If we diverted all defence spending to aid/social spending, what would be the result, do you think?

Please try to quantify the result in the following terms:

[1] Would less or more people die?
[2] Would we be safer or less safe?
[2] Would it be a more effective way of spending *defence* money (ie - would the *defence* outcomes be BETTER spent on aid than weaponry etc.?)?
[3] Would it solve or contribute to any major problems, if so which?
[4] Would the world be a better place?
[5] Over time, would such a shift decrease or increase the 'need' to tax people highly? ie. would it mean that future budgets would be higher or lower?
[6] Given all this, is it (a) good idea (b) bad idea (c) somewhere in between?

If you enjoy using the Politics Forum, please consider supporting PoFo by subscribing (to donate directly), or by using an affiliate link when you shop on-line (costs you nothing extra). PoFo costs a lot of money to run, so your support really is appreciated.

I don't mean to be pedantic, but who do you mean by "we?" Do you mean all the world's countries, or just the West, or Australia, or the US, or?

I actually left it ambiguous so people could pick. The most interesting scenarios would seem to be (a) just your country (b) just the US (if the US isn't your country) (c) the whole world. Feel free to talk about any or all of these scenarios.

[1] Would less or more people die? Less westerners, more nonswesterners without
[2] Would we be safer or less safe? depends...
[2] Would it be a more effective way of spending *defence* money (ie - would the *defence* outcomes be BETTER spent on aid than weaponry etc.?)? No
[3] Would it solve or contribute to any major problems, if so which? Contibute to welfare state, bad, but contributing to education and healthcare, good
[4] Would the world be a better place? dunno
[5] Over time, would such a shift decrease or increase the 'need' to tax people highly? ie. would it mean that future budgets would be higher or lower? increase need as more ppl stopped being responsible and signed up for welfare
[6] Given all this, is it (a) good idea (b) bad idea (c) somewhere in between? C

Cool.

I think if the U.S. did it unilaterally at this stage, more people would die. If the disarmament was immediate, Iraq would fall to pieces; and even if it wasn't, I think that the evaporation of the American security guarantee over Saudi Arabia and the rest of the region could lead to aggression - if not from Iran, then from Syria against the exceptionally weak Gulf states. The lack of an American guarantee could lead to a bloody Chinese strike at Taiwan as well, further down the road, and possibly something similar in Korea. There could be further instability in South America and some places in Asia and Africa. The world as a whole would be less safe, and I think that there'd be a movement in key areas to arm. I imagine the Russians and possibly the Chinese would be more than happy to sink their teeth into what the U.S. left behind.

So:

1. More people die (greater instability)
2a. As a result, less safe.
4. World is not a better place.

Though I think American defense spending is pretty bloated, I don't think that merely cutting it and throwing it at social programs will do much good. Even if we devoted it to international aid, I think it would be inferior to force in the situations that matter most. That said, devoting resources to social programs would not be wholly negative; I think this country could massively benefit by pumping $400 billion into education, say. Others, like social security and medicare, could be significantly improved.

2b. Would not be a better way of spending defence money.
3. The country would benefit from the movement of funds, but not enough to justify the shift. It could significantly benefit the U.S. if the money were spent in education.
5. The increases in productivity and (potential) reductions in spending as a whole would mean that budgets would be smaller and taxes lower.

6. I think, on the whole, it would be a bad idea, though probably some trimming of defense spending would be wise.

The other possibility - global disarmament - is even more fanciful in the short term, but is a bit more subtle. We have seen in some countries (Haiti comes to mind) that the lack of armed forces can invite insurgents to take over. This would only be a problem in the world's very poorest and least developed nations. Even at this level, I think that if it were set against the complete elmimination of the possibility of major military conflict between nations, the world would be safer and fewer people would die. Total disarmament would:

1. Fewer people would die.
2a. The world would be safer.
2b. Given that everyone is eliminating defense expenditures, I don't think that this question has a meaningful answer. (there is nothing to be defended against)
3. It would solve major war and probably a slew of other social ills.
4. The world would be a vastly better place.
5. Budgets and taxes would be lower.
6. Good idea, but unfortunately unlikely.

The best possible approach, I think, would be to stabilize all countries (the list of countries requiring stabilization is short) and then disarm. But unfortunately this is unlikely.

Depends on what country we're talking here. Scandinavian countries, for example (save maybe Norway, which maintains an army), have all pretty much abandoned defence and security, for the sake of self-improvement. The living quality in those countries is incredibly good.

Do that in a somewhat less peaceful area, though, and you're likely to be annihiliated.

I'm not sure where you got that information -
All Scandinavian countries maintain a standing army and Sweden that has the lowest percentage of GDP used to defense is still number 21. on the list of total expenditures to military and very active in developing military technology. Even though Scandinavian countries have downgraded their armies from the cold war numbers, mainly lowering the amount of conscripts, they are hardly toothless in defense and continue to be among the most modern armies in the world.

In other words, they are hardly even near of the scenario suggested by Maxim.

I'd say Finland is pretty close.

I don't think you'd find any nation in the world that has abandoned its security COMPLETELY, just some countries that need it less, and have put their efforts into other areas.

Finland isn't a Scandinavian country, but...based on what?

Finland uses 2% of its GDP (-98, might be slightly less right now) to defense - which is the world average, by the way, and has conscription that is far wider than in Scandinavian countries. Finnish national security is permanently affected by Russia right next door - and while attack is not very likely, discussion of Finnish defense continuously revolves around preparedness against Russia. Out of Nordic countries, Finland is probably the most concerned about military threats.

It'd help if you researched things before argumenting.

Then everyone would sing and dance and we'd all hug each other!

At least one country would be smart enough to move upon the counrry with no army and quickly take control of it.

Glad you've come about to the dark side!

Seriously, I agree with the Nun's second point - it would be unfeasable and lead to much more instability. Besides, the military technology complex is too powerful to allow such a thing to ever occur.

Why? And why would this be smart?

The world just doesn't work like it did in the ages of conquest and colonies. The US, for instance, has the capacity to essentially move on pretty much any country right now and take control of it. But, as we've seen even in Iraq, this makes for a sticky post-war situation and gives a very overt and limited form of control. It's simply not the 'done' thing to steal other countries' territory or resources and doesn't really work that effectively unless its done through covert (economic) means.

My position is that the whole diversion of defence spending to aid/social spending would actually be a better allocation of resources for somewhere like the US. Ultimately, the United States has little to fear militarily from other nations and the concept of a war between great powers in the future seems less and less likely and fairly irrational - it's simply easier to gain 'control' through non-military means.

The foundation for aggressiveness is frustration and poverty. If you can provide people with opportunities then they become far more passive. If you provide them with education they become much more tame.

Well, you're right, of-course. Maybe it's just my idea of people outside of troubled areas frolicking all day, not a worry to bother them, safe and sound with their lives. I've also spoke to many foreigners, and all seemed quite detached from the entire idea of 'armed conflict'.

Things always seem greener on the other side, I suppose.

I am speaking as an American, about the USA.



Fewer Americans would die, most likely, more people would die globally, at least until the power vacuum was filled.



We, as in Americans, would be safer provided some spending were left for vital defense and nuclear counter-strike capacity. The world at large might be less safe, certainly some specific peoples would be far less safe, until the power vacuum was filled.



In some cases, absolutely. There is a great deal of bloat of waste spending in the US defense budget. This waste/bloat doesnt actually aid in the defense of the nation, thus it purely a matter of waste. Any spending that does not lead to waste would clearly be a better use of those funds.

It should be noted however, social spending does not mean that funds will not be wasted.



It would certainly solve certain issues in the USA, of course it would also contribute to certain problems in the USA as well. Certainly some social issues could be dealt with, education and health care for examples. However, the spoilt Westerner syndrome may very well be multiplied, furthermore, the illegal immigration issue that currently faces the USA would be ten fold.



I suppose that depends on ones opinion of better.

If by better one simply means 'without US influence' then yes.

If by better one means 'without strife/economic disparity' then I would say no.



I have no idea. I don't believe that social spending would really make society more efficient then military spending. It just seems to me that we are choosing two different cash sinks.


Absolutely A, provided that the US retain funds for vital defense and nuclear-strike capacity.

As an American isolationalist there is nothing I would support more then simply cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world militarily and letting the world do whatever it wants to do with its new found freedoms. Provided of course, that the worlds understands that the US is not to be challenged within US borders.

Seeing as how the power projection of the USA would be greatly diminished, which would take away the threat of the US military, I would support an increase in ICBM production, an end to all international nuclear treaties and the arming of space with nuclear ballistic missiles.

The US must then take control of space, insure that no other nation may arm in space and then live safetly under our nuclear umbrella of armeggedon.

Of course, that would all take security spending ... however it would be a greatly decreased amount of spending then defense spending would cost.

Those who beat their swords into plowshares wind up the slaves of those who forged new swords.

You're right that people don't generally think about armed conflict and of course do not understand what it is to live in a state of perpertual war. But Scandinavian countries, in a sense, are a bad example as they use conscription - peace-time military service doesn't of course teach much about "what armed conflict really is", but at least it forces the drafted to acknowledge the existence of the question.

Got that right.



Why? Because they can. Richest nation in the world with zero defense? There's the bloated cash cow waiting to be slaughtered.

You can't really be this detached from reality, Maxim.

Would it be smart? Of course it would. When you conquer the United States and absorb her resources, you become the new superpower. Like Ric Flair said: To be the man, you gotta beat the man.

And when you do beat the man to become the man, you're the man. Simple as that.

Get that, man?

Have you ever been to Russia, nobody cares about Finland in Russia. Russians are more concerned about the baltic states. Isn't Finland, nordic and Finnsh is no way related to the slavic languages?

It makes more sense to influence other slavic states.

Nobody can invade the United States - aside from Canada and Mexico, which both have laughable armies. The Chinese or the EU might have the desire and the capacity to, but you guys lucked out geographically - its damn near impossible to transport men in any considerable number across five thousand or so kilometres of ocean.

There are a few problems with the proposed demilitarization. Huge amounts of R&D would not take place - many civilian inventions stem from military advances. While it can be argued that civilian research, if given equal funding, could do the same, the urgency of warfare seems to be an excellent catalyst. Spending money, also, doesn't equal more weapons - we have quite enough in existance already. One in ten people could own a gun, if they were equally distributed. If a peace-minded democrat were elected to the US presidency in 2008 and ordered unilaterial disarmenment and the cessation of military spending, the world's armouries would still be filled to the tits, pardon the expression.

Furthermore, if the US were to withdraw from the world stage, Taiwan and Israel, to name but two, would be in for a world of hurt. Iraq would enjoy civil war, as I'm sure other Arab countries would, as US influence would fail to keep plutocrats and cronies in power. All in all, though, lets give it a shot. I live in central Canada, one of the safest places in the world, and its dull to read the newspapers these days. Let the fireworks begin!

It is not so much about how likely it is that Russia invades Finland, but that it is infinitely more probable that the attack comes from the east rather than from Sweden or Norway. Russia is by far the most unstable country bordering Finland.

This would obviously be dependent upon the historical situation. If, for instance, hypothetical country 'x' was at war with hypothetical country 'y' and no forseeable peace exists, then the channeling of resources from defence to social services could result in more deaths. However, for this situation to exist both country 'x' and country 'y' would need to be equally or near-equally armed and have relatively equal labor markets. If, however, country 'y' is an oppressed nation [Vietnam, Congo] or a nation under attack [Iraq, France (WWII)] then the 'defence' funds would be entirely irrelevant as weapons power would rest upon the people rather than formal-state armies. Therefore, if rebel funds were to shift from warfare to social service there would be a minimal impact.

In short, my verdict is: under most circumstances of modern warfare, no.


Neither war no an enemy at the gates provides safety. If we are under 'peacetime operations' then we would more likely be safe.


Solve. 'No war but the class war!' and all that humbug. Forcing the government to spend money on the working class rather than on the oppression of members of the working class from another nation is always preferable.


Hell, fuckin', yes.


Lower. If the state of 'z' amount of citizens requires 'x' ammount of money to maintain warfare then the tax ratio is x:z. If a state of 'z' amount of citizens requires 'y' ammount to welfare then the tax ratio is y:[z+(y/z)]. Or something like that.
Mathematically:
War cost: $500 billion
Welfare cost: $500 billion
Average citizen income: $50,000

War-tax: 500 billion /(300 million * 50,000) = 3.33% tax;
Welfare-tax: 500 billion / [300 million * [50 000 + (500 billion / 300 million)]] = 3.23% tax;

(a) good idea; under most circumstances.