Can the U.S. Afford a Major War Amidst Its Deficit?

With an uncertain future, foreign affairs demand preparedness for potential conflicts. Concerns loom regarding possible invasions, alliances requiring defense, or emerging threats. The current federal budget appears ill-equipped for such challenges.

Given the deficit size, one might think that the U.S. is already engaged in a more extensive conflict than intermittent bombings in Iran. Financing a full-scale war through borrowing can exacerbate the budget’s precarious state.

The greatest threat to national security is our debt, according to Michael Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a sentiment he expressed in 2010 when national debt was significantly lower.

Throughout history, national security has been a core federal responsibility. Defense spending once dominated the budget, correlating with wartime peaks in debt-to-GDP ratios. After conflicts, this ratio typically decreased, adjusting to peacetime spending. Today, non-defense expenditures overshadow defense spending.

World War II saw national defense consuming 90% of federal spending. During Vietnam, it ranged from 35% to 50%. By 1999, post-Cold War, defense spending dipped to 16%. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq only nudged defense spending over 20%. This year it stands at 13%, projected to fall to single digits by 2035. From 2032 onward, over half of federal spending will focus on Social Security and health programs.

Nonetheless, the U.S. defense budget is substantial, surpassing $900 billion. Unlike other nations, the U.S. has an all-volunteer military facing competition from private employers, influencing wage demands and recruitment strategies.

Approximately 40% of the Defense budget addresses personnel compensation. By law, military pay increases align with private-sector raises. This complicates budget forecasts as payroll costs mirror economic growth.

Defense modernization has faced delays, necessitating simultaneous upgrades to conventional forces and nuclear capabilities. Key elements like bombers, submarines, and land-based missiles depend on aged technology. Current conflicts expose stretched Army, Navy, and Air Force resources, requiring modernization extending into the 2030s.

Future defense needs are unpredictable. Drone warfare demands faster procurement processes with technology cycles shrinking dramatically. While drones are cost-efficient individually, their numbers required represent significant expenses. Moreover, they augment rather than replace conventional costs.

The Pentagon can improve efficiency. As a bureaucracy, it risks bloat. Furthermore, a small customer base for defense contractors can hinder cost-effectiveness. Despite this, defense spending isn’t the central driver of national debt.

The Congressional Budget Office suggests that defense budgets may expand slower than the economy, potentially ameliorating the debt-to-GDP ratio. This projection assumes peace, excluding propositions like President Donald Trump’s $1.5 trillion defense budget.

Illustrations highlight scale: A Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier costs equal three days of Social Security disbursements. Total ammunition costs do not exceed four hours of Social Security spending. The F-35 program’s expected lifetime expense is less than last year’s combined Medicaid and Social Security expenditures.

National defense remains Washington’s fundamental mandate. Governments borrow in wartime and repay in peace. Maximal peacetime debt poses risks to national security commitments.