(This is an archived page, from the Patterns of Power Edition 3 book. Current versions are at book contents).
Defence spending is necessary if a country wants to use military force, either to protect itself or for aggressive purposes. It includes the costs of equipment, the people in the armed services and the associated public servants.
A coercive foreign policy (6.7.7.1) is expensive. An Independent Institute article, The Cold War Economy, recorded that American spending on defence during the Cold War arms-race was 7.7% of its Gross National Product (GNP) on average.
A popular desire for a strong military capability is a factor when considering the overall size of the budget. The Republican Platform 2016, for example, put these words in first place:
“We dedicate this platform with admiration and gratitude
* * * * *
To all who stand strong in the face of danger
So that the American people may be protected against it —
The men and women of our military….”
The Republicans won the election, so they must have correctly judged American public attitudes at that time.
Politicians govern public spending in democracies (6.7.1), and the cost of defence competes with other political priorities. Beyond the political popularity of military power, though, there are other considerations – as described in the following sub-sections:
· A country makes a security assessment when deciding how much to spend on its defence (7.4.6.1).
· Defence forces can be used to keep the population in check, to prop up a government (7.4.6.2).
· A defence manufacturing industry can create jobs and pay taxes, benefiting the economy (7.4.6.3).
· The sale of arms to other countries increases the economic benefit of having an arms industry, but has an impact on international security (7.4.6.4).
· As an alternative to having one's own army, it is possible for defence spending to take the form of sub-contracting military action (7.4.6.5).
· The total cost of wars is much higher than the spending on the manpower and equipment deployed (7.4.6.6).