Posts
In order to effectively argue that the U.K. depends on the U.S. for defense, we would have to provide evidence that if it weren't for the U.S. then the British would have to increase their spending on national defense in order to avoid having their country invaded and the government replaced. I think this is doubtful. British spending on the military is roughly in line with the world average as a percentage of GDP. There military is the third largest in the world, exceeded only by China and the U.S. In the unlikely event that the Chinese chose to invade their country and the U.S. decided to remain neutral, the combined military expenditure of the U.K. and France would exceed that of the invader, thus making it unlikely that the invasion would be successful.
Now, one could argue that in one sense British independence depends on the action of the U.S., but that is not in the sense that they rely on U.S. protection, but that if the U.S. chose to invade then the British wouldn't have a military large enough to deal with the problem. However, I don't think that this is likely to happen. In fact, I suspect that if a president of the U.S. were to attempt such an action, he would be promptly removed from office. The fact of the matter is that no country is both willing and able to seriously challenge the national sovereignty or territorial integrity of the U.K., and that is so regardless of whether the Americans choose to defend them or not.
Likewise with Doug Bandow's argument that we are providing national defense for the EU, we have the same question. Are the Europeans spending less on national defense than they need to? Here is a list of how much various countries are spending on national defense, and here is a link that shows how much the EU is spending on national defense. They are spending more than twice as much as China and Russia combined.
Mr. Bandow uses the fact that the French and British have been unable to remove Gaddafi from power as evidence that they aren't spending enough on national defense. However, the military expenditure of these two countries as a proportion of GDP is roughly the same as that for the world as a whole and well above the average for the EU.
Ironically he praises Poland, Hungary and the Czech republic for taking on more responsibility by forming an agreement to work together to provide security in their neighborhood. These countries spend much less than France and Britain on national defense. However even if the EU as a whole spent only 1.1% of GDP on the military, as does Hungary, They would still outspend China and Russia combined.
Far from encouraging other countries to spend more on national defense, we should treat them like grown ups. They are able to look at the world and make their own decisions on how to provide for their own defense. We don't need to insult them for spending little on the military when in fact they are spending quite enough to provide for their own protection. They have done a much better job of setting priorities in this area than we have.
The larger issue of whether we should be maintaining a military alliance with these countries is one that needs to be addressed. The facts are that they don't need us and we don't need them. It would be good if we could work with them to provide for our defense for less money than we would need to spend if we were to go it alone, but we are spending much more than we would need in order to do this. Military expenditure should be justified by pointing to some necessity. The necessity doesn't involve the supposed need for humanitarian military intervention. There is little evidence to indicate that this is an effective or efficient way of saving lives and a great deal of evidence that it is not. Hence the only way of justifying military expenditure is to provide protection for ourselves directly and through alliances.
The alliances should be entered into in order to provide for our own defense. Again humanitarian motives are not the best way of helping people. Theoretically the combined militaries of the allies can make it less likely that any of them would be attacked. Of course it would be immoral and imprudent to support an ally who chose to invade another country. The idea here is that the alliance enables countries to spend less on national defense and still have a combined power that enables them to repel an invasion of any member of the alliance.
The fact that the US wastes money on the military is no reason to encourage other countries to follow suit. We need to take care not to do anything that would make the US seem arrogant. This is not something that would help our relationships with other countries.
Likewise with Doug Bandow's argument that we are providing national defense for the EU, we have the same question. Are the Europeans spending less on national defense than they need to? Here is a list of how much various countries are spending on national defense, and here is a link that shows how much the EU is spending on national defense. They are spending more than twice as much as China and Russia combined.
Mr. Bandow uses the fact that the French and British have been unable to remove Gaddafi from power as evidence that they aren't spending enough on national defense. However, the military expenditure of these two countries as a proportion of GDP is roughly the same as that for the world as a whole and well above the average for the EU.
Ironically he praises Poland, Hungary and the Czech republic for taking on more responsibility by forming an agreement to work together to provide security in their neighborhood. These countries spend much less than France and Britain on national defense. However even if the EU as a whole spent only 1.1% of GDP on the military, as does Hungary, They would still outspend China and Russia combined.
Far from encouraging other countries to spend more on national defense, we should treat them like grown ups. They are able to look at the world and make their own decisions on how to provide for their own defense. We don't need to insult them for spending little on the military when in fact they are spending quite enough to provide for their own protection. They have done a much better job of setting priorities in this area than we have.
The larger issue of whether we should be maintaining a military alliance with these countries is one that needs to be addressed. The facts are that they don't need us and we don't need them. It would be good if we could work with them to provide for our defense for less money than we would need to spend if we were to go it alone, but we are spending much more than we would need in order to do this. Military expenditure should be justified by pointing to some necessity. The necessity doesn't involve the supposed need for humanitarian military intervention. There is little evidence to indicate that this is an effective or efficient way of saving lives and a great deal of evidence that it is not. Hence the only way of justifying military expenditure is to provide protection for ourselves directly and through alliances.
The alliances should be entered into in order to provide for our own defense. Again humanitarian motives are not the best way of helping people. Theoretically the combined militaries of the allies can make it less likely that any of them would be attacked. Of course it would be immoral and imprudent to support an ally who chose to invade another country. The idea here is that the alliance enables countries to spend less on national defense and still have a combined power that enables them to repel an invasion of any member of the alliance.
The fact that the US wastes money on the military is no reason to encourage other countries to follow suit. We need to take care not to do anything that would make the US seem arrogant. This is not something that would help our relationships with other countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment