Well thanks.
However, I have my doubts about your 50 cents on the dollar statistic and would love to see it.
I am looking at the 2001 Statistical Abstract for the United States published by the National Data Bank, and they are telling me some interesting thing.
In 2001 the federal outlays to the Defense Department was 283.9 billion dollars. That's a lot mulah. However, that was only the third place in US spending. Health and Human Services beat out Defense 430.5 billion and Treasury by 388.5 billion. Total federal outlays was 1.856 Trillion. Most of that comes from tax dollars.
But that's not the whole picture. If you look at the pecent of outlays as percent of both total federal outlays, it seems to have gone down from about 28% in 1987 to about 15-16% in 2001 of total federal outlays. As share of the GDP it goes from about 6-7% in 1987 to about 3% in 2001.
Regretfully those are the best stats I have at the moment, and that was 2001 which was a good economic year.
What does that mean? Well fuck, I mean 283 bil ain't chump change! But what do we get for it and where does most of the money go. Well operations and maintenace take up most of the money (110 bil) with personnel costs at about 72 bil. That's a lot of personnel. Procurement and research & development take up together about 90 bil.
Well you are right, it's a lot of damn money. Do we know where it is all going. Yes, generally we do. The congress has substantial oversight on defense, intelligence and foreign policy. It's investigative arm, the GAO is considered one of the best investigative arms of the US government (and you almost always see it featured in the news). Furthermore the various department and agencies under the defense department get internal auditors and there are whistle blower laws that allow further oversight (this came about because of the fraud committed against the government).
SO what do we get for that besides B1 bombts, aircraft carriers. Well we get the peace of mind of knowing that the Chinese better watch their ass if they want to fuck around with the US. We can probably still fight two major actions in two parts of the world at the same time, plus have stuff left over for little adventures.
As you note, no single country has the ability to confront the US militaristically. The only possible strategy is one of attrition and subversion. Furthermore, almost no country could undertake the massive investment needed to catch up with the US, and probably won't be able to until 2030 (at which time we better keep an eye on the Chinese). Of course if Europe wanted to threaten the US it would have to make more of its European Union than it does, but to be honest the Europenas spend more on social welfare than we do and it's unlikely to build a force. Imperialism, at least the old form of having colonies, is not a profit making enterprise.
So why have a military? It's called public goods. To be world leader means that you have to provide certain public goods to other countries. This includes stability in the economic market, stable currency, flexible rules of trade and development, peaceful means of resolving disputes, forums for international discussion and agenda setting, but also peace and stability. If you want to be leader of the free world, you got to pay your dues, and frankly, 3% of GDP isn't that bad for defense.
SO where does it all come from- Well you have your World Bank system, your Gatt followed by the WTO. YOu had the bretton woods system until Nixon took us off the Gold Standard. You also have the ICJ and other means of resolving disputes (including the UN). You even have some sense of norms.
But peace and stability can come from the UN, right? No. The UN was a product of real politics, formed originally by the Atlantic Charter and then furthered by the US and, in keeping with its big ally, England, with the difficult cooperation of the Soviets at the end of the Second World War with the express mission not to let another world war happen again. But the UN split soon after over cold war ideologies, and didn't reemerge as a force until near the end of the cold war.
So what kept the peace? Strangely, probably nuclear weapons and the assurance of a second strike, in otherwords the Balance of Terror avoided a third world war.
So why so much for defense? Ask yourself what would happen if the US wasn't sending the 7th Fleet between the Red Sea and Japan, and backed up with the 3rd Fleet than you would have Japan shitting over whether it would get its oil from the Gulf, you would have the Chinese sabre rattling over their historic sphere of influence. You would also have greater willingness by "great powers" to build militaries to protect their interests.
What does that mean? Well based on past posts you could probably forecast a lot more heavy handedness (war) in the world, and not as much money in your pocket.
It's not a perfect world, and in many places it sucks. The US does what it does out of its own interests, and sure there is exploitation by the rich of the poor. That sucks. And that exploitation is done by those in power. But some states, regimes, governments live and some die. Some countries do well economically and some lose. That's how it's always been. WHere is the most suffering- in the former communist countries and the former colonies. Why, probably because of the power relationships within those states more than the "all powerful" hand of the US in everything.
Yes, the US has a hand in some of it, but not in all of it. Generally speaking I think the world is a much better place now than it was 60 years ago, or a hundred years ago.
ye gosh, long post, sorry folks
