Top 10 Countries by Military Spending 2007
Joshua D Foster explains how fear and statistical illiteracy inflate America’s security budgets in Psychology Today:
Consider, for example, that the 2009 budget for homeland security (the folks that protect us from terrorists) will likely be about $50 billion. Don’t get us wrong, we like the fact that people are trying to prevent terrorism, but even at its absolute worst, terrorists killed about 3,000 Americans in a single year. And less than 100 Americans are killed by terrorists in most years. By contrast, the budget for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (the folks who protect us on the road) is about $1 billion, even though more than 40,000 people will die this year on the nation’s roads. In terms of dollars spent per fatality, we fund terrorism prevention at about $17,000,000/fatality (i.e., $50 billion/3,000 fatalities) and accident prevention at about $25,000/fatality (i.e., $1 billion/40,000 fatalities).
People fear things that are highly unlikely to kill them, such as flying on an airplane, much more than things that are much more likely to, such as crossing the street or driving a car. As a result they make irrational decisions about how to spend both time and effort. This is why basic statistics should be taught in every school and no one should be allowed to graduate before they pass.
Disproportionate fear is particularly the case when it comes to security and military spending in the US. The US spends almost half the world’s military spending and too many Americans seem to think that it needs to spend more, not less. Heck, the US intelligence budget alone is over $43 billion while China spends $70 billion on its entire military.
Delusional is too kind a word for it, and I’m not sure insane even covers it, so lets go for understatement and call it “counterproductive” and “a waste of good money”. Slash the military budget in half and the US will still spend more money on its military than any possible combination of attackers. Do the same to homeland “security” spending and the intelligence services, and you’d have all the money you need for refitting the country for energy independence, which would make the country far more secure than lots of jet fighters meant to fight the USSR and airport screeners with rubber gloves.
Badtux
On defense spending there is a considerable difference between U.S. defense spending and, say, China’s defense spending. A sizable percentage of U.S. defense spending is personnel costs. China has a draftee military, and low wages to begin with, thus spends very little of its defense budget on personnel costs.
That said, there are some distinctive qualitative differences between China’s military and the U.S. military. China has no long-range bombers because they have neither the need nor desire to project force for significant distances beyond their immediate borders, instead they invest their air force money into fighter jets and SAM missiles. China has no large naval vessels or super-expensive nuclear submarines because, again, they have no need for anything other than diesel-electric submarines and destroyers in order to secure their own coastline. It is the difference between a defensive military and one built around offense, a defensive military can be significantly cheaper to build than an offensive military while still being effective (think: Hezballah vs. the IDF in Lebanon a couple of years back, where Israel spends over $6B/year on defense, Hezballah spends maybe 1% of that, yet they fought Israel to a standstill). With no large carrier groups or strategic bombers or etc. to suck up huge proportions of their defense budget, the Chinese can have a much smaller defense budget while still meeting their national defense criteria.
Oaktown Girl
Delusional is too kind a word for it, and I’m not sure insane even covers it…
The word I’d use is greed. Isn’t it all really about big money and keeping the military industrial complex fed? “Homeland Security” serves no good purpose other than exponentially increasing the number of pigs that can feed at the trough.
I (and doubtless many others who were shut out of the post 9/11 discussion) was never, ever in favor of creating the Dept. of Homeland Security. My understanding is that we already had all the security and intelligence apparatus that we needed, they just needed to get over their petty jealousy/rivalry issues and freaking communicate with each other like grown ups.
(Say, Ian – can you add a “preview” button to the comment function, please?)
Ian Welsh
Badtux,
all good points, though they sort of come back to the fact that China is no threat militarily to the US. Maybe to Taiwan, but that’s as far as it goes. And to be fair, on a purchasing power parity level, China’s spending is a fair chunk higher, almost a quarter of the US’s.
Cheers,
Ian
Torf
Ian, Ian, Ian..surely you are aware that governments do not deal or think in logical terms.
Jeff
As Bruce Schneier has so correctly pointed out, only two measures were ever needed to address and prevent another 9-11: 1) strengthening cockpit doors, and 2) having a new awareness that as a passenger you should fight back rather be a sheep. The first cost, at most, $1M. The second came for free. Even one dime more is 100% pure waste and worst diversion from worthy investments that would have served America better.