Irvine511 said:
no, you've missed the point and continue to present a statistic that has nothing to do with the necessity or prudence of military spending. the best way to compare is not thorugh GDP but in inflation adjusted real dollars.
GDP has nothing to do with this.
not even a little bit.
your definition of "national security" is complete bogus.
this invasion has killed more Americans, and done more to damage the abilities of the US to project soft and hard power, than Saddam could have ever dreamed of being able to do.
Fundamental US national security concerns in the Persian Gulf have not changed since the late 1940s. The crippling effect on the global economy that the siezure or sabotage of Persian Gulf oil would have on the rest of the world would dwarf the cost of the current war. In addition, allowing Saddam to re-arm his military with new weapons over time would increase the casualty levels for the United States in any potential conflict. Without the sanctions and weapons embargo, non-compliance on WMD disarmament, plus the lack of permanent stationing of large US forces in the region, regime change was the only way to solve the problem.
In order to caculate the burden any level of spending has on a country, you must compare that level of spending to the country's GDP. The country today has more wealth to spend on other non-defense issues than it did in the 1980s. In fact, total spending on defense and the wars is only 33% above where spending was in 1999, the lowest level of defense spending in the 1990s, as a percentage of GDP. That is the issue being discussed, the burden of military spending on the country.
Just comparing inflation adjusted defense spending levels will often produce inaccurate results. You could not buy the same size and relative capability of the United States military in 1945 even with a figure that was adjusted for inflation. The United States spent $111 Billion dollars on defense in 1945 and had a military force of 16 million, tens of thousands of tanks, other vehicles, planes, ships, aircraft carriers etc. Adjusted into 2006 dollars, that total would be $1,232 Billion, about double of what the United States is spending on the military and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2006. Simply doubling US defense spending today would not give you the same size forces and relative capability of the forces in 1945 vs other nations. The United States would have to spend far more than just $1,232 Billion to arrive at a force the size of the one it had in 1945.
While you would do better with such a comparison between the 1980s and now, the fact that the United States is in the middle of a war and was not in the 1980s is an enormous difference between these two time periods. Much of the equipment bought during the 1980s such as tanks and armored personal carriers were purchased and then used at a peacetime rate normal for training and other purposes. Lots of training is often done with simulators. In war time though, Equipment is used at rates that are more than 10 times greater than they are used in peacetime. This results in break down of equipment which must be fixed, parts replaced etc as well as the loss of vehicles from combat or other factors that don't exist to this degree in peacetime. The military only had to purchase x number of tanks, artillery, and other vehicles to outfit its divisions in the 1980s and could use those same vehicles throughout the decade without the need for purchasing large numbers of full replacements or parts at the massive rate needed in an extended war. The 1980s was still a peacetime environment that did not involve the cost of fighting extended multiple wars.