I don't see the relevance of defense spending as a percent of "total global war spending" since it says nothing of the USG's ability to afford such costs -- and I understand your primary assertion to be about affordability. Defense spending as a % of GDP is a much more sensible variable to evaluate.
That could be argued. I was just indicating how absurd it was. Whether or not it is affordable (which was indeed my assertion) is certainly another matter. Given the very unequal distribution of income growth, and thus the tax base, I'd hazard a guess that the base for carrying is getting dangerously small. The elite are paying less and less taxes -- certainly percentage-wise. Probably in absolute terms as well, but I could be wrong there, as their income has skyrocketed so much that it could compensate for their lowered tax rates.
So I see where you are coming from, and to a large extent I also agree that war spending as a percentage of the federal budget is not a very telling metric. It's just that GDP as a metric can also not be used blindly, as income differential has a large impact there. A shrinking middle class plus a cronyish upper class means less money for the lower class. And that is how revolutions start. You don't often see well-employed people giving their life for fairer wealth distribution.
Defense spending as a % of GDP has remained below 1970 levels ever since the post-Vietnam cuts, and currently stands at about 60% of that value -- a whopping 4% of GDP. Further, it is slated to decrease at least 10% once the draw down from the Bush Administration's wars is complete (defense spending has always declined significantly after a period of conflict is over).
I stand corrected. Would be interesting to see data on downstream effects (what percentage of the economy is directly or indirectly working towards war production, then versus now), as I have no idea about that. Depending on the scale that would potentially make a difference. AFAIK no country has ever been on a permanent wartime production and survived.
P.S. I'm sure we both agree that defense spending is too high. But that isn't what is being debated here.
True on both counts. Getting back to my other point: perception-wise I maintain that the Vietnam war was a big blow to the US. Internally, because it was the first conflict where the soldiers weren't welcomed back as heroes. Justified or not, and probably only because of the new role of the media. I am not under the delusion that war was ever clean and heroic. And externally, because it also showed the world, both friend and foe, that the US was vulnerable. Understandable, with a military geared towards large-scale conflicts, not guerilla warfare, but still a clear ego-shattering blow.
