The Defense Budget Should Increase Military Spending

Hartung, W. D. (2003, February 14). War without end? The costs of the new military buildup. United States. Retrieved July 15, 2005, from http://www.iansa.org/iraq

The first reason that military spending should be cut down on is that it takes away the focus from other incredibly important areas. One of the many areas that loose focus because of the large amount of military spending is the education sector. Primary education should be one of the main concerns of our government. Not only because it is where we teach our children about the world, but also it gives them the chance for a better future. They do not learn this from the military. The main reason that education is a better investment is because in the long run education helps the economy grow, since it creates a more skillful labor force. The amount of spending that goes into the military takes away from the potential of a long-term benefit to our

Since the attacks a number of civil defense programs have been initiated, which leads to more departments asking for an allowance within the national budget. This ultimately is leading to a larger and larger deficit that is quickly encompassing full percentage points of our GDP. There is a debate on how much defense

America spends over 650 billion dollars a year on having the most technologically advanced military in the world. Much of this money comes straight from U.S. taxpayer dollars. But there is one major problem in our military; the number of troops enlisting is dropping from previous years. With terrorist groups like ISIS, this is a bad time for numbers of soldiers to drop. The country needs more soldiers to keep freedom, and remain the powerhouse of the world. Without troops, our country might not be what it should be.

Public opinion on the military budget has been divided for years. Surveys have previously shown a large number of Americans believing the nation spends too much on the military, others seem to be happy with the current levels of military spending and a small number saying they think the government spends too little. Now that spending has been cut, the public is more divided on the issue than it has been in decades. This makes the issue of military spending a particularly hot-button issue for the newly elected Republican

Hanson’s 2012 premise, albeit over two years old today, is immediately discernible: America faces devastating self-inflicted wounds by implementing the current Administration’s defense spending budget. The dawn of 2014 finds this debate ongoing and the implementation of this budget well in progress, with even more drastic cuts taking effect than the ones analyzed by Hanson previously. While few historians of repute would argue against the reality that the siren song of defense reductions has lured the nation onto the shoals of unpreparedness for future conflict many times in the past, two shortcomings in Hanson’s piece beckon us to pause and reexamine.

In the past America has been a dominant superpower in the field of military strength, but for the last few decades, our military has encountered abounding liquidations and sequestrations, which lead to huge budget cuts. Nevertheless, America has faced many politicians planning to cut down on our military by virtue of it is simply cost effective. The Clinton Foundation has been cutting our military for countless years. Also, under the Obama Administration has been enacting laws comparable to the Budget Control Act or (BCA) which has been siphoning our military for the past 8 years. For countless years, defense officials remain silent due to the Obama Administration, vaguely America could keep its budget under control. Consequently, all four

The most critical issue that we face when it comes to downsizing the army is the readiness and security of our nation. Politicians say that downsizing the military brings back the nation’s financial stability. Army leaders do not see it that way, but weakens our nation 's defense capability and our commitment to the rest of the world. General Odierno, the Army Chief of Staff (2013), states that “In his professional military judgment, that the projected end strength and force structure levels would not enable the Army to fully execute 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance requirements to defeat an adversary in one major combat operation while simultaneously denying the objectives of an adversary in a second theater. Additionally, it is unlikely that the Army would be able to defeat an adversary quickly and decisively should they be called upon to engage in a single, sustained major combat operation” (Chief, Congress and DoD hammer out Army 's future manning levels, par.18). The military is not just weakened by the numbers, but by experience and

There are not any easy ways to cut spending on the military especially since we are in the middle of fighting in Iraq. We can not just pull some troops or provide them with less weapons or supplies then expect them to protect our country as well as they are now. We need a defense budget that matches the new security challenges, not the threats of the last century. We need to recognize that a strong economy is essential for providing the resources to meet future threats; addressing these long-term debts will keep our economy strong.

The function of the military forces for the United States has had no choice but to evolve as wars wax and wane. As the rise of militant terrorist groups became a threat to the United States and its allies, the armed forces of the United States were deployed by the President to countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq. Instability in these countries threatened bordering allies, and after September 11, 2001, the threat was brought to U.S. soil. Each president from Clinton to Obama has had to shape the policy of how the armed forces fit into civil-military policies abroad and overseas. In a war time environment, such as Iraq, the purpose of how the military should be deployed is easier to clearly state. But in times when there is no imminent threat, it is much more difficult to transition

Lastly, the federal government should consider cutting budgets on the military. There are US troops in 130 countries and there are those who don’t need defending at the time. Then also there are weapons that are not being used in current missions so they are going to waste. The Pentagon should watch its overruns on how much its spending as

The United States spends far more than any other country on defense and security with no end in sight to their expenditures. The total military spending by the United States is nearly equal to the combined military spending of every other nation combined. This unreasonable amount of spending hinders the capacity to provide basic needs, as well as eliminating money that can be used to resolve other domestic issues, while at the same time allowing for short-term economic prosperity and increasing our national defense capacity.

The views expressed in this student academic research paper are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the United States

Although it may make sense to think that cutting federal defense spending and military budget will put the United States of America’s national security at risk, it is still not clear what the right choice is as presidential candidates still debate on increasing versus decreasing federal defense spending and military budget.

The Department of Defense (DOD) was recently approved a budget of $582.7 billion for 2017. $112.1 billion of this budget was specifically to “develop and procure equipment, technology, and capabilities…” [1].