Larry J:

The US military spends billions each year because we have a pick up a lot of responsibilities that other nations don't have to worry about. For example, a significant portion of our DoD budget goes to help protect Japan and Europe, so they don't have to spend as much money for their own defense. Through the Cold War years, as much as 1/3rd of our annual defense expenditures went to protect Europe. Given the reductions over the past 10 years, I don't know what the current percentage is, but we still have tens of thousands of personnel stationed in Europe. Why?
(snip)
Our Navy keeps open the sea lanes so other nations don't have to bother.

“Why?” A good question, which is partly what I was asking when I made the post. Who exactly is the US protecting Europe from? The Cold War is kinda over. Crazed hordes from Latvia? And what exactly are the threats to sea lanes that require billion dollar aircraft carriers and nuclear subs? The Black Pearl and it’s crew?

Tom and Mark:

(a bunch of stuff about GDP percentages)

I really don’t see the % of GDP as particularly relevant to the point I was trying to make, which is: how big is big enough? If the US spent, say, 10% of it’s GDP on defense to put it on par with Qatar to tie for 7th place, it would be spending something like a trillion dollars a year. Wouldn’t that be better?

Tom:

First of all, the military is one of the few things that are actually a proper function of the Federal government. This is actually the most important fact.
(snip)
Third, it isn't like the military budget is dumped down a drain. Those billions go into high-tech industries, their research and development, and their employees.

Hey, Tom, I thought your view was that Government shouldn’t redistribute wealth? Don’t you think that the free market would come up with a hot-shot military if it was put up for bids? More seriously, why not spend the military budget on health care? High tech, lots of employees, and it’s in the business of saving lives instead of killing.

But I totally agree with your point on fat in the military and elsewhere… it should be found out and eliminated whenever possible, but that would take strong, ethical, and unwavering political will. See any of that around?

Steve G:

I prefer to see treasure spent before blood.

I don't see mass protests in the street about the amount of military spending. Could it be that the price paid is perfectly acceptable to Americans? If so, where's the beef?

First of all, what evidence is there that more blood is being saved by spending all of that mountain of treasure? I’m all for high tech replacing bodies, but avoiding war would save a lot of both... then the smart bombs and stealth bombers wouldn't be needed. I know that, realistically, there will be war for the foreseeable future, but does the US military need to be so huge and hugely powerful as it is?

Secondly, I’m not American so I have no beef, just commenting. Tom makes a big deal out of “entitlements” but are there protest marches about those? Maybe it speaks more of apathy than anything else. Do there have to be folk waving placards about it for a thing to be wrong?

Raoul:

I share your concerns about the world hyperpower. Absolute power? Scary.

Frank:

Powell’s quote was powerful but I think misleading. There are many other ways of extending power than claiming soil.
And – yer an ol’ poop! People were supposed to see that other post only if they found it themselves! Maybe I was being a bit contentious but isn’t that what this place is for?

McFly: thanks, my point exactly.