GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports), or GDP = C + I + G + (X − M).

Proceeding from this expression, we examine the issue of percentage:

Percentages are used to express how large one quantity is, relative to another quantity. The first quantity usually represents a part of, or a change in, the second quantity, which should be greater than zero. For example, an increase of $ 0.15 on a price of $ 2.50 is an increase by a fraction of 0.15 / 2.50 = 0.06. Expressed as a percentage, this is therefore a 6% increase.

Now then, as Defense Spending (DOD) is part of “Government Spending”, increases in DOD spending as a percentage of GDP is partially minimized by the increase in government spending.

In The Bronx (the “T” is always capitalized) it was known as the shell game. Distract the participant with a figure that does immediately compute, and make sure that it is small enough not to impress.

As my Sainted mother (a Bronx resident) used to say: “No matter how you slice it, it is still baloney”. DOD spending (know and “black” security) now consumes between 27 to 30% of your and my tax dollar. That this is “sustainable”, even if it is not contributing to our National Debt, is delusional…

Bah, humbug. My apologies for having to resort to the much despised Wiki, but it is Sunday…

PS: You won't see anything manned that can shoot down an F-22 in 2050. You may never see one at all.---glasnost

And what is the proof behind this provocative statement?

The F-22 stealth weapons system is a combination of pilot, aircraft, avionics (including radar and fire control), gun, air-ground ordinance, and air-air missiles.

I claim there could well be a stealthy Russian fighter fielded in 2050 or earlier that would carry a long-range radar that can detect amd track the F-22 at longer range than the F-22 can detect and track it.

It would use multiple faster, multi-channel self-homing, longer-range, high-g turn capable, air-to-air missiles. The missiles would be launched, updated by the fighter's radar/fire control to a point where the missile can initiate its own track, and then home in and kill the F-22 regardless of the maneuvers of the F-22.

In essence, this would be a "superstealth F-22" that uses more powerful engines, higher-power radar and longer-range, vector-thrust, very intelligent missiles that would best the F-22.

One might ask also what the developments are in Russia for an airborne high-power laser kill system that would ignite an F-22 at range, and targeting flyability by 2050 or so(i.e 41 years from now.). We have such a system now that is under test, using a large aircraft, so the feasibility question has been answered already by us.

I would really like to see proof that this is not possible for the Russians to accomplish by 2050. Their development cycles for high performance aircraft have been comparable to ours, and I would bet that their counter F-22 design and development effort for both aircraft and weapons systems has been underway for at least 5 to 10 years already.

A more valid approach is the percentage of the total budgetary expenditures that constitutes defense spending.

Why is that more valid?

Our defense budget as a percentage of GDP is actually rather small by historical standards. We can, therefore, sustain what we’re doing indefinitely if we’re only worried about the economics of the thing.

A more valid approach is the percentage of the total budgetary expenditures that constitutes defense spending. Viewed from this latter vantage point defense spending increased during the Bush presidency at about an 8% per annum clip, and now constitutes between 27 to 30% of Federal expenditures.

If one excludes mandated Federal spending (Social Security / Medicare / Medicaid) there for ain’t much left for discretionary spending. Anybody know of a graphic that matches the rise in DOD spending, the increase in National debt, and the loss of revenue by the taxation policies over the past 8 years?

And before people go off saying "OMG OMG China Would Takes Ovar Teh World!!!!!!!!!!!!1" You should know that china's entire military budget is $59 billion a year.

The budget they keep on the books.

Isolationism is a nice idea, it's too bad humans keep messing it up.

That's always the tricky question and issue. Or, as Bernard did well in his article, what do you want your military to do? Are you going to be doing constabulatory missions (i.e. peacekeeping, nation-building, etc), or is it simply a tool to knock out a conventional enemy that gets too powerful?

Both ideas have consequences beyond the costs; the latter, for example, means that you'd probably have to let a lot of people die in low-level conflict than might happen if you intervened. That gets harder and harder with the advent of widespread internet and phone access along with photography, since pictures in particular have enormous emotive power.

And before people go off saying "OMG OMG China Would Takes Ovar Teh World!!!!!!!!!!!!1" You should know that china's entire military budget is $59 billion a year.

Blowing sh*t up represents a massive net transfer of wealth from two countries - ours, and the one we're blowing up - to the rest of the world. We won't be able to keep this up indefinitely; the best time to start cutting is now. My recommendation is - eliminate half the ranks above 1'st lieutenant, cut all the salaries by 50%, and fire half of the remaining people. What's the catchy term for militaries so officer-heavy that it becomes a welfare system? That would save a ton of money,.

PS: You won't see anything manned that can shoot down an F-22 in 2050. You may never see one at all.

I won't argue that there shouldn't be better oversight of defense spending, but if America wants to have a quality force with quality equipment, then Defense needs to keep its share of the GDP.

For those of you who think we shouldn't be projecting power and influence outside our territory, I'll ask the same question Charles Austin does; if we don't have influence, who should? I don't advocate occupying every country, but is it better if US military personnel train their military folk, showing an example of how an effective military can be controlled by civilian authority, or should we leave that to a local warlord, or the private security firm protecting the interests of a Chinese oil company?

People constantly make the false comparison of political soft power and diplomacy, and military power. As Clausewitz noted, military force is an extension of political power.

As for reducing the size of the Army, I'll ask where you'd make cuts. It's parts of a whole, and Iraq and Afghanistan really illustrate that all parts are needed. Just because some trooper is in the US doesn't mean he's not providing direct and necessary support to someone in theater. Don't make the mistake of thinking better machines and software will reduce the need for skilled manpower to utilize it, either.

I've spent 21 years in the Army, through the Reagan buildup, to the pre-Desert Storm reductions in force, buy outs of career officers and NCO's to leave service with less than 20 years; junior Soldiers allowed to separate early from their enlistments. Almost immediately, I saw those same Soldiers and NCO's called back to duty for Desert Storm, then watched as even more troops were cut from the ranks after the war was declared over. IT wasn't long after that the Army started deploying large numbers of personnel to enforce that peace, as well as stop Balkan genocide. Whether you personally opposed this deployment or not, the deployments happened at the directive of the President and Congress.
As part of the "peace dividend" too many COIN assets, like Civil Affairs, Heavy Construction Engineers, and others, were slid into the Reserves. With fewer training dollars, reserve units withered on the vine, losing skilled personnel, and fewer active army officers had the opportunity to train with these assets to be able to face these scenarios.
Parts of a whole, which ones would you cut?

The 21st Century has so far proved no more peaceful, nor easier to negotiate, than the 20th was. The events of Sept. 11th aside, enough attacks on US citizens occurred to show that anyone who wanted to attack the US, would do so, either abroad or inside our borders. Much like the piracy in the Arabian Sea, do you let it fester in a spot and hope it won't expand to touch our interests, the interests of allies?

Isolationism is a nice idea, it's too bad humans keep messing it up.

"Jaw-Jaw is better than War-War" is undoubtedly true, but when those that present a threat do not want to Jaw-Jaw, it's good to be able to convince them that War-War will cost them more than they are willing to pay.

The F-22 is a case in point, and it is now in its 10th year or so. It represents an insurance policy against other nations fielding an air superiority fighter that would dominate our current F-15, F-16 and FA-18 aircraft, and by nations that could conceivably be at some point in the future in direct conflict with us. (Right now, the F-22 is capable of besting four F-15s in air to air combat, or so the Air Force says.)

The obvious candidates for this role are China and Russia, and the time frames are different. I claim it is within the capability of Russian developers to field a fighter of equal or greater capability than the F-22, say, within 10-15 years. For China, I would guess a longer time of 15-20 years, but I have no hard information to go on.

The Russians now have several fighters that are roughly equal to our current set, so the F-22 represents a direct and dominating counterthreat to the Russian's newer fighters. The need for the counterforce fighter is hinged on what we think Russia might do in the next 10-15 years, and what China might do in 15-20 years with their development capabilities, including the possibility of surrogate nations leading the actual battle.

We have a margin of safety in that the F-22 is operational and in production now (in limited quantities), and will be refined over time even further. It remains to be seen if the current administration preserves the production capability and minimal quantities now on the books, or junks the program except for support to the existing versions. We go to war with what we have, and that might not be enough air superiority fighters to make a difference.

We have been the victim of "technological surprise" before. In the Korean conflict, we deployed F-51 Mustangs that soon met up with Russian MIG-15s, and the F-80s and F-84s were not a match either, so it was with a hard push that we brought the F-86 into the battle in quantity, though late and after serious losses.

So, who reads the tea leaves and bets our security way downstream on being able to catch up in short order when the need arises? Obama? Will the F-35 be an adequate answer? There are some critical tradeoffs here, and they occur for every high-cost weapons system.

I hope we make the right choices.

Think the Falklands writ very large.

There are two additional things that should be mentioned. First, the overwhelming preponderance of the total defense budget is spent on operations and personnel, past and present, rather than on research or high tech procurement. The way to reduce defense spending is to change the nature of the force.

Exactly, Dave. If you want to keep your military costs down, you keep the personnel numbers as low as possible, while minimizing total operations. That's what worries me about Obama's military planning; if they are serious about adding 90,000 extra troops (which runs into issues of quality, NCOs available for training and such, and so forth), they're going to have to get used to higher costs.

A very interesting piece, nicely framing the argument for those of us who are only casual observers on the topic.