Reduction in Military Reduces Navy Size

The United states spends 4.5% of its GDP on military expenditures.
35 other countries spend between 3 and 5%.

The US is also the worlds largest exporter of arms & produces some 40% of the worlds arms.
Its a business- we invest in the industry and gain revenues from sales, employment etc.

Also- "defense budget"

Defense of what?
As far as I can tell we have no risk of invasion in any foreseeable future.
The defense budget must be viewed by how defending our external interests serve to protect our strength as a nation definable by some metric- perhaps GDP.

Would we be a stronger nation if we invested our resources differently?

 

A problem is that those 4.5% of the GDP that the US spends on the military is that it is money that taxpayers won't provide, so the money has to be borrowed. Future generations get the bill. My somewhat old fashioned view is that what we consume today we should pay for today and not ask our childrens to pay. Investments are different, but military spending is consumption and not investments.

It will probably hurt GDP to decrease military spending. GDP is a somewhat strange figure; you can increase GDP by first blowing up a bridge and then building it up again. Someone can surely provide economic statistics to motivate why money should be spent on something that isn't needed, like an oversized military. I don't have the knowledge to argue econimics so I simply don't believe what doesn't make sense.

Just to clarify, I think that the US spends too much on the military. Many EU countries, and especially Sweden, needs to spend more.

Erik

 

In th US guns, arms, are a fetish.

 

I agree

 

Perhaps so but a 'fetish' shared by most peoples for most of history.

 

68 year old grandmothers getting on airplanes in Texas with loaded handguns ? Its a gun fetish. To many cowboys movie in youth

 

Why? Is someone planning to invade Sweden soon?

 

I used to think that as well.

I grew up shooting match rifle & find that marksmanship has a long tradition as a valid pastime in many countries.
It is enjoyed alongside of many other martial sports & I never would have considered myself to be indulging a 'fetish'.

I watched the popular debate over gun control in the US over the last 40 years. My take was actually that the resistance to any restriction over gun ownership represented the interests of a small minorities 'hobby' to be protected in spite of clear social consequences. I felt that the gun toting lobby were extremists & had no valid defense for their position.

As I have aged I have tempered my position.
I still enjoy marksmanship but more importantly I have come to appreciate the fundamental validity of being in possession of the means to respond with force.

We do not live in a nudest colony.
When a country or person is challenged to defend themselves,
I want them to be armed to the teeth.

 

Leo,
We've restructured the armed forces for international operations and the budget has not been sufficient for maintaining a territorial defence at the same time. After the Russian invasion of Georgia we need to consider that an invasion of any other small country in the neighbourhood isn't unthinkable. Sweden isn't a member of NATO so we cannot rely on NATO help, only hope for it. A stupid situation, but I'm not the only voter here. We're never going to win a war with Russia (any longer), but the territorial defence should be strong enough to not make an invasion worth the effort.

I don't see any immediate threat and think that the priority should be to entangle Russia in the EU economy to such a degree that armed hostilities are unthinkable. The Russians I meet I generally find agreable and their culture not very different so I don't have any reason for distrust. Still, it's better to be safe than sorry when it comes to defence.

The Swedish budget is in balance and there is wide agreement to keep it in balance, so any increase in defence spending has to be taken from something else or the taxes increased. I still believe that increased Swedish military spending would be wise.

Erik

 

I live in different world...no guns...

The news article about the lady with the gun in the the airplane stated that security screeners confiscate three loaded guns per day.

Not only are these people armed but they are stupid...a bad combo.

Perhaps the US is so violent that its citizens must be heavily armed ?

Im curious...after a vibrant political rally do Americans draw their weapons and start blasting into the air to celebrate ?

 

I think the Georgia example is not a very good one, Eric.
I would argue that (for once) Georgia was the aggressor and that Russia was
in the right. And I can't see that Sweden is foolish enough to attack
Russia and trigger the obvious response.

I seem to recall that Sweden used to have a strict sense of defense - it had
no strike capabilities further than about 500km from its borders. Is that still
the case?

I don't think not being a member of Nato is a problem. Many countries would
come to your aid.

Many years ago when Lithuania was attacked by Poland, we asked Latvia if
we could borrow their tank. If Sweden is attacked, you can borrow one from
Lithuania. They are only using it for parking infringers at the moment

All the best,
Leo.

 

US needs a huge fleet and planes and soldiers in case earth is attacked by alien invaders from outer space. Since we have BEEN to the moon and seen their base on the dark side, we know the threat is real!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6507661008750185648#

 

"entangle Russia in the EU economy to such a degree that armed hostilities are unthinkable"

thats the way to do it. Improve your neighbor standard of living and Make conflict expensive. Gazprom

 

sometimes

 

It's better to have a gun and not need it, than need a gun and not have it.
Every man (person) deserves the respect due an armed man.