Defense Spending Shortcomings

James Joyner brings in a really good discussion in short form about military spending. He mentions that the United States spends more on Defense than all of the rest of the World. Joyner shows by graph that Defense Spending is decreasing as a percentage of GDP, but also asks if Defense Spending should keep up with American Productivity; remembering that economic sectors often meet maximum utilization, even though the overall economy continues to grow. James also presents a graph on real (inflation-adjusted) Dollar Expenditures which are definitely up.

What can be read out of the Post?

This is where the good Economist, or poor Journalist, starts to get yelled at. The real Dollar Expenditures graph clearly establishes that preemptive Spending will not lessen the Cost of entrance into Conflict. It cannot be determined by this graph, but preemptive Spending does not even seem to moderate the added Spending brought on by entrance in Conflict; this a simple Statement that initial Conflict Costs cannot be significantly amended by preparative Spending. Initial Costs of Conflict requires Individual behavioral change of high economic Cost; personal equipage and Transportation, and dislocation of economic function for not only Those engaged directly in the Conflict, but also of Those dependent upon their previous economic endeavors. The graphs provided by Joyner indicate that preemptive Defense Spending have little or no impact on the initial Conflict entrance Costs. Expenditures for the Korean War were of greater magnitude than the following Wars, but the lowered Expenditures prior to the Conflict Costs probably saved more than the minimal added rapidity of Dollar expenditures from the Korean Conflict.

The fact that the United States is spending more than the entirety of the rest of the World insists the U.S. Military attempts to incite a military technology advance too expensive and ahead of its time; and any actual superior development will be eventually copied by Opponents of the United States at much less developmental Cost, and countermeasures even cheaper: the new Iranian Devices used in Iraq cost about $70, but can effectively take out a $2 million vehicle plus four Soldiers. Current U.S. military planners are effectively funding Enemy R&D.

What We need in military expenditures in what We are not getting. We need a vast increase in the Reserve component of the U.S. Defense posture. I am talking about an additional Force Reserve of 15 Divisions of Troops. We need an additional 15 Divisions of National Guard as well. These 30 potential Divisions must be supplied by at least the equipage to supply 5 Divisions in the field above Our current complement. Training Costs for such a Force Reserve would be about $75 billion per year. Division equipment complement would cost about $12 billion per Division, plus approximately a $2 billion per year per Division upgrade. What We don’t need is more Super-weapons which Our Enemies will find easy to Copy. lgl