Download Free Long Term Defense Spending Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Long Term Defense Spending and write the review.

U.S. defense spending isn’t excessive and, in fact, should continue to grow because it’s both affordable and necessary in today's challenging world. The United States spends a lot of money on defense—$607 billion in the current fiscal year. But Brookings national security scholar Michael O'Hanlon argues that is roughly the right amount given the overall size of the national economy and continuing U.S. responsibilities around the world. If anything, he says spending should increase modestly under the next president, remaining near 3 percent of gross domestic product. Recommendations in this book differ from the president's budget plan in two key ways. First, the author sees a mismatch in the Pentagon’s current plans between ends and means. The country needs to spend enough money to carry out its military missions and commitments. Second, O'Hanlon recommends dropping a plan to cut the size of the Army from the current 475,000 active-duty soldiers to 450,000. The U.S. national defense budget is entirely affordable—relative to the size of the economy, relative to past levels of effort by this country in the national security domain, and relative, especially, to the costs of failing to uphold a stable international order. Even at a modestly higher price, it will be the best $650 billion bargain going, and a worthy investment in this country’s security and its long-term national power.
In January 2003, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published The Long-Term Implications of Current Defense Plans (ADA410669), which was based on the fiscal year 2003 budget and the Department of Defense's Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) of that same year. CBO updated that analysis in July 2003 (ADA416284); its publication The Long-Term Implications of Current Defense Plans: Summary Update for Fiscal Year 2004 revised CBO's earlier work to take into account changes incorporated in the President's budget for fiscal year 2004 and the 2004 FYDP. Because it was a summary, the July 2003 paper omitted many of the detailed data displays contained in CBO's January 2003 study. This briefing updates those omitted displays consistent with the 2004 FYDP. The briefing does not incorporate changes to the FYDP resulting from Congressional action on the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request.
Authors: Lane Pierrot and Gregory T. Kiley.
Published each year since 1959, The Military Balance is an indispensable reference to the capabilities of armed forces across the globe. It is used by academia, the media, armed forces, the private sector and government. It is an open-source assessment of the military forces and equipment inventories of 171 countries, with accompanying defence economics and procurement data. Alongside detailed country data, The Military Balance assesses important defence issues, by region, as well as key global trends, such as in defence technology and equipment modernisation. This analysis is accompanied by full-colour graphics, including maps and illustrations. With extensive explanatory notes and reference information, The Military Balance is as straightforward to use as it is extensive. The 2022 edition is accompanied by a fullcolour wall chart illustrating security dynamics in the Arctic.
This is a print on demand edition of a hard to find publication. Restoring America¿s economic health will require dealing with our federal budget deficit over the long term. Reducing that deficit will require reducing the projected level of defense spending over the next 5 years. The defense budget can and should be reduced without harming national security for 3 reasons: (1) The portion of the world¿s military expend. the U.S. consumes compared to our potential adversaries has grown from 60% to 250%, so even if the U.S. were to cut its spending in half it would still be spending more than its adversaries; (2) The global security environment has changed, so we can reduce the overall size and deployment posture of our armed forces; (3) Significant tech. advances make our fighting forces far more efficient than even in the near past.