Pacha 1

Jon Pacha
CST 300L
November 27, 2016
Military Budgeting and its Repercussions

How the government has utilized its budget has always been a subject of some

contention. One facet of its budget is the amount it allows for the military to spend where it sees

fit. The defense budget determines how much money is allowed for the military to use in its

efforts to develop new technology or bolster current programs for instance. Though a strong

national defense is generally an agreeable stance, many people believe that the large amount of

money is being used in less than optimal ways. There tends to be varying opinions about going

to war overseas and there are various factors that citizens are uneasy about, such as the nations

economy, terrorism, their families safety, the military, etc. Is the United States military

spending too much money on the war in Iraq? There are many people that do believe that war

and the costs it produces are justified, while others believe that the United States military budget

is too high and that their spending unnecessary and could be better employed within the United

States.

The military budget of the US has changed many times throughout its history.

Historically there has been large amounts of spending around times of conflict. As an

example, the Korean and Vietnam wars spending increases, but also the 1980s displayed

additional military spending during the Cold War due to President Reagan pursuing the

strategy of outspending, and thus bankrupting the Soviet Union,(Schul). These periods were
 Pacha 2

then followed by a decrease in spending during times of relative peace. However, the

following years after 9/11, U.S. military spending reached its highest peak in its history, which

has sparked the current debate about military spending. In the 10 years following 9/11, the

United States spent $7.2 trillion dollars on defense (National Priorities). Military spending

also varies on the party and their current administration's goals and agenda. However, a

nations military budget is not the only way to measure a nations military power. For

example, financial commitment may be adequate or inadequate depending on the number and

capability of a nation's adversaries (Walker). Currently the United States government is

trying to find balance in their military budget. In 2013, the defence budget accounted for 20

percent of the total national budget at roughly $716 billiondollars (Plumer).

Generally speaking, Republicans typically argue for a strong defense and more spending.

Republicans believe that having a large military doesn't necessarily mean a constantly active one,

sayingthat, a more formidable military is not the same thing as backing a more hyperactive

military(Salam) Liberals,on the other hand often believe in more cuts to the military believing

that the strongest nation in the world can be achieved much less expensively than at current

levels (Frank). There are still some exceptions to this pattern, the defense budget has risen

under Obama, as well as Lyndon B. Johnson pursuing the Vietnam war. By increasing the

military budget, the national security increases as well which then acts as a reassuring gesture to

those who believe that they are in danger of domestic or foreign attacks.
 Pacha 3

The United States citizens are the primary stakeholders in this debate, though they are

divided on what to do about it. There does seem to be a discrepancy in what the expectations of

what the military should act as a world wide protector. Some citizens want to keep themselves

and their families safe and argue that a stronger military will protect them from potential harm.

Using the September 11th terrorist attacks as a reason to increase the militarys budget and

prevent another potential attack from happening. With a stronger military they believe that

another attack is unlikely and while they acknowledge that there the United States military is

largest in the world, but there isnt a reason to cut the military budget itself, arguing that the size

of our military should be based on security needs, not simple inventory counts (Johnson). On

the other side, there are reasonings to reduce the military budget and use the money instead on

other government programs. They believe that a strong nation comes from being able to have a

strong infrastructure and having less of a global impact by using the nations military. They

want a reduced military budget and a smaller military as a whole. In their eyes, a military this

large is a waste and the money going into it is being wasted as well. In general they argue for a

smaller military, thats not to say that they believe in a weak military and that it is still

important to maintain a strong national defense (Schul). Instead they want to examine whether

or not all the grandiose spending is warranted. They claim that the military is using its budget in

a way that should be edited in a way that reduces the military budget and the size of the military
 Pacha 4

itself. Both views have valid points and want what they believe is best for the country. Though

each side have their approaches to this issue they vary greatly.

There are two options when it comes to military budget: increase or decrease the current

budget. By leaving the budget as it is right now not much will change and while it may appease

some, many more will seek change one way or another. Increasing the budget will aid the

military in reducing the gap between what we expect of our military and what it can realistically

accomplish, given the resource constraints it faces (Salam).

The argument for an increased military budget revolves around the basis that many of the

necessities of the military are too expensive and to keep up a peaceful world the military budget

will need to increase to maintain itself. An increase in military budget brings an increase in

security to the United States as well as command of global commons(Posen). These

commons, which are viewed as commerce routes that include seas lanes, air space, or even lower

atmosphere space, are under protection of the United States military. Not necessarily as a means

of exclusive usage or economic gain, but rather if the United States viewed a threat to itself or

another country it would be the military to step in make them regret they ever tried (Salem).

Another argument for increasing military budget is to be able to aid allies and what these

countries are able to do is meaningfully contribute to U.S. led efforts to defend not only their

own homelands but also other democracies in their respective regions. American leadership

allows and encourages our allies to cooperate, and it makes it effectively impossible for them to
 Pacha 5

wage war on each other (Johnson). However, with a larger military, other countries may see the

United States as a potential threat as an increase in size may be interpreted as an act of

aggression. Also, many other projects bolstered by the increase in money many lead to a

situation where projects become too big to kill. A current example would be the F-35 combat

aircraft a program that cost $1.45 trillion(Drusch). While its viewed as an exceptionally

advanced aircraft, it can be argued that it was an unnecessary addition when there are older

aircraft which are just as suitable in most fields as the F-35. This leads to argument of

decreasing the military budget.

By decreasing the military budget, it frees up the budget to be spent in other places that

some view as more favorable options. Proponents of a reduced military budget argue that the

military should be more of a spend what you need rather than what they view as excessive

spending. Today there is no rival superpower with massive military capabilities and aggressive

ambitions (Rasmussen). Thats not say there arent threats to the United States, cyber warfare

and terrorism are both real threats. However, these types of threats are based around small cells

not large countries. The military budget should be reduced to scale with the necessity of current

threats or be spent on more effective tools of fighting modern threats. Many consider that the

United States spending close to $900 billion a year on the military (Rasmussen) is far too

much when compared to other countries. In contrastNorth Korea, Syria, and Iran spend a

combined less than $30 billion (Rasmussen). One could argue that that much extra money is
 Pacha 6

wasted on the military and instead be used on something more productive. In 2010, chairman of

the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, was quoted saying, the most significant threat to our

national security is our debt. Many American citizens agree with that statement and that 82

percent believe the economy is now a bigger concern than military challenges (Frank). A

possible counter argument to reducing the military budget is how many jobs it can create. The

majority of the United States support the military and view it favorably. No doubt that the

military does generate jobs for millions and reducing military budget would reduce the amount

of military jobs. Along with creating jobs, the military also acts as emergency and foreign aid.

With a reduced budget, the militarys support in manners like natural disasters will be reduced as

well.

The ethical frameworks that come into play in these scenarios are ethical egoism and care

ethics. While these scenarios work well as an umbrellas term, they are not necessarily the end all

be all for each opinion holder. It would be impossible to group a large amount of people such as

the population of the United States into a handful of frameworks.

An increased military budget falls under the care ethics scenario. The ethics of care was

developed in the later 20th century when feminist writers began to question the assumptions

behind many of the traditional ethical theories(Guide to Ethics and Moral Philosophy). The

role of the care ethics is to act as one who watches over and protects those who cant protect

themselves. It is especially meaningful to create special relationships are likely to be more

 Pacha 7

momentous morally than impartial treatment" (Guide to Ethics and Moral Philosophy). By

having an increased military budget, the United States can act as a supportive ally to those who

need it most. The United States military can assume the role of worlds police force can be

effectively used with their increased budget. Their obligation to aid foreign countries can be

greatly aided by an increased budget. With a larger budget, the United States is able to send

more support to more countries.

With a more centralized view of necessity, a reduced budget follows the ethical egoism

scenario. Ethical egoism differs from the ethics of care in that morally, people tend to have more

of an obligation to themselves and those close to them. More specifically a universal ethical

egoist believes that their problems should be focused on first and others become secondary.

With a reduced military budget, it allows the United States to pull back and concentrate on its

own issues domestically, instead of stretching itself too far and only addressing each problem

somewhat. By being able to leave other foreign affairs alone, the United State can utilize its

budget in ways that can benefit within the United States.

The United States as a whole would greatly benefit from a decrease in military budget.

A reduced military budget would result in greater opportunities for other government programs

to succeed. By taking the money potentially used by military, the government could instead

invest it into other programs such as education or healthcare. This however, is based on the

ability for the government to allot the excess money to where it is most needed. A negative
 Pacha 8

impact of a reduced military budget would be how people would be affected psychologically by

a smaller military. In the eyes of some, with a smaller military, a nuclear bomb or suicide attack

is much more intimidating and real threat than national debt. As a citizen, there is little

individual influence on how the government spends it money. There has to be an agreement that

the government is willing to actually spend the money in an effective way for a reduced military

budget to work. Thats not to say the military should reduced so much that its no longer

formidable. A possible compromise is to maintain a strong defense and an active fighting force,

but more closely examine the spent money and use what budget isn't necessary for other

programs to help aid the US. The world is changing, and warfare has changed as well, to more

than boots on the ground type of warfare. By investing more and more into things such as

battle ships and tanks, other, more effective aspects of the the government are being neglected. I

believe that the US can compromise by still being the strongest military force but still be able to

reduce spending. In my opinion, the US has reached diminishing returns and though I believe

that it is important for the government to invest in the safety of our nation, though it should be

invested in fighting new threats, such as online warfare instead of investing in more traditional

forms of warfare which has become more and more obsolete as warfare continues to evolve. For

example, spending money on developing new F-35 aircraft when older aircraft work just as well

and save around $48.5 billion (Wolff-Mann). To put in perspective, the F-35 development

program cost $1.45 trillion(Drusch) or about $4,500 for every person in the US. Possible bias
 Pacha 9

could stem from the fact that I have had family members convey their displeasure with how the

impractical amount spending. This along with growing up in a fairly liberal environment most

likely leads to this bias. By continuing to spend money on increasingly outdated methods, the US

military prevents other methods of government spending to thrive such as education or at the

very least concentrate the current military spending on something more pertinent. Conventional

weapons are becoming obsolete when we need to be investing into our future. However, having

a larger military can be quite beneficial. To have an ally with a strong military is a tempting

proposition as well as an effective deterrent to potential future conflicts. It is one thing to have a

strong military and defense but it would all be for naught if there is nothing in the nation worth

defending. By maintaining a strong infrastructure with a sustainable future is as much part of

keeping us safe as a strong defense budget.

 Pacha 10

References

Drusch, A., Lowry, R., Zeitz, J., Shafer, J., & Purdy, J. (2014, February 16). Fighter plane cost

overruns detailed. Retrieved November 28, 2016, from

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/f-35-fighter-plane-costs-103579

The F-35: Not just costly but obsolete - Macleans.ca. (2012, February 13). Retrieved November

30, 2016, from

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/costly-obsolete-its-getting-hard-to-justify-buying-this-jet

Frank, B. (2012, December 12). Retrieved November 27, 2016, from

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/why-obama-can-and-must-cut-defen

se-spending/266138/

Is the huge U.S. military expenditures justified? (with images) schuljac. (2014). Retrieved

December 27, 2016, from

https://storify.com/schuljac/is-the-huge-u-s-military-expenditures-justified

Johnson, J. (2016, January 25). 5 Bad Arguments for Cutting U.S. Defense Spending. Retrieved

November 27, 2016, from

http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2016/1/5-bad-arguments-for-cutting-us-de

fense-spending
 Pacha 11

Online Guide to Ethics and Moral Philosophy. (2002). Retrieved December 01, 2016, from

http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/cavalier/80130/part2/II_7.html

Posen, B. R. (2003). Command of the Commons: The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony.

International Security, 28(1), 5-46. doi:10.1162/016228803322427965

Preble, C. A. (2015, February 8). U.S. Military Spending: A Lot? Or a Lot More? Retrieved

November 29, 2016, from

http://www.newsweek.com/us-military-spending-lot-or-lot-more-305019

Rasmussen, S. (2012, October 17). Ready to Cut Military Spending. Retrieved December 01,

2016, from http://reason.com/archives/2012/09/17/ready-to-cut-military-spending

Salam, R. (2015, November 12). The United States Doesnt Spend Enough on Its Military.

Retrieved November 27, 2016, from

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/military_spending_the

_case_for_spending_more_not_less.html

U.S. Security Spending Since 9/11. (2011, May 11). Retrieved November 27, 2016, from

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2011/us-security-spending-since-911/

Walker, D. (n.d.). Trends in U.S. Military Spending. Retrieved November 27, 2016, from

http://www.cfr.org/defense-budget/trends-us-military-spending/p28855
 Pacha 12

Wolff-Mann, E. (2016, May 2). 7 Amazing Things America Could Have Bought Instead of a

$1.45 Trillion Jet. Retrieved November 29, 2016, from

http://time.com/money/4310099/f-35-budget-pay-free-college-student-loans/

You, J. (2006, February 14). Is Military Spending Justified by Security Threats? Retrieved

November 29, 2016, from http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/sss_blog/is_military_spe_1