U.S. MILITARY SPENDING:
Hundreds of Billions for Foreign Wars,
How Much for National Defense?
Randall Forsberg and Alex Carlin, Authors
(This is an update of an article written in 1999. Since then, Ms. Forsberg has passed
away. This updating, which was done after her death, maintains the same methodology
as the original. The updating was done by Alex Carlin, with help from the World Security
Institute, and Global Action to Prevent War.)
”There’s a big debate right now about where 3000 marines in Okinawa should go. My
suggestion is Nebraska.” Congressman Barney Frank

INTRODUCTION
For years, the debate about military spending has divided those who assert the need for
"a strong defense" from those who argue that military spending is excessive. Put this
way, the debate never gets to the heart of the issue.
The truth is that a shockingly small part of the US military budget is earmarked for
defense, that is, for the actual protection of US territory. While ‘homeland security’
expenditures have increased in recent years in response to the new, “terror” focused
security environment, military forces and security maintained specifically for the defense
of US territory still take up only a small portion of the total amount of US military
spending, and almost none of the budget for the Department of Defense (DoD), which is
projected to reach a staggering $739 billion dollars in Fiscal Year 2011.
Where does this $739 billion go? Nearly all of it goes to forces intended for use in foreign
wars, and for projecting power and influence outside US borders. Therefore, when we
raise or lower funding for the Department of Defense, rather than addressing national
security threats directly, we are actually impacting these and other foreign policy issues:
To what extent should the United States prosecute or intervene in foreign conflicts? To
what extent should the United States continue to spend vast sums to project power
globally? To what extent should the territory of other countries be our concern? And,
what role should all members of the international community, including the United
States, play together to prevent and minimize armed conflict around the world?
This paper identifies funds that actually go to national territorial defense, and
distinguishes those allocations from funds that go to forces for other purposes overseas.
And then, when the categories of military spending are finally clarified, and the defensive
expenditures are made distinct from the non-defensive expenditures, we believe that the
shocking results can be a catalyst to transform the policy debate.
Most of the figures and terminology come directly from unclassified sources published
annually by the US Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and the
Department of Homeland Security. World Security Institute (formerly Center for Defense
Information) contributed research.

 MILITARY SPENDING AS IT IS TODAY
I. PROTECTION OF U.S. TERRITORY
Deterrence
The 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and other US targets notwithstanding, the
only weapons in the world capable of broadly destructive military attacks on U.S. territory
are the hundreds of long-range ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads – mostly in land
silos and on submarines – held by Russia and to a lesser extent China. (France and the
UK also have this capability, but are not considered a threat.)
Despite advances in technology, there is still no effective defense against a massive
attack by long-range ballistic missiles.
The only protection offered by policymakers against large scale nuclear attacks is the
policy of “deterrence.” US nuclear missiles are intended to deter Russian, Chinese and
other leaders from launching a missile attack by posing a threat of retaliation in kind.
Nuclear deterrence is actually a form of psychological warfare - since neither the United
States nor its potential nuclear adversaries can effectively (completely) stop the other
side's incoming missiles, the “defensive” role of the missiles on each side is to strike fear
in the hearts of the opposing leaders such that they are never tempted to launch their
missiles in the first place.
Development and on-going maintenance of nuclear warheads, along with associated
command and control and non-proliferation activities, is conducted by the Department of
Energy and its National Nuclear Security Administration. The FY 2011 request for this
appropriation is $11.2 billion. This includes over $2 billion in funds to support the current
administration’s stepped-up efforts on nuclear non-proliferation. It also supports stockpile
management and what are called “major infrastructure improvements.”
The nuclear-weapon delivery systems, such as missiles, planes and submarines, are
developed, produced, manned, maintained and protected by their respective DoD
services. Estimating these costs within a given fiscal year is extraordinarily difficult given
that many such systems and personnel perform duties relating to both non-nuclear and
nuclear weapon operations. The DoD does not specifically break-out all of these costs.
The most extensive analysis of this cost (Steven I. Schwartz, Atomic Audit, p. 111 - for
FY2008) estimates DoD nuclear force & operational support costs of $22.5 billion and
this likely remains the best current cost approximation (“Nuclear Security Spending,”
Stephen I. Schwartz with Deepti Choubey, 2009)

The FY 2011 request for “Deterrence”, that is, the US nuclear force (including all
the above mentioned related costs) is approximately $33.7 billion.

 Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD)
Ballistic missile defenses, or “Star Wars” type systems (renamed as the “Missile Defense
Agency” in 2002) exist in various stages of development.
There are systems designed to defend against large scale attacks from Russia and
China, and also against small scale “limited” ballistic missile attacks including regional
missile threats to US forces (and even targets in “space”). The “attackers” may include
North Korea, non-state actors, and possible future entrants such as Iran.
In theory, this can be defined as a genuinely defensive military system, and therefore we
include this spending in our “protection of US territory” category. However, we
acknowledge 2 problems with this:
1) BMD is viewed by many as an offensive weapon because it makes a “first strike”
more viable by reducing effective retaliation – reducing deterrence.
2) It has long been recognized that any BMD can be overwhelmed by an expansion of
the opponent's forces, provoking an endless arms race. As a result, any large scale BMD
would be immensely costly, if it ever succeeds technically - which it has not yet shown
any sign of doing. Therefore, to say that BMD is actually protecting US territory is a
highly problematic statement.
The FY 2011 appropriation request for all BMD is $9.9 billion

Air Defense and Tracking
In FY2011, 1,010 Air National Guard, 134 Active Air Force, and 214 Air Force Reserve
personnel will comprise Air Sovereignty Alert operations to man the now 18 alert bases
responsible for U.S. territorial defense (16 of the bases are ANG, 2 are AF). These
FY2011 personnel, operations and maintenance costs are $256 million.
Command and control of this domestic air defense system is performed by the same
personnel (including the Joint Air Defense Operations Center for NORAD and US
NORTH COM) that track space objects and provide early warning of missile attack. This
warning would give US military leaders about 15 minutes to decide whether or not to
launch U.S. nuclear missiles, and if so, at which targets. These FY2011 personnel,
operations and maintenance costs are $92 million.
The FY 2011 request for the Air Defense and Tracking appropriation is $348 million

Civil Defense
Army and Air National Guard support 55 “Civil Support Teams” and 17 “Enhanced
Response Force Packages.” The FY2011 Operations and Maintenance for these units
and their transport is $362 million. The “Teams” are 22-person units, and the
“Packages” are 170-person units. Hence, over 4,000 persons are likely in, or supporting,
the units. We estimate the personnel costs at $360 million.

 The FY 2011 request for the Civil Defense appropriation is $722 million

The Department of Homeland Security
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was forged largely in the aftermath of
9/11. DHS includes functions and agencies as diverse as US Customs and Border Patrol
(the largest DHS budget item), the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the US
Coast Guard, the Secret Service, and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (which is in
part a National Guard function), airport screeners and other security-related capacities.
In their own words, the mission of DHS is as follows:
·
Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security— Guarding against terrorism was
the founding mission of DHS and remains our top priority today.
·
Securing and Managing the Nation’s Borders— DHS monitors our air, land and sea
borders to prevent illegal trafficking that threatens our country, while facilitating lawful
travel and trade.
·
Smart and Effective Enforcement of Immigration Laws—DHS is responsible for
enforcing the nation’s immigration laws while streamlining and facilitating the legal
immigration process.
·
Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace—The Department defends against, and
responds to, attacks on cyber networks – analyzing threats and vulnerabilities,
coordinating the response to cyber incidents and working with the private sector and our
state, local, international and private sector partners to ensure that our computers,
networks and cyber systems remain safe.
·
Preparing for, Responding to, and Recovering from Disasters—The Department
provides the coordinated, comprehensive federal response in the event of a terrorist
attack, natural disaster or other large-scale emergencies while working with federal,
state, local and private sector partners to ensure a swift and effective recovery effort.

The FY 2011 request (completely separate from DoD) for the Homeland Security
appropriation is just over $56 billion.

Defense against Conventional Attack
No country has the naval or air forces or the logistical support needed to launch a
conventional military attack on U.S. territory. Because of this situation, it is
understandable that the United States does not currently allocate any funds specifically
to defend against a military attack by another country's conventional (non-nuclear)
ground, air, or naval forces. Rather, our large conventional armed forces which are
perceived by many to exist for the purpose of defending the US against a conventional
attack are currently geared for other purposes, such as foreign wars.

 II. FORCES FOR USE OVERSEAS
The Defense Department Budget
The DoD budget is broken down into two categories: The Base Budget and Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO).

The Base Budget
Nearly all of the Base Budget is dedicated to support forces that are available for various
roles overseas: to prosecute foreign wars, to help defend certain nations from external
attack, to intimidate certain nations, to conduct other forms of unilateral and multilateral
intervention, and, in theory, to conduct humanitarian interventions within other nations.
Primary Categories in the FY 2011 Base Budget Request (in Billions) are as follows:
Military Personnel
Operation and Maintenance
Procurement
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
Military Construction
Discretionary (Revolving)
Family Housing

$138.5
$200.2
$112.9
$ 76.1
$ 16.9
$ 2.4
$ 1.8

Broken down by service category, the figures look like this:
Army
Navy (Marines)
Air Force
Defense-Wide

$143.4
$160.6
$150.0
$ 94.9

The Army and the Marines are organized into divisions and brigades of ground troops
with tanks, helicopters, artillery, and non-nuclear anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns and
missiles.
The Navy has two main force components, called 'Power Projection' and 'Sea Control'
forces. The Power Projection forces are centered on aircraft carriers and amphibious
assault ships - floating bases for Naval air forces and Marine ground troops, which can
launch an assault from offshore in any part of the world where the United States does
not have access to secure land bases. Carrier and amphibious battle groups include a
covey of other ships for their own protection and support: cruisers, destroyers, and

 frigates equipped with anti-aircraft and anti-submarine armament; 'hunter-killer'
submarines, designed to identify and destroy other submarines; and unarmed support
ships dedicated to the continual re-supply of fuel, ammunition, food, and so on. Sea
Control naval forces have the job of keeping the sea lanes open for commercial traffic
and for sea transport of military forces and supplies. (In the past, this meant being able
to find and destroy Soviet ships and submarines equipped with anti-ship cruise missiles
and torpedoes.)
The Air Force has two main components: Tactical Air power, comprising fighter and
attack aircraft, which are organized in squadrons and wings; and Airlift, comprising large
transport aircraft for moving ground forces and their equipment, as well as supplies for
the Tactical combat aircraft.
The Base Budget request is $549 billion.
Almost none of this $549 billion is directed to territorial defense.
One significant exception is the above mentioned $22.5 Billion for delivery systems and
personnel involved in nuclear weapon “deterrence”. The other exceptions add up to less
than $1.5 billion.
The FY2011 Base Budget request for use overseas is slightly over $525 billion

The Overseas Contingency Operations Budget (OCO)
OCO mostly funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus select counter-insurgency
operations in Pakistan.
$43.4 billion is requested for Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq), $110.3 billion requested for
Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan), and about 5 billion for Pakistan.
The FY2011 OCO Budget request is $159 billion
.

SUMMARY OF MILITARY SPENDING AS IT IS TODAY
I.

PROTECTION OF U.S. TERRITORY

Deterrence
Ballistic Missile Defense
Air Defense and Tracking
Department of Homeland Security
Civil Defense
TOTAL

33.7
9.9
0.3
56.0
0.7

Billion
Billion
Billion
Billion
Billion

100.6 Billion

 II.

FORCES FOR USE OVERSEAS

From the Base Budget

525 Billion

Overseas Contingency Operations Budget

159 Billion

TOTAL

784 Billion

MILITARY SPENDING AS IT COULD AND SHOULD BE
I. DETERRENCE
Regarding our nuclear forces maintained for deterrence - cutting back our current force
of several thousand nuclear warheads to a “minimum deterrent force” of a few hundred
warheads would create a more secure environment, in two ways. First, if we retire the
land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and B-1 and B-2 bomber aircraft,
leaving only the nuclear missiles based on submarines, we will go a long way towards
ending fears of hair-trigger alerts and pre-emptive, disarming strikes. Second, if we
replace the multiple nuclear warheads on the submarine-based missiles with single
nuclear warheads - reducing the force from many thousand nuclear bombs to a few
hundred - the world will see that the United States has abandoned its decades-old
“nuclear-warfighting” strategy (being prepared to escalate to a nuclear attack on
hundreds or thousands of military targets in an effort to support U.S. troops overseas),
and is limiting its remaining nuclear weapons to the more narrowly defensive role of
protecting U.S. territory from threats of nuclear attack (“Deterrence”). This will help stop
the proliferation of nuclear weapons to more and more countries and promote steps
toward global nuclear disarmament.
Moreover, this cutback in the size and scope of U.S. strategic nuclear forces would
make it possible to shut down most of the nuclear-weapon activities of the Department of
Energy. A small team should be retained for know-how, along with a somewhat larger
team assigned to the safe dismantling and disposal of the tens of thousands of nuclear
weapons and fissile material that remain in storage today.
With current spending on deterrence standing at about $33.7 billion, and taking into
account the above mentioned cutbacks in such forces, we recommend a budget for
deterrence of $15 billion.

II. HOMELAND SECURITY
The budget of the Department of Homeland Security should remain close to its current
level. This Department at least has as its goal the legitimate defense of the US territory.
All small scale threats can be handled by this department, and considering the difficulties
of defending against threats such as weapons of mass destruction crossing borders in
suitcases, container ships or commercial airplanes, a robust budget will be required.
Current Homeland Security functions and programs will need to be changed. We plan to
fully address these further important reforms and restructuring in future updates of this
article.

 We recommend a budget for the Department of Homeland Security of $50 Billion

III. AIR DEFENSE, TRACKING, AND CIVIL DEFENSE
We recommend a budget for Air Defense, Tracking, and Civil Defense similar to
what is currently budgeted, that is, about $1 Billion

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED NATIONAL DEFENSE SPENDING
In sum, our proposed budget for National Defense narrowly defined - that is, the
protection of U.S. territory, is as follows:

Deterrence:

$15 billion

Homeland Security Department

$50 billion

Air Defense, Tracking, and Civil Defense

$ 1 billion

Subtotal: National Defense

$66 billion

IV. Defense against Conventional Attack
While today no country has the naval or air forces or the logistical support needed to
launch a conventional military attack on U.S. territory, this situation could change over
time. Therefore, we propose additional spending to handle any future threat of a military
attack by another country's conventional (non-nuclear) ground, air, or naval forces. This
spending is discussed in the next section below.

V.

DEFENSE AND PEACE IN THE GLOBAL CONTEXT

In addition to retaining a minimum nuclear deterrent and keeping a watchful eye on
military-related developments around the world, the United States, as the world's
wealthiest nation, can and should take the lead in international efforts to promote peace
and democracy throughout the world. But this need not and should not mean U.S.
leaders' assuming the right to decide if and when the 'international community' should
intervene militarily in a foreign war, and if so, conducting the mission alone or under their
own authority.
The current unilateral U.S. approach to war and peace around the world leads to the
current predicament where taxpayers pay over $700 billion per year to finance a military

 establishment that is geared neither to defend U.S. territory nor to help people working
for peace in war-torn countries. For if U.S. forces were geared for national defense, then
certainly more than 12% of military spending would go to actual territorial defense. And if
U.S. forces were designed in any meaningful way to help people working for peace, then
why don’t we see massive deployments of peacekeepers in the Congo, Israel/Palestine,
Sudan, Chechnya, and countless other places?
We propose an alternative approach, in which rights, responsibilities, risks, and costs
are genuinely shared by the international community. This would be a far more effective
means of preventing and ending war than the current unilateral approach. Arrogating to
ourselves the roles of 'jury, judge, and executioner' can impede the spread of peace and
democracy. This new system would be far more likely to succeed - and would cost U.S.
taxpayers far less.
A detailed guide to such an approach is offered in the program of a new international
movement called Global Action to Prevent War (GAPW) (see www.globalactionpw.org).
This includes plans for the gradual transition to an international collective defense
system that covers all scenarios of threats to national security. Step by step, regional
and global security systems are built up while national militaries shed their offensive,
border crossing capabilities. And as we trade in our “go it alone” approach, each step of
the way US citizens gain, rather than lose, security, as wars become less and less likely
to occur.
GAPW includes useful systems for conflict resolution. For example, an oppressed group
in Uganda, needing help in ending human rights abuses, could petition the Organization
for African Unity or the International Court of Justice. If the problems continue, or
escalate in violence, they could appeal to a new Conflict Prevention Committee of the
UN General Assembly or to the UN Secretary-General. The General Assembly could put
pressure on the offending government while the Secretary-General would have the
authority to dispatch specially trained Emergency Peace Service
(www.globalactionpw.org/?page_id=60) personnel, including police and mediators, and,
if necessary, armed soldiers, to undertake appropriate actions. This would be much more
likely to prevent atrocities and avert escalations into greater conflicts and wars than the
current option of waiting and hoping for Washington or some other major capital to take
action, or waiting for the UN to cobble together sufficient peacekeepers using current
systems and procedures.
We recommend $100 billion to be spent on forces to prevent and end cross-border
attacks, including those against the USA, in cooperation with like-minded nations. This
amount would be greater than the military budget of any other nation today and, together
with the spending of other countries, should be more than enough to preserve or restore
peace around the world in the event of cross-border aggression or even internal
genocide.
Since presently no country has the naval or air forces or the logistical support needed to
launch a conventional military attack on U.S. territory, this level of spending is enough to
keep the US territory safe from any current conventional (non-nuclear) ground, air, or
naval threat. And because the current level of conventional threat is so low. we will have
plenty of lead time to increase this spending if emerging threats are detected and require
more spending.

 Globally, this $100 billion is a large enough US contribution today to keep the peace in
the world’s most contentious hotspots, including the Middle East and Korea. But to be
prudent, such hotspots should be reassessed frequently to determine what the world
needs to do collectively to keep the peace, and how much the US may have to increase
its contribution.
Adding this $100 billion to the $66 billion allocated for national defense narrowly defined,
we arrive at a total military spending package of $166 billion. Compared with the FY
2011 budget of $739 billion for the Defense Department plus the nuclear-weapon related
activities of the Energy Department, this represents a savings of well over $500 billion
every year. In addition to supporting a military posture more likely to foster peace and
democracy around the world, redirecting funds of this magnitude to constructive human
ends would change the United States and the world in previously unthinkable,
immensely positive ways.

CONVERSION, DISMANTLING, DISPOSAL, BASE CLOSINGS
Some of the redirected $500 billion annual savings should fund "economic conversion"
programs to wean some communities off dependence on high military spending. This
should include funds to help with the problems associated with base closings, and the
dismantling, disposal and clean up of military hardware as it is retired.

RELATIVE SPENDING
As noted by Glenn Greenwald in Common Dreams (2010), the facts about America's
bloated, excessive, always-increasing military spending are now well-known. “The U.S.
spends almost as much on military spending as the entire rest of the world combined,
and spends roughly six times more than the second-largest spender, China. Even as
the U.S. sunk under increasingly crippling levels of debt over the last decade, defense
spending rose steadily, sometimes precipitously. That explosion occurred even as overall
military spending in the rest of the world decreased, thus expanding the already-vast gap
between our expenditures and the world's.”

CIA, DIA, VETERANS AFFAIRS and the STATE DEPARTMENT
These agencies also have large budgets, and their activities are closely related to the
issues discussed in this article. However, in the interests of clarity, our scope is limited to
the budgets of departments such as DoD and Energy which are more directly connected
to military spending.

THE NATIONAL GUARD
Within the FY 2011 DoD request, allocations for the Army National Guard are $15.06
Billion, and for the Air National Guard $9.22 Billion – a total of about $24 Billion.
Within this $24 billion, the DoD budget request breaks down figures for the use of
National Guard forces in Overseas Contingency Operations: $1.37 Billion for the Army

 National Guard and $370 Million for the Air National Guard are specifically included in
the above $159 Billion OCO budget. It is difficult to track the remaining funding, but it is
important to note that while these units were formerly restricted to domestic tasks such
as disaster relief, now they are currently being used on a large scale to supplement
‘regular’ Army and Air Force units fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nearly 28% of total US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan at the end of 2007 consisted of
mobilized personnel of the National Guard and other Reserve components (according to
the Associated Press 2/12/08.)
Currently, National Guard funding can not be properly termed as “national defense”
spending.

WASTE
The famous $1000 coffee pots and other scandals of waste are clearly the smaller part
of the problem. The truly gigantic waste lies in the funding of monstrously expensive,
unneeded weapons programs, and the maintenance of excess forces that are not
necessary for territorial defense.

POSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOPS
International peacekeeping offers big benefits to defensively-oriented military policies,
and vice versa. A well-developed international peacekeeping system would make large
national defense budgets unnecessary. And nations with small, defensive military
budgets are likely to support international peacekeeping efforts because they cannot
afford to go it alone. And then, as the peacekeeping systems become more successful,
nations will feel safer and spend less on their militaries, which in turn makes international
peacekeeping even more successful, further encouraging nations to reduce their
offensive capabilities.

MINDSET
The ‘Overview’ of the 2011 US Department of Defense Budget submitted for
Congressional approval provides a rationale for its vast request for military expenditures:
“America’s interests and role in the world require armed forces with unmatched
capabilities and a willingness on the part of the nation to employ them in defense of our
interests and the common good. The United States remains the only nation able to
protect and sustain large-scale operations over extended distances.”
Unfortunately, the “large-scale operations” referred to here are ruinously expensive, and
will leave our nation financially unable to solve our most important problems, including
climate change, crumbling infrastructures, budget deficits, etc. Fortunately, as this paper
shows, these “operations” are not necessary for our national security, and we have
better alternatives that will keep our nation secure both militarily and financially.

 MORE THAN TINKERING
The policy habits embedded in our latest military budget request can be broken; the
addiction to bloated military budgets can be cured. To achieve such a big change in
policy, a massive public demand for it is crucial. First, the public needs to see just where
their hard earned dollars are currently going, and then see clearly the better alternative,
including a new more collective role for the USA to play in the world.
The rewards are great, including over 500 billion dollars in savings every year. But it will
take more than tinkering. It will require more than canceling a few aircraft orders, redeploying a few battalions and closing a few bases. The changes we need are vast and
wide ranging. We must first wipe the slate completely clean and ask the key question:
“what does defense spending look like when it is limited to the defense of US territory?”
At the same time we must make a commitment to global collaborative security as we
build up international institutions of conflict resolution. Then we can look to a future
where we project the power of international law more than the power of weapons.

OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR US MILITARY SPENDING IN
FY2011:
Defense of US Territory

$ 66 Billion

Contribution to the Global Security System $100 Billion
__________________________________________________
Total
$166 Billion