We don't have to wait several decades. We're in TWO wars right now that are costing us massive amounts of money.
The two major wars the UK was in cost maybe 40% of GDP (at least for WWII, I don't have data for WWI, or very specific data for WWII, but WWII cost the UK more than the US, and the US spent over a third of our GDP on the military at the peak of WWII). Compare that to about 1% of the GDP spent on the two wars now. Then add in the enormous damage to the UK from bombing, the sinking of ships, the loss of equipment, and the deaths of millions. Compare that to several thousand American dead. Iraq and Afghanistan just aren't comparable to WWI or WWII in terms of their burden by ANY measure.
We're spending over $700 BILLION a year on our military. And that's CUMULATIVE (year after year).
Under 5% of GDP, compared probably over 40% or perhaps more that the UK paid at the peak points in the first half of the twentieth century. Compared to almost 40% for the US during WWII, or 14.2% during Korea's peak or 9.4% during Vietnam's peak, or as high as 6.2% during the 80s. From 1949 to 1993 we spent about as much or more than we do now as a percentage of the economy.
truthandpolitics.org
Which does not imply that we spend too little on defense, or that we don't spend too much, or even way to much, such considerations are complex, multi-factored, and fairly subjective. But it does imply that the cost of the military is a manageable cost, that it isn't extremely damaging to the economy, and that it isn't driving our fiscal problems, and that it doesn't put us in a situation even vaguely like the UK in the fist half of the 20th century.
Which is not to say the US doesn't have problems, but they are tiny compared to WWI, WWII, and the UK's move towards socialism after WWII. |
