The raw spending number sounds shocking until you add context. U.S. military spending in 2023 was approximately $886 billion, which is about 3.5% of GDP. During the Cold War, it regularly exceeded 6-9% of GDP. At 3.5%, it's historically modest.

The comparison to other countries is deeply misleading. The U.S. military pays American wages. An American private earns roughly $24,000 per year; a Chinese private earns approximately $1,500. Adjusting for purchasing power parity (PPP), China's military spending is estimated at $460-580 billion — much closer to U.S. levels than raw dollar comparisons suggest.

The U.S. military underwrites global stability. American naval power ensures freedom of navigation through which 90% of global trade passes. NATO's security umbrella, funded primarily by the U.S., has kept peace in Europe for nearly 80 years. Allies like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan depend on American deterrence against China and North Korea. The cost of not maintaining this capability would be measured in wars, not budget savings.

The assumption that cutting defense spending would fund social programs is also false. Defense spending is roughly 13% of the federal budget. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other mandatory spending consume over 60%. Even zeroing out the entire defense budget wouldn't come close to covering the unfunded liabilities in entitlement programs, which exceed $100 trillion.

History consistently shows that military weakness invites aggression. The drawdown after World War I contributed to World War II. Perceived U.S. weakness before Korea, before the first Gulf War, and before Russia's Ukraine invasion all preceded conflict. Deterrence — the ability to make aggression too costly to attempt — is far cheaper than war.

I'm all for eliminating waste in defense spending. But cutting military capability to fund domestic programs is a false economy that would ultimately cost far more in blood and treasure.