I disagree.

Military contests, like any other, are about the relative strengths of the opponents.

Comparing percents of GDP might tell you if you're in running with the pack or not, but the outcome of a fight between Lower Plonkova (spending 20% of the resources extracted from 2M dirt farmers and basket weavers on their military) and the United Saviors of Everything (spending 3% of the resources extracted from 400M first-world baristas and code monkeys) isn't in question.

The absolute number is absolutely relevant.

Well-put. I've heard the GDP argument so many times and never seen anyone call attention to this vitally important point.

It's not though; it's still a poor way to spend taxpayer dollars with entitlement liabilities accumulating, that are unfunded, while we continue to poor money into military waste, regardless of the percentage of GDP.

EDIT: I believe using percent of GDP is a poor measure.

Give me a percentage of your take home pay. Let me burn it in front of you in a dumpster. No worries! Its a small part of your take home pay!

I wasn't commenting whether it's right or wrong to be spending that much, merely that if one is going to do a comparison, it should not be misleading.

The absolute spending numbers will translate into capabilities though.

For instance, the US maintains about 1/2 of active aircraft carriers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_in_s...

I guess the strategic problems with aircraft carriers vs missiles make them a less compelling example of capabilities, but they are a nice illustration of the spending gap.

Later: 1/2 maybe isn't the best choice for a number there, as it includes some smaller carriers that mostly support VTOL craft. On the other side of it, the US super carriers carry a lot more planes. If the next generation planes come through, the smaller US carriers do end up comparing reasonably well to the other small carriers.

We already have a portion of our take home pay burned in front of us. Do you see that Medicare and Social Security deduction on your pay stub? Yeah......

I wonder if all the folks downvoting you honestly believe that they will see a single penny of the Social Security they've been paying all these years?

At least the military budget is a) constitutional b) a reasonable expenditure for a government (as opposed to a mutual-aid society).

Of course you won't see a single penny that you put in, because that's not how Social Security works.

When us younger Americans start drawing our Social Security, it'll be that era's young whose pennies we're drawing.

Social security isn't "you pay in, you get back out what you put in" it's "you pay in for today's olds, and when you're old, young people pay in for you".

I didn't actually down vote, but yes, I expect to see money from social security and Medicaid. I also see my parents retiring and using the money I'm contributing right now. I really don't feel like my money is being lit on fire in this case and he didn't make any argument to convince me I should.

That's called "paying for civilization" versus "lets bomb another 100k innocent civilians with precision guided munitions".

Hard to argue with that logic... wow.

Why? Does the difficulty of military protection (where it would make a difference) scale with GDP? Otherwise, you're just grabbing an arbitrary big number as divisor.

Edit: if this is a stupid question, I'd like to be looped in so I don't ask it again.