Why does the US spend so much on its military?

Intro (0s)

• The United States spends more on its military than Russia, China, India, and other major military powers combined, and even more than the next 10 countries combined (15s).
• The US military's budget covers various expenses, including salaries for soldiers, elementary schools for their children, helicopters, missiles, and the development of new weapons and technologies (41s).
• The Pentagon spends money on advanced technologies such as ship-based laser weapons and the F35 fighter jet, which is expected to cost taxpayers $2 trillion (1m3s).
• Almost half of the US Congress's budget for running the government goes to the military, with the remaining funds allocated to areas such as education, diplomacy, health, science, energy, and the environment (1m26s).
• The goal of analyzing the military budget is to understand where the money goes, why the US spends more than any other country on its military, and whether this expenditure makes the country safer (1m45s).
• According to witnesses before the armed services committee, the current global threat security situation is the most dangerous in generations (2m2s).

The Budget, Mapped (2m14s)

• The total US defense budget for 2023 is $853 billion, which is more than the entire economy of Switzerland (2m29s).
• This amount is complicated to determine and depends on the source, with various numbers and decisions involved in calculating the total (2m27s).
• A significant portion of the budget, close to half, goes to the category of operations and maintenance, totaling $352 billion (5m11s).
• This amount is larger than the entire economy of Portugal and is used to cover the costs required to keep the military running (5m17s).
• The process of gathering and assembling the data for the report cost the Department of Defense $269,000 (5m24s).
• The US government and Pentagon are commended for providing clear and transparent data, allowing for scrutiny and analysis (5m31s).
• Rocket Money is a service that helps users track and cancel recurring subscriptions, negotiate bills, and analyze finances, with the potential to save customers up to $740 per year (4m16s).
• Rocket Money has processed $500 million in canceled subscriptions and offers a free version as well as a premium option with additional features (4m19s).
• The Department of Defense is one of the largest organizations in the world, managing various non-combat activities such as transportation, fuel, equipment maintenance, administrative costs, training expenses, healthcare services for active-duty personnel, environmental cleanup, disaster relief, and humanitarian efforts (5m45s).
• The military also spends nearly a billion dollars on anti-drug activities and security at international sporting competitions, and it covers the costs of running approximately 1,250 military bases, including around 800 bases in other countries (6m24s).
• The US military is not a normal army, as it is tasked with protecting the country, securing its borders, and maintaining control over the entire globe, allowing the US to be the global policeman (7m12s).
• One reason the US spends so much on its military is the cost of being the global hegemon, enforcing rules and maintaining control over the globe (7m50s).
• The military personnel category accounts for $172 billion, covering pay, benefits, retirement, and healthcare for over 3.4 million soldiers, reservists, and civilian military personnel, making the Department of Defense the largest employer in the world (8m9s).
• The Pentagon spends $140 billion on research and development, focusing on maintaining technological superiority on the battlefield, including projects like AI, autonomous submarines, military lasers, and exoskeletons (8m47s).
• Some of the technologies developed by the Pentagon have become part of everyday life, including GPS, drones, voice recognition, the computer mouse, and the internet itself (9m50s).
• The United States Department of Defense developed the worldwide web, and the US military's budget includes various categories, with construction being the smallest at $19 billion, used for building new facilities at home and abroad (10m16s).
• The procurement category accounts for $67 billion, which is comparable to the entire economy of Ethiopia, and includes the purchase of expensive military equipment such as jets, cruise missiles, and vehicles (10m53s).
• Examples of procurement costs include $142 million per jet, with 77 purchased in 2023 and 83 more requested for 2024, and $1.6 million per cruise missile, with 600 purchased in the previous year (11m18s).
• The US military also purchases vehicles, such as those used to move troops around the battlefield, at a cost of $372,000 each, with 3,700 purchased last year and 3,100 more requested for this year (11m57s).
• The budget also includes costs for purchasing aircraft, such as F-15s for the Navy, and helicopters, such as Blackhawk helicopters for the Army (12m7s).
• The Pentagon has failed to pass an independent audit for six years, with 61% of its physical assets missing, making it difficult to account for how tax dollars are being spent (13m30s).
• The US military's spending continues to increase, despite the end of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, due to the country's role as a global hegemon using its military to assert control and order worldwide (14m5s).

Meet the Contractors (14m26s)

• The majority of the US military budget, approximately 54%, is allocated to private corporations, with the top five contractors being Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin, who receive around $466 billion (14m31s).
• Over the last three decades, the number of defense contractors has decreased, resulting in a monopoly issue, with the top five contractors owning the space and the Pentagon relying heavily on them for critical defense capabilities (15m12s).
• This monopoly has led to price inflation, with the cost of a Stinger missile increasing from $25,000 to nearly half a million dollars in just a couple of decades (15m37s).
• There is a history of defense contractors overcharging the US government, with the Inspector General of the Department of Defense finding routine overcharging through corruption, waste, and fraud (16m10s).
• Contractors have been found to take huge profits, with some having 40-50% profit margins, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in excess profits (16m55s).
• Defense contractors use their profits to influence lawmakers, with Lockheed Martin spending $2.7 million this election cycle to "cozy up" to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle (17m31s).
• The revolving door between the Pentagon and defense corporations allows top military leaders to transition between the two, bringing with them valuable connections and knowledge, as seen in the case of Jim Mattis, who served in the military, joined the board of General Dynamics, and later became the Secretary of Defense under Trump (18m22s).
• Many top defense companies hire employees directly from the Pentagon to work as lobbyists, board members, and executives, creating a "revolving door" between government and the defense industry (18m53s).
• This close relationship between government officials and defense contractors can lead to conflicts of interest, as government officials may be promised high-paying jobs after leaving government in exchange for awarding generous contracts to certain contractors (19m31s).
• Some lawmakers who approve the Pentagon's budget own stocks in defense contracting companies, which can create a personal financial incentive for them to increase defense spending (20m1s).
• Defense contractors intentionally allocate their operations across multiple states and districts to create jobs and influence lawmakers, who are incentivized to support contractors in their districts to keep their constituents employed (20m50s).
• This strategy is exemplified by Senator Roger Wicker, who advocates for increased military spending and has a close relationship with defense contractors, including Huntington Ingalls, which operates a major naval shipyard in his home state of Mississippi (21m15s).
• Defense contractors contribute significant amounts of money to Senator Wicker's campaign, creating a "virtuous cycle" that results in increased defense spending, potentially on unnecessary items (22m9s).
• This cycle raises concerns about the influence of defense contractors on lawmakers and the potential for conflicts of interest, as lawmakers are supposed to prioritize national security and the interests of the American people (22m26s).
• The strategy of for-profit defense contractors creates an incentive for lawmakers to advocate for more military spending, as seen in the case of Senator Wicker and Congressman Mike Rogers, who sit on committees that allocate funds to the Pentagon and receive campaign donations from defense contractors (22m35s).
• This system allows money from military spending to influence lawmakers into approving more funds for the Pentagon, creating a conflict of interest and an environment with little political pushback against increasing the military budget (23m5s).
• Lawmakers are reluctant to oppose increased military spending due to concerns about losing jobs in their districts, giving contractors significant political power to push for more funding (23m30s).
• The idea that Department of Defense spending is essential for job creation gives contractors leverage to demand increased funding for contracts, threatening job losses if their demands are not met (23m40s).
• While corporate lobbying plays a role in the issue, it is not the sole factor contributing to the problem of excessive military spending (24m0s).

Are We Safer? (24m4s)

• The idea that a strong military is necessary to avoid conflict and deter enemies is a well-documented paradox, suggesting that big militaries are needed to maintain a balance of power and prevent attacks (24m19s).
• However, this paradox also implies that growing one's military forces an adversary to do the same, leading to an escalation of military spending and potentially catastrophic consequences, as seen during the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union (24m51s).
• The US spends a significant portion of its discretionary budget on the Department of Defense, with about 50% allocated to defense and only 1-2% to the Department of State, indicating that the country's priorities lie with military power rather than diplomacy (25m21s).
• Diplomacy is often seen as a less effective and less powerful tool than military force, despite being a more sustainable and peaceful way to resolve conflicts and achieve international cooperation (25m34s).
• No country has ever achieved sustainable peace by spending more on its military, and increasing defense spending necessarily means decreasing spending on other important areas such as healthcare, education, and climate change (26m1s).
• The concept of security encompasses not only military security but also economic security, which includes having good roads and bridges, safe drinking water, and access to education and job opportunities (26m27s).
• The current system of military spending and prioritization is driven by profit margins and the electability of lawmakers, rather than a clear assessment of the country's security needs and priorities (27m4s).
• This system incentivizes the wrong priorities and sets the country on a path of infinite escalation, risking catastrophic consequences (27m22s).

Credits (27m58s)

• Viewers can further read on any of the assertions made in the video for more information (27m58s).
• The video provides a source for viewers to verify the claims presented (27m58s).
• The video ends with an invitation for viewers to watch the next video (28m2s).