# Military spending. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 18, 2002, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-spending/137387 "2002-11-18T21:35:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-spending/137387/1 "2002-11-18T21:35:36Z")
The amount the U.S. spends on war dwarfs what all of our _potential_ enemies in the world spend combined. This wouldn’t seem so inappropriate if we were surrounded on all sides by enemies itching to attack us. But, given that we are relatively immune from attack by foreign armies, I am wondering if anybody can justify the huge amount (about $400 billion next year) we spend on war. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-spending/137387/2 "2002-11-18T21:44:10Z")
Actually, the Americans spend their money on defense, not war, but that’s a hairsplitting definition and need not be dwelt upon. Well, better to have a $400 billion defense and not need it than to need a $400 billion defense and not have it. When you come up with a plan for all the world to live in peace and harmony, let us know. Meantime, you’re better off writing your congressman and senators if you have specific complaints about defense spending. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-spending/137387/3 "2002-11-18T21:48:05Z")
Yes: without it, defense contractors would go out of bussiness. Then we wouldn’t be able to sell landmines to African warlords, and they’d have to use crappy Russian or Chinese landmines to blow up their children: meaning much messier deaths and maimings. Who wants to see that? Seriously though, the main problem is not so much that we spend on defense, but rather that we spend on the wrong things. I’d say way more money is due dealing with national security personel, iniatives, and equipment than, say, dogfights between our jets and an imaginary next-generation of MiGs that will never be built. ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-spending/137387/4 "2002-11-18T21:48:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers \* > **Actually, the Americans spend their money on defense, not war, but that’s a hairsplitting definition and need not be dwelt upon.** Actually, no. We do **not** spend our money on defense. We spend it on war. In fact, the U.S. military has not been used to defend the territory of the U.S. since 1812. And, despite the constant military operations, not a single military act since at least WWII can even remotely be justified as “defense.” You can argue about whether these actions are justified, but it is just lying to claim that they are “defense.” ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-spending/137387/5 "2002-11-18T22:27:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chumpsky \* > [B > In fact, the U.S. military has not been used to defend the territory of the U.S. since 1812. And, despite the constant military operations, not a single military act since at least WWII can even remotely be justified as “defense.” You can argue about whether these actions are justified, but it is just lying to claim that they are “defense.” \*\* That’s really weird because I seem to recall the United States engaging Japanese soldiers on the Aleutian Islands not to mention the US Navy fighting against a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. That seems to qualify as the United States military defending United States territory more then a hundred years after the War of 1812 ended. Marc ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-spending/137387/6 "2002-11-18T22:28:52Z")
This OP would have been more convincing 373 days ago. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-spending/137387/7 "2002-11-18T22:30:16Z")
Don’t forget the Phillippines. They too were U.S. territory in 1941, as you may recall. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-spending/137387/8 "2002-11-18T22:35:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chumpsky \* > \*\*The amount the U.S. spends on war dwarfs what all of our _potential_ enemies in the world spend combined. This wouldn’t seem so inappropriate if we were surrounded on all sides by enemies itching to attack us. But, given that we are relatively immune from attack by foreign armies, I am wondering if anybody can justify the huge amount (about $400 billion next year) we spend on war. \*\* I suppose the mainland might be relatively immune to foreign attack but what about our interest abroad? I’d rather have a military capable of projecting power to the four corners of the globe instead of having to wait for my enemy to make war in my backyard. Since WWII we’ve needed a military force capable of projecting power to defend against a Communist threat. (Be it real or imagined.) Currently we’ve still got obligations throuout the globe like NATO in Europe, we’ve got the Korean border, and we help keep China off of Taiwan’s back. So we spend a lot more money on the military then most other countries but why does that matter? It isn’t like we don’t have the money to spend. I don’t imagine anyone here could give you a satisfactory justifcation for the military spending. I am curious though, is there anything the United States does that you approve of? Marc ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-spending/137387/9 "2002-11-18T22:38:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > \*\*That’s really weird because I seem to recall the United States engaging Japanese soldiers on the Aleutian Islands not to mention the US Navy fighting against a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. That seems to qualify as the United States military defending United States territory more then a hundred years after the War of 1812 ended. \*\* Alaska and Hawaii became states in 1959. The Japanese attacked a U.S. colony, a colony that had been won by treachery and arms, with much killing and dispossession, by the way. That is, of course, no excuse, but the fact remains: the U.S. territory has not been under armed attack since the British burned down Washington in 1814. (My mistake above–it has been 188 years, not 190 since the U.S. has come under armed attack.) ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-spending/137387/10 "2002-11-18T22:44:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > **I suppose the mainland might be relatively immune to foreign attack but what about our interest abroad?** This is, of course, the prime reason for the massive U.S. military. We should be careful, though. It is not **our** interests that are protected. For instance, it does not serve you or me for the U.S. military to overthrow the government of Guatemala, but it does serve the interests of United Fruit Company. It does not serve you or me to kill 4 million Indochinese, or to provide Latin American fascists with military training and the latest weaponry to massacre their populations with. It does serve the itnerests of the corporate elite, though. This is what is euphemistically called the “national interest.” > [@](#): > > **So we spend a lot more money on the military then most other countries but why does that matter? It isn’t like we don’t have the money to spend.** :smack: Yeah, we’ve got a couple hundred billion dollars to burn. Since we can’t think of anything better to spend it on, why not spend it on killing machines. It’s not like we have any other pressing matters that need attention. Sounds good to me. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-spending/137387/11 "2002-11-18T22:45:40Z")
> [@](#): > > not a single military act since at least WWII can even remotely be justified as “defense.” Actually, the Cuban missile blockade of 1962 could be identified as nothing other than defense. Your claim that no other action could be “remotely” called defense is simply posturing on your part–and I am one who puts Grenada, Panama, and several other events squarely in the “imperial adventurism” category. **Chumpsky** , you keep defeating your own arguments when you make such sweeping generalizations that are so easily refuted. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-spending/137387/12 "2002-11-18T22:47:44Z")
I guess if an armed enemy were to attack Texas, we could dismiss it as well, as Texas was also a U.S. possession won by “…treachery and arms…” Look, **Chumpsky**. You made an assertion that was wrong. Rather than admitting it, you start trotting out explanations for why Hawaii and the Phillipines are not true Scotsmen. Poor show. Hawaii was a U.S. territory. Your own words: > [@](#): > > In fact, the U.S. military has not been used to defend the territory of the U.S. since 1812. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-spending/137387/13 "2002-11-18T22:48:14Z")
> [@](#): > > the U.S. territory has not been under armed attack since the British burned down Washington in 1814. California was subjected to artillery bombardment from a Japanese submarine and Washington and Oregon were each struck by Japanese launched incendiary balloons. (And, while Hawaii was certainly coopted by American adventurers, we bought Alaska on the open market from the Russians who had already stolen it.) ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-spending/137387/14 "2002-11-18T22:58:11Z")
Don’t forget the Mexican Army parked north of the Rio Grande in 1845, and Pancho Villa’s armed attacks a half century later. ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-spending/137387/15 "2002-11-18T22:59:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\*Actually, the Cuban missile blockade of 1962 could be identified as nothing other than defense. \*\* It is simply absurd to claim the Cuban blockade had anything to do with defense. Naturally, it is always _claimed_ that such acts are “defense,” but there is nothing so constant as the propensity for leaders to lie. There is only one conceivable reason why Cuba would want to obtain nuclear weapons, and this was to defend against U.S. attack. To claim that they were going to be used to attack the U.S. is ridiculous. There are much easier ways to commit suicide. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-spending/137387/16 "2002-11-18T23:02:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chumpsky \* > \*\*Alaska and Hawaii became states in 1959. The Japanese attacked a U.S. colony, a colony that had been won by treachery and arms, with much killing and dispossession, by the way. \*\* Japan also [attacked Alaska](http://www.asd.k12.ak.us/schools/romig/museum/World%20War%202/%20WW2.html). > [@](#): > > THE WAR CAME TO ALASKA IN 1942,WHEN JAPAN ATTACKED THE UNITED STATES IN ALASKA. THE BATTLE INALASKA WAS IN THE ALEUTIAN CHAIN. THE ISLANDS THAT WERE OCCUPIEDBY THE JAPANESE WERE ATTU AND KISKA. DUTCH HARBOR WAS ALSO BOMBED. The Japanese [occupation of Attu](http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/7attu/7facts1.htm) included putting the residents in concentration camps. > [@](#): > > While Japanese naval troops secured Kiska, the Japanese army landed on Attu. The 1,140-man force consisted of infantry engineers, and a service unit, under the command of Maj. Matsutoshi Hosumi. The Aleuts and their teacher were taken prisoner and eventually removed to Japan. The teacher’s husband lost his life in unclear circumstances…As for the Attuan Aleuts, about half of them died while in Japan, mostly from tuberculosis. Note that Alaska was not taken by force, but was purchased from Russia. ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-spending/137387/17 "2002-11-18T23:03:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\*Look, _Chumpsky_. You made an assertion that was wrong. Rather than admitting it, you start trotting out explanations for why Hawaii and the Phillipines are not true Scotsmen. Poor show. Hawaii was a U.S. territory. Your own words: \*\* LOL Yes, I didn’t know that Pearl Harbour was attacked in 1941. :rolleyes: Obviously, what I meant was that the United States of America had not been attacked since 1814. Duh. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-spending/137387/18 "2002-11-18T23:12:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chumpsky \* > \*\*Alaska and Hawaii became states in 1959. The Japanese attacked a U.S. colony, a colony that had been won by treachery and arms, with much killing and dispossession, by the way. \*\* After I posted by reply I got to thinking that you might come back with something like the above. > [@](#): > > \*\* > That is, of course, no excuse, but the fact remains: the U.S. territory has not been under armed attack since the British burned down Washington in 1814. (My mistake above–it has been 188 years, not 190 since the U.S. has come under armed attack.) \*\* Alaska was organized under a territorial government in 1912 and Hawaii was organized under a territorial government from at least 1900. Both Alaska and Hawaii were US territories when the Japanese attacked. If you really want to argue that they don’t really count as US territory be my guest. You’d be wrong of course. Marc ---
**Author:** ![kevlaw](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kevlaw/32/2281_2.png) [@kevlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kevlaw)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-spending/137387/19 "2002-11-18T23:18:11Z")
$400b seems rather a lot to defend the Philippines, Alaska and Hawaii whether they are or are not territories. Why so much ? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2002, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-spending/137387/20 "2002-11-18T23:19:36Z")
Ah, watching these Chumpsky train wreck threads makes for such a nice break in the day. As has been pointed out, Hawaii, Alaska and the Phillipines were attacked in 1941, well after 1812. More recently, the American military has been deployed to defend friendly nations like South Korea and (arguably) South Vietnam, and you can throw in Grenada for kicks. I hope defending your friends hasn’t somehow become evil, though in Chumpsky’s fluid definitions, all bets are off. Incidentally, is this thread about American warmongers or American corporations? It’s hard to tell. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-spending/137387.md?page=2)