
TheHuffingtonPost.com, n.d. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.

Cue 7
"COUNTRY COMPARISON :: MILITARY EXPENDITURES." Central Intelligence Agency.
Central Intelligence Agency, n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.
"COUNTRY COMPARISON :: POPULATION." Central Intelligence Agency. Central Intelligence
Agency, n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.
"Defense Spending Compared to Other Countries." Department of Defense, n.d. Web. 18
Sept. 2015.
Epstein, Christopher A. "U.S. Military Spending: A Lot? Or a Lot More?" Newsweek. N.p., 2015.
Web. 25 Sept. 2015.
Frolich, Thomas. "Countries Spending the Most on the Military." Usa Today. N.p., n.d. Web. 18
Sept. 2015.
Rasmussen, "Reason: Ready to Cut Military Spending." Council on Foreign Relations. Council
on Foreign Relations, n.d. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.
"Reason: Ready to Cut Military Spending." Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign
Relations, n.d. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.

"Robert Gates follows through on his promises to reform the Pentagon". Slate Magazine.
Retrieved October 18, 2015.
"US Government Defense Spending History." US Government Defense Spending History with
Charts - a Www.usgovernmentspending.com Briefing. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.