The Real Cost of National Security

In the United States, politicians and statesmen continually remind the public that America is the greatest country in the world. However, in spite of these pervasive beliefs, the United States consistently lags behind European and Asian countries in education, public health, infant mortality, and other standards of social and economic strength, exposing the stark contrast between political rhetoric and reality. But instead of these and other signs of economic and public wellbeing, “American greatness” and national strength are being measured by politicians through the size of defense spending.

The main reason for this self-deception perpetuated by politicians is the immense power of the United States’ military. Ever since the beginning of the Cold War, the efforts to preserve national security have led to the United States having the highest military spending, more aircraft carriers, and more troops stationed overseas than any other nation in the world. As a result, the Department of Defense annually receives over 50 percent of presidential discretionary spending. So in terms of conventional military power, the United States really does seem to reign supreme.

But the cost of maintaining the supremacy of the American military has not come without negative consequences for the country. On a basic level, the governmental focus on defense  funding has turned other social utilities, such as education, infrastructure, and health, into secondary concerns. Military spending has subsequently taken funds away from other government services, drained the economy, and put unhealthy burdens on taxpayers.

Beyond increasing national debt and taxes, profligate military spending also lowers economic productivity and innovation, and decreases the ability of the United States to compete internationally in trade. This is because the bloating of defense-related spending and an emphasis on big budget military projects have led to federal money being inefficiently spent. This has a direct effect on the funds and human talent available for nonmilitary projects. In 2011, the total federal funding set aside for research and development was $144.4 billion. Of that sum, defense research and development accounted for $83.2 billion, or more than all nonmilitary research and development spending combined. With more scientists, engineers, and physicists being employed by the military and fewer people being employed in the economically-promising areas of science and technology, it is no wonder the United States is losing its industrial advantage to European and Asian nations.

One common defense of military spending is that it creates jobs, which is true to an extent. But what is important is the nature of the jobs which military spending creates: mostly skilled technical work in military-related fields that does not touch the large pool of semiskilled and professional workers in the United States. A number of studies show that a far greater number of jobs are created for every $1 billion spent in education, health care, and clean energy fields compared to every $1 billion spent within the military. Any prospect of greatly cutting unemployment relies on the government funneling more resources toward development in civilian—not military—goods and services. There is little reason to believe that military Keynesianism can be a cure for America’s economic ailments, especially since military spending does little to help the declining U.S. trade position in the world. But this is made difficult as military spending expands and cuts into non-defense discretionary spending, which is estimated to drop to an all-time low in 2016. With military spending considered by many the only way to achieve security, fewer and fewer funds are being used for spurring economic innovation through nonmilitary research.

However, massively cutting military spending, too, runs its risks. The military-industrial complex plays a central role in American society, as millions of jobs and the lifelines of some communities are entirely dependent on the military budget. Interlocking government agencies, military services, and private industries depend on each other for research, planning, manufacturing, testing, and selling. This has made it so that sweeping budget cuts would mean immense losses of profit and jobs across the board. This leads major industries and specific constituent districts to have every reason to pressure congressmen for more and better weapons, regardless of actual military need.

Immense military spending has been justified again and again by the need to achieve national security, which remains an elusive goal. Yet, even if each and every new, excessively expensive weapon and equipment program could be quantitatively justified as having secured American interests overseas, there is little reason to believe that the American “lead” on the rest of the world has been achieved as well. And even if these programs could be justified as having secured American interests overseas, achieving “national security” continues to redirect vital human and material resources away from other facets of American security. After all, obtaining national security for the United States lies not just in the weapons unveiled by the Pentagon, but in our industrial productivity, public wellbeing, technological advancements, and funding for education and civilian research.