[TaylorAlexander]

But the US military could be 25% the size and still be “strong”.

So discussions of size reduction do not mean advocating a weak military. There obviously must be some point at which additional military spending weakens the US by crippling our ability to grow. And many have reasonably argued we are well past that point. We spend 10x the next closest competitor at 750B a year. We could cut spending by hundreds of billions and leave that money in the pockets of Americans to better choose how to spend it. That could leave us much stronger. One may take a look at China’s incredible ability to build infrastructure as one alternative way to spend our money. We build bombs to protect oil interests while China builds solar panel factories and bullet trains.

[manfredo]

Yes, the US could be "strong" but the US isn't just defending its own soil. It's effectively propping up allies all across the globe.

Also, as a percentage of GDP US military spending isn't all that high. It's just over 3% [1]. South Korea is at 2.6%. In most years, Israel outranks the US (they probably could afford to drop their spending because their regional rivals are having very bad domestic problems and are in no condition to attack Israel). In theory, all NATO countries are supposed to spend 2%.

[lostlogin]

If an allied country is mad keen on military spending and demonstrating their power while you aren’t, why would you spend on your military?

Could this be a factor in how other countries operate?

[philwelch]

It’s not purely a question of spending. There are qualitative differences as well. No US ally has even an approximation of the US nuclear deterrent or the US Navy. Partially as a consequence of this, no US ally can match the quantity, quality, or versatility of American air power.

[manfredo]

It could be, that's part of why Trump flirted with the idea of making NATO's 2% of GDP military spending target a requirement rather than a general guideline.

However, the fact that the US is the main component of NATO gives the US a lot of leverage over those other countries which is valuable in its own right.

[yason]

Yes, the US could be "strong" but the US isn't just defending its own soil.

It would seem natural to think your own soil is the only thing you can ever rightfully defend. USA seems to be doing the defending anywhere but on their own soil.

[manfredo]

True, but the US soil really doesn't need much defending. There are large oceans to the East and West. To the North is an allied country, and to the South is a country with close economic and cultural ties. There are no countries that could feasibly carry out a transoceanic invasion of the US, even were they to exert the entirety of their military might.

Countries like Poland and South Korea are within the reach of geopolitical rivals, though. So places like those are where the US is garrisoning much of its combat ready troops. Which makes perfect sense.

I'm also not so sure what you meant by "It would seem natural to think your own soil is the only thing you can ever rightfully defend." Why wouldn't it be rightful to defend the territorial integrity of other countries? In fact, the US is obligated to defend it as per international treaties like NATO.