Sign in with Google Friend Connect.
The Web Cliffology

Military Spending: Why It Should Not Be Unlimited

by C. Moult, Publisher, Cliffology.com.
In the political sphere, a lot emphasis is placed on the size and scope of the military.

 
The military is a vital part of most countries economic system and is in place to provide protection, security and defense for their citizens. But, there are other elements of a country’s economic system that need attention as well.  With that in mind, a huge political debate can be had on the topic of military spending.

As new technology evolves, the military is often the first to welcome any new technology that offers simplicity, efficiency and speed.  For example, the discovery of computers and the internet have brought about speed, efficiency and simplicity to the up keeping of the military. These technologies have done much to curb military spending and brought about a system where the military can do more with less.

Furthermore, there is no doubt that we face multiple security and military threats throughout the world and countries that are concern about threats are liable to do everything in their power to ensure that  their military capabilities can with stand the threats that are lurking out there.

The question though, is how much of our budget should be allotted to military spending relative to other spending that is necessary for good economic standing.  Many political pundits would argue that cutting military spending and transferring the money to other things such as schooling and research is not a good idea because it compromises the strength of the military.  But, would that be a true assessment?

The truth is that military strength does not only come from the amount of money we spend on the military, but also by how well  a country’s economy is doing overall.  For example, if a country has a debt problem and there comes a point where the country is unable to borrow, the military is likely to suffer in such a scenario because finances that were being used to maintain the military will have to be directed to paying down the debt.

Therefore, the point is that a country with a fairly decent military system and a poor economy like North Korea is technically not at an advantage in terms of its standing in the world.  This is so because its poor economy creates a dependency on other countries to provide food and other resources to its people.  The more dependent a country is on other countries, the more it subtract from its military strength even if it has a fairly decent military.  The reason is that it would not be wise to use your military against countries that you are depending on because if those countries cease to provide the things your country depends on, then your country will crumble along with its military. Hungry soldiers do not run a military for a reason. Therefore, if a country is dependent on another country for food, it is careful not to attack that country because it will suffer when that country ceases to render support (food in this case).  A country with a poor economy and a decent military is equivalent to a gun without a shooter.  A gun is useless in its capabilities if it does not have a handler to trigger its capabilities.

Thus, it is better for a country to have a robust economy overall while having a mediocre military because while a country with a good economy can begot a good military, a country with only a good military cannot begot a good economy unless it uses its military to indulge in piratism, conquership and slavery like in many instances of the past.

Conclusion:

With all these things in mind, a country should make sure that its overall economy is in good standing.  It should not be a country focused only on its military, but a country that also invests in other things that are necessary for growth and long term prosperity.  Thus, the idea of spending unlimited money on the military while other areas of a country’s economy lack growth is an unwise undertaking.  It does a country no good if it has a decent military but a very poor overall economy.  The more independent a country is in terms of producing its own goods and keeping debt to a minimum, the more it will have resources that are vital to promote its military.  Finally, investments in things like energy and research are some of the broader investments a country can make to boost independence, profitability and intern benefit the overall well-being of its military and its economy.

17 --- Comments:

  1. Dabb Javlin10/31/2012

    This is a good piece. Not sure many conservative pundits see it this way though.

    ReplyDelete
  2. We could cut the military significantly and still out spend several countries combined on military spending

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kent Triver10/31/2012

      So are you saying that you are comfortable with the sequestration of the military that is scheduled to go in effect if congress don't take action?

      Delete
    2. Wouldn't say I'm thrilled with it, but I'm not overly uncomfortable with it either because our military will still be the biggest military by a large proportion. As a reminder, the sequestration was a bipartisan agreement.

      Delete
  3. MillerT11/01/2012

    Cutting the military is like cutting jobs. It should not happen!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rita Jay11/01/2012

      Really! So cutting investments in green energy isn't cutting jobs as well?

      Delete
    2. MillerT11/01/2012

      It is not the same thing. Our military is very important. We have plenty of energy even without green energy.

      Delete
    3. Rita Jay11/01/2012

      It is the same concept. It seems like you would be in it to pick winners and losers. Glad you are not running the country!

      Delete
  4. We need to bring a lot of troops home from military bases throughout the world. We are no longer fighting a cold war.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree. We could be saving a lot of money by doing that. Talk about spending...that's an area where we could cut a lot of wasteful spending.

      Delete
  5. Why should government spending be kept at a minimum in other areas, but be so huge with the military. The military is indeed not our only priority.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jack! The reason why that is the case is because the U.S is a capitalist country. We leave much of the other things to the private markets.

      Delete
    2. But there isn't a private sector solution for everything. While some things are best left to the private sector, some things are also best left to the public sector.

      Delete
  6. Dupete Reiss11/01/2012

    We should make the investment and spend as much as we can on the military and to the point where our military is so big that no one would wonna test it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Russell11/02/2012

    I say we should bring home as much troops possible from oversees and use that money to nation build in America.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Barry G11/02/2012

    For those who are so comfortable with the idea of pulling out troops around the world, you may not feel comfortable if the country is under attacked from different directions and we can't defend.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trust me, we will be a lot better off when we nation build in our own country. We would be in a better postion to defend.

      Delete

We ask that you keep your comments clean and reframe from explicity. Also, please do not attempt to post unrelated links or spam. Non-compliant comments will be removed.