US Military Spending

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Background
Ethical argument on military spending
Evidence based on figures
Counter argument
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

Is the huge spending in the U.S military ethical and warranted? The justification of an act is based on whether or not the act in question adheres to the moral laws and the common good of all the concerned parties.

The doctrine of military justice and the just war theory dictates that military spending and acts should not only safeguard the common good but rather enhance societal wellbeing, ethos and values of all interested parties. U.S military spending is ethical and fully justified since it aims to enforce law and order by ensuring that the military forces are well equipped to safeguard the common good of citizens.

Military spending has in the recent past been a critical issue to most governments. Economic scholars argue that a lot of money is invested into the military to make it look more important than other key sectors of the economies of many states.

The general view of the citizens of the U.S. is that a lot of funds need to be channelled to other sectors of the economy such as education, research, health care and clean energy. In this study, we shall evaluate the impact of spending on the military as measured against other sectors of the economy of the U.S.

Background

The United States government has over the years increased its national security budget even when it does not seem to have any external threats from its neighbours. Its military spending is equal to no other country with economic figures showing that the spending on its military by the U.S. is half of the total spent on national security around the world.

Ethical argument on military spending

The U.S. government is said to have spent 689 billion on military budget in the year 2010(Lamothe, 45). The mentioned figure has been on the rise for the last 7 years. The figure rose marginally in the year 2001.

Other countries also respond to security threats in the same manner as the U.S when faced with situations of insecurity to their well being. It is worth noting that every other state can also be faced with threats to its security but the manner in which the national budget of every country is harmonized to meet security challenges is what is most important.

Evidence based on figures

The U.S military budget may seem insignificant since it is around 4.9 percent of the country’s GDP (Thompson, 26). Compared to other countries, the U.S. may seem to be using less than what it earlier spent on the “hot and cold war” times.

However, by absolute standards, these are huge amounts since they constitute 5000 dollars per family. Compared to expenses on others sectors of the economy, the federal government expenditures in 2004 were 14billion for energy, 1.8billion for transit and railroad networks and 4.7billion for recreation and culture.

There is an argument by the U.S. government that military spending offers stable, decent and well paying jobs to many. This gives rise to the view that military spending is a major pillar of the U.S. economy. However, research shows that other sectors that do not receive the same funding from the budget seem to provide similar and at times better opportunities for job creation. One way of scrutinizing the size of U.S. military expenditure is by comparing it with other countries (Bender, 34).

Counter argument

The U.S. does not have bigger security threats than other countries to justify its huge spending on its military as compared to countries like Israel, India and China. The military budget of the U.S is normally considered to be wasteful as there are other sectors of the U.S national economy that need to be adequately funded like health, education and housing.

At a time when the economy of the U.S is undergoing recession, there is need to channel funds to more productive sectors of the economy. The U.S. has not been invaded directly by any country since the Nineteenth Century. This fact shows that the U.S. has only been “picking fights” with other countries and invading countries that are not at war with it in the role of restoring peace in the said countries.

Economists tend to object such policies by the U.S. government hence preferring that the government would spend more money on other sectors of the economy. One good scenario that explains how some people viewed the military was during Clinton’s administration. U.S. citizens were happy that during Clinton’s administration, the U.S. did not engage in war. It is evident that the U.S. undertakes these wars by choice due to the fact that it has a huge military presence (Barber, 23).

It is also clear that countries without military capability cannot embark on such undertakings of “wars of choice” whose purposes evolve, as in Iraq, from disassembling wars of mass destruction, fighting terrorists and promoting democracy (Miles, 10).

Conclusion

The U.S has in the past been viewed as promoting conflict rather than stopping it. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are major cases in point in demonstrating this fact.

President Bush Jr. was warned by the U.N Security Council against invading Iraq but he ignored the advice of the council and directed the U.S. military to attack Iraq. The U.S military invasion of Iraq is seen by many people in the world and especially the citizens of the U.S. as having contributed immensely to the economic recession of the U.S. that has persisted for many years.

The war in Afghanistan as another case in point also serves to indicate that a lot of money was wasted in funding the war which seemed to have no direct significance to the U.S. The U.S military budget was constrained as the soldiers had to be paid high allowances on their salaries among other expenses. The military equipment was also costly to maintain for the U.S government taking into account the number of years the U.S military stayed in Afghanistan.

Works Cited

Barber, Barrie. “Military looking for more tech-savvy recruits.” Springfield News-Sun. 2012:13. Print.

Bender, Bryan.”Gates calls for build up in troops”. The Boston Globe. Print.

Lamothe, Dan. “Corps ends year with 203,000 active Marines”. Marine Corps Times. Gannett Company. 2009:12. Print.

Miles, Donna. “Review to Consider Consequences of Budget Cuts.” American Forces Press Service. 2011:19.Print.

Thompson, Loren. “How to Waste $100 Billion: Weapons That Didn’t Work Out.” Forbes Magazine. 2011:23.Print.

Click Here To Order Now!