Military Spending and Security
By Kira Webster
Military spending has always been a hot subject in politics and the press. It always ends up catching the attention of other countries, whether it be allies or threats. It’s easy to write off military spending power as an intimidation tactic considering the U.S. spends more on military alone than China, Saudi Arabia, India, France, Russia, the U.K., and Germany combined, according to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. We spend two and a half times more than China does alone. This is most likely intentional, considering back in 2011 when the Defense Department argued for higher spending because China was spending more, and their increased spending would be “destabilizing to their nation” but not destabilizing to ours.
Another point in favor of higher military spending is the Lockheed Martin F-35. While this jet has received a great amount of hype as potentially the best in the world, it’s riddled with problems. Defense News said the issues go so far as a flawed design, numerous delays on projects, a night vision camera that makes landing on an aircraft carrier extremely difficult, the cockpit not adequately able to adjust its air pressure (causing pilots “excruciating ear and sinus pain”), malfunctioning in cold weather and potentially falling apart if “flown too fast.”
It’s not just the F-35. Modifying our nuclear warheads and missiles can be extremely costly when it comes to energy efficiency. The Union of Concerned Scientists ran an analysis of nuclear power projects in Georgia and Florida in 2011 and found that the specific nuclear power plants that the Trump Administration wanted to bring on for new nuclear projects would be more expensive per kilowatt than other renewable energy sources such as biomass, wind, and natural gas plants. Not only would these methods help us be more cost efficient, it would be safer for the workers as well.
We must also not overlook the defense companies’ and government’s shared love of lobbyists. Nuclear arms and defense-related companies hold the highest amount of lobbyists compared to any other market including healthcare. From 2011-2012- only one year – the Department of Defense saw 231 of their officials and officers go into arms-related industries like Boeing, Raytheon, and General Dynamics. Current lobbyists will also secure more money for legislation deals in exchange for guaranteeing jobs for more lobbyists. Money seems to go through a revolving door in this regard.
The problem does not solely lie in the amount we spend on our military. Susanna V. Blume, senior fellow in the defense program at the Center for a New American Security and former deputy chief of staff for programs and plans to the U.S. deputy secretary of defense, said that it’s how we spend our money that makes the heaviest impact on our safety. One of the biggest components is funding foreign policy. While security should be funded as a base of the hierarchy of needs regardless of the size of the economy, diplomacy has just as crucial of an impact on security – if not more so, and it needs to be funded like so. Blume also notes that above this hierarchy base, improving the quality of life for Americans (i.e. access to healthcare and education) should be a top priority.
Comparing modern military spending to past spending is ill-advised, as well as comparing it to other nations, Blume explains. China and Russia are the main threat in the U.S., while we also focus on combating terrorist movements in the Middle East, North Africa, and North Korea. It is important for us to be able to support our allies in Europe should we need to for any of these threats. Our dangers are not necessarily the same as other countries’, and our past situations are not the same as today’s. With growing technology (particularly strengthening our cybersecurity), the Pentagon’s spending is going to differ vastly from previous costs. Planners and strategists must work through difficult questions such as: how many wars do we need to be prepared for? What do we need in order to fight multiple at a time? How likely are these conflicts? Where can we take some risks? This process is time-consuming and can’t always be held concurrently with the Defense Department, Congress and the White House. It also has to start all over again if there is any significant change in policy, a different threat, and developments in military technology.
A smaller military does not mean a less effective military. Executive and legislative branches need to prioritize what our military should be able to do in conjunction with U.S. diplomats. Strategy based in tactical negotiation, communication, and efforts towards peace can not only lead us in a more fiscally responsible position, but it will also ensure the safety of our soldiers and civilians alike.
Kira Webster is a college intern with Peace Economy Project
