# The US defense budget **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 27, 2011, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-defense-budget/590543 "2011-07-27T21:23:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-defense-budget/590543/21 "2011-07-28T01:10:49Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But here’s the thing. Our exist strategy need only take into account the client state’s ability to counter the threat, or other states to share an equal part of the burden. When is SK going to be able to fend for itself? Never, if we’re always going to be there to foot the bill. South Korea can fend for itself right now; it has a very large, modern, well equipped army. The US is footing a very small part of the bill for South Korea’s defense, and has been for a long time. The US has only a single division in South Korea, the 2nd Infantry, and this has been the size of the US commitment throughout most of the Cold War. Its purpose isn’t to carry the bulk of the load of a war, something it is far too small to do. It is there as a tripwire assuring that any attack on South Korea will immediately bring the US into the war. The relationship has hardly been one-sided as well, when the US looked to allies for aid in Vietnam the Korean contingent was by far the largest, consisting of two divisions, the Capital and 9th Infantry as well as the 2nd Marine Brigade together providing 50,000 of the 65,000 non-US troops sent to Vietnam. During its commitment they lost 5,000 dead and 11,000 wounded. The idea that the US is footing the bill for South Korea’s defense is simply not true. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-defense-budget/590543/22 "2011-07-28T01:19:36Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That’s not what the OP is saying. He wants to, at least, keep 2/3 of what we now have. That’s a lot more than 0. > > As for the OP, I say yes. Cut it to the bone, I say. And then cut some more! > > We are still fighting the cold war and planning on being the world’s police force. We need an exit plan for everyplace we have our troops stationed on foreign soil. I like that idea. Let’s pack up and go home, tell everybody that we’re out of business, and worry about what’s at home. Two things will happen: 1. Countries like North Korea will be eternally grateful for our withdrawal, because it will make their invasions that much easier. 2. Countries like South Korea and Taiwan, where we get a significant percentage of our imported goods, will be stomped into the ground, which will help our domestic markets to an incredible degree. We’ll be able to hire millions of people at great wage levels because they’ll be the only game in town. The UAW would be eternally grateful if we did this. OK, I’m done being sarcastic. Yes, we need to cut spending. Yes, we can certainly make do with a smaller force. Yes, we can spend less on equipping the military with weapons and protective gear. Yes, we can stop engaging in wars that seem to have no purpose. But let’s not pretend that such actions won’t have adverse consequences. They will. And when the first US soldier dies because they don’t have “proper” protective equipment, there will be screaming and rending of garments across the country. Same for when things get more expensive, or when a country that we previously supported becomes enmeshed in a war that they cannot possibly win. Hell, we got bitched at for not going into Darfur. Imagine what happens when the artillery shells begin falling on Seoul. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-defense-budget/590543/23 "2011-07-28T01:21:20Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > South Korea can fend for itself right now; it has a very large, modern, well equipped army. The US is footing a very small part of the bill for South Korea’s defense, and has been for a long time. The US has only a single division in South Korea, the 2nd Infantry, and this has been the size of the US commitment throughout most of the Cold War. Its purpose isn’t to carry the bulk of the load of a war, something it is far too small to do. It is there as a tripwire assuring that any attack on South Korea will immediately bring the US into the war. The relationship has hardly been one-sided as well, when the US looked to allies for aid in Vietnam the Korean contingent was by far the largest, consisting of two divisions, the Capital and 9th Infantry as well as the 2nd Marine Brigade together providing 50,000 of the 65,000 non-US troops sent to Vietnam. During its commitment they lost 5,000 dead and 11,000 wounded. The idea that the US is footing the bill for South Korea’s defense is simply not true. The token assistance we provide now is indicative of our larger commitment to South Korea. If they are invaded we will support them in greater numbers, and our current presence there is indicative of that. Don’t discount the importance of political gestures. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-defense-budget/590543/24 "2011-07-28T01:35:15Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > The token assistance we provide now is indicative of our larger commitment to South Korea. If they are invaded we will support them in greater numbers, and our current presence there is indicative of that. > > Don’t discount the importance of political gestures. I wasn’t, that’s what I meant by “It is there as a tripwire assuring that any attack on South Korea will immediately bring the US into the war.” In any event though, South Korea will be providing the bulk of the ground forces in any future Korean War. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-defense-budget/590543/25 "2011-07-28T02:06:28Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > And as I posted earlier, we’re trying to do too much. That’s why we’re “stretched thin”. If we’re doing too much then answer my question. What region should we abandon? > [@John\_Mace](#): > > The balance of power might shift, but what is so magical about that balance right now? We are the super-duper-uber dominant power, and we’d simply become the dominant one. And you figure that would be less expensive? Right now we’re strong enough that no other country has the illusion that they can beat the United States. But we’re not “super-duper-uber” as you’re claiming. If we cut back we’d reach the point where other countries would start thinking they could win a war with America. Shortly followed by them trying it. That’s how World War II started. Germany and Japan couldn’t beat the allies but they thought they could. If Britain and France and America had built up a bigger military in the thirties, Germany and Japan wouldn’t have started a war. And building up those troops and not having to use them would have been a lot cheaper than fighting the actual war was. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-defense-budget/590543/26 "2011-07-28T02:42:03Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Much of the military budget is tied to paying soldiers (because unlike say China all US soldiers are volunteers and are paid well not to benefits for veterans) and also this is because the US has tremendous force projection capabiltiies that other powers lack and we have a tremendous naval force, Huh? Have you looked at the DOD budget? Based on the [FY2010 table](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#By_title), military personnel account for $154.2 billion out of the $685.1 billion public budget. Last time I checked my math, that’s only 22 percent of the public budget. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-defense-budget/590543/27 "2011-07-28T02:53:16Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If we cut back we’d reach the point where other countries would start thinking they could win a war with America. Shortly followed by them trying it. Since we have nuclear weapons, they’d think nothing of the kind. ---
**Author:** ![kaltkalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bb73d2/32.png) [@kaltkalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaltkalt)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-defense-budget/590543/28 "2011-07-28T06:50:49Z")
> [@Darth\_Ayebaw](#): > > Actually this part isn’t true. There are now sizable areas with no local police force. Not small country counties either, cities. I meant the budgets rise when they can. Some places just don’t have the money and have to make cutbacks. But it’s a last resort. If they have the money, no cuts to the police will ever be made. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-defense-budget/590543/29 "2011-07-28T12:23:29Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Since we have nuclear weapons, they’d think nothing of the kind. We made the mistake of thinking we could count on nuclear weapons as the basis for our military policy in the late forties. It didn’t work. What we found was that there were a host of issues in which we had an interest in the outcome but not enough interest to justify a nuclear war. If our only options are “do nothing” and “use nuclear weapons” we end up doing nothing in many cases by default. We need a response that ranks between those two options. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-defense-budget/590543/30 "2011-07-28T12:38:05Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > The token assistance we provide now is indicative of our larger commitment to South Korea. If they are invaded we will support them in greater numbers, and our current presence there is indicative of that. Too bad we couldn’t indicate our commitment to the security of South Korea via a treaty. Damn shame, really, that we have to spend billions of dollars to indicate our commitment instead of 2 bucks for pen and paper. We also import a fair number of goods from China, maybe we should set up a few bases there to protect them from… someone. ---
**Author:** ![Sablicious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@Sablicious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sablicious)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-defense-budget/590543/31 "2011-07-28T13:51:33Z")
> [@SmartAlecCat](#): > > Defending isn’t the expensive part – it is sending our military overseas for foreign wars. > > We could spend a lot less and keep invaders out of our country, but to maintain our world wide presence takes a lot of money. Indeed. If one wants the mantle of the ‘fuck yeah!’ world police then it comes with responsibility. But I would argue that **military research** gobbles up a lot of the funding; especially in this day and age of exponential technological growth. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-defense-budget/590543/32 "2011-07-28T14:01:30Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Too bad we couldn’t indicate our commitment to the security of South Korea via a treaty. Damn shame, really, that we have to spend billions of dollars to indicate our commitment instead of 2 bucks for pen and paper. A commitment backed up by just pen and paper wouldn’t be worth two bucks. Our commitment with South Korea is based on our having troops that would fight alongside the South Koreans if the North Koreans invaded. So the issue is whether we station those troops in South Korea or station them elsewhere and maintain the ability to transport them to South Korea in the event of an invasion. Between 1945 and 1950, we defended South Korea with the promise of sending troops if they were invaded. North Korea thought we might not keep that promise and invaded. We fought a three year war. Since 1953, we’ve kept troops stationed in South Korea. North Korea has not invaded South Korea since then. It would seem to me that stationing troops in South Korea has worked. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-defense-budget/590543/33 "2011-07-28T14:35:45Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > It would seem to me that stationing troops in South Korea has worked. You know what else would work? If South Korea spent more than 2.6% of their GDP on defense. The US spends 4.7% of our GDP on defense. These are people who are under constant threat of invasion and they spend less on defense as a percentage of their economy than we do. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-defense-budget/590543/34 "2011-07-28T15:22:26Z")
I think one thing that gets overlooked in this analysis every time is just how colossally big the US GDP is relative to the rest of the world. Our spending in terms of percent of GDP is only 4.7%, which is not even in the top 10, and is in the same ballpark as countries like Russia. Even if we dropped it by 2.5 percentage points, down to the level of the Chinese, we’d still be 3x larger in expenditures than them, and something like 6x the UK and 5x France. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-defense-budget/590543/35 "2011-07-28T15:26:27Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Since we have nuclear weapons, they’d think nothing of the kind. Let’s say North Korea overruns Seoul in a surprise attack/lightning campaign (a couple days). Do you think that the US ought to vaporise Pyonyang? What do you think the world reaction would be to that? In what way is the US defending itself? (Assumption: Nukes are the ultimate weapon of self defense, and used only in “total war” conditions, not for rooting terrorists out of caves and bunkers.) Christ, the US still gets shit for using them in '45, when attitudes about war in general were a whole lot different. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-defense-budget/590543/36 "2011-07-28T16:44:42Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > You know what else would work? If South Korea spent more than 2.6% of their GDP on defense. The US spends 4.7% of our GDP on defense. These are people who are under constant threat of invasion and they spend less on defense as a percentage of their economy than we do. South Korea’s defense budget is basically spent on defending South Korea. The United States has interests all over the world. Now we could decide that we had no interests in east Asia. But if we decided we weren’t going to defend east Asia, how long would it be before China “suggested” to South Korea and Japan and Taiwan and the Philippines that they should start being friendlier with China and support China’s interests in the world? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-defense-budget/590543/37 "2011-07-28T17:02:25Z")
Strange, we need more and more sophisticated and expensive weaponry to fight against countries that have no navies or airforce or updated arms. Yet we do so badly against them. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-defense-budget/590543/38 "2011-07-28T17:15:18Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > South Korea’s defense budget is basically spent on defending South Korea. Yeah, and they can pony up 5% of their economy, just like we do, even though we are at no risk of invasion. Just because their interests are a bit less varied (keep crazy man from Best Korea on THAT side of the line) it does not mean they don’t have a responsibility to adequately defend themselves. > [@](#): > > how long would it be before China “suggested” to South Korea and Japan and Taiwan and the Philippines that they should start being friendlier with China and support China’s interests in the world? I don’t know how long, but if these countries aren’t going to put up as much of their economy for defense as we do handing out military welfare, they can fucking join Hong Kong and Macau for all I care. It’s not like half of the stuff in my house wasn’t made in China already. I’m also sure China is eager to tank relations with their top trading partners, and risk the better part of a trillion dollars of annual trade in order to stretch their imperialistic muscles. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-defense-budget/590543/39 "2011-07-28T17:27:43Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Strange, we need more and more sophisticated and expensive weaponry to fight against countries that have no navies or airforce or updated arms. Yet we do so badly against them. Actually, we need more sophisticated arms and expensive weaponry so that we can minimize our own casualties. Somewhere along the way the US public decided that even a single casualty was unacceptable, so we’ve been spending a considerable amount of money on equipment to reduce the number. IMHO, that’s part of why people in the US sometimes seem so keen to go to war, because so much of it is detached, what with bombing from drones, guided cruise missiles, MRAPs and the like. They forget that real people die in military actions because it’s so easy to do. As far as “doing badly” goes, it’s worth noting that we essentially conquered 2 countries and suffered only slightly more than 5,000 killed through the entire 10 years of occupation, less than 10% of the deaths in Vietnam, about 10% of the deaths in Korea, and less than 2% of the deaths in WWII. If you throw enough money at anything you’ll probably get results, and that’s what we do, from the military to schools to healthcare. It’s easier than handing a widow a freshly folded flag. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-defense-budget/590543/40 "2011-07-28T19:06:14Z")
[QUOTE=gonzomax] Strange, we need more and more sophisticated and expensive weaponry to fight against countries that have no navies or airforce or updated arms. Yet we do so badly against them. [/QUOTE] How do you figure we’ve done so badly against these other nations?? Even in Vietnam, North Vietnam lost something like a million killed (probably more) and the US lost around 50,000 killed. Our expensive and sophisticated weaponry accounts such a lopsided ratio. In Afghanistan and Iraq it’s similarly lopsided. And it’s all because of the money we pour into defense (training, equipment, maintenance, R&D on new systems, etc etc). Granted, even fewer US troops would have been killed if we never went into any of those places, but if we HAVE to go into them isn’t it a comfort that our equipment gives us such an overwhelming advantage?? -XT [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-defense-budget/590543.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-defense-budget/590543.md?page=3)