The timing was perfect. In the April 18 Recorder, Carol and Peter Letson wrote about “Our country’s apportioning over half of our federal monies to support the weapons industry and the military” and referenced Eisenhower’s warning about the military-industrial complex [“Military spending ‘beyond bearable’”].

In the April 19 Recorder, I wrote a footnote to their letter to add Congress to the equation, making it the military-industrial-congressional complex [“The ‘iron triangle’”].

In the April 20 Recorder, a front-page headline announced “Barnes getting new squadron of F-35 fighter jets,” and on the editorial page a letter praised U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Congressman Richard Neal for their support of the F-35 fighter program [“F-35s a morale booster”].

An admittedly hasty search revealed that the cost of an F-35 fighter jet is at least $110 million, while the Greenfield School District’s FY23 budget is approximately $5.5 million. Put another way, the cost of a single F-35 jet could fund the Greenfield School District at today’s rate for 20 years.

Barnes Air National Guard base will receive 18 new F-35 jets at a cost of approximately $1.98 billion. Barnes’s neighbor Westfield State University’s FY23 budget is approximately $111.5 million, roughly the cost of one F-35 jet, meaning the new squadron at Barnes could fund Westfield at today’s levels for the next 18 years.

Another way to look at United States military spending is by its percentage of the total gross domestic product of the nation. According to one source, the United States spends 3.2% ($801 billion) of its GDP on the military. Our nearest neighbor, with whom we share the longest border and the deepest historical and cultural heritage, Canada, spends 1.3% ($26.4 billion) on its military.

Among other former colonies of the British Empire, India spends 2.4% ($76.6 billion), and Australia spends 2% ($31.8 billion). Former adversaries, now allies, Germany and Japan spend 1.4% ($56 billion) and 1.1% ($54.1 billion), respectively.

Among our North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) partners, the United Kingdom spends 2.1% ($68.4 billion) and France spends 2% ($56.6 billion). Considering our most serious current adversaries, Russia spends 3.1% ($65.9 billion) and China spends 1.7% ($293 billion).

The United States accounts for 38% of total global spending on the military, while the next closest nation is China, which accounts for 14% of the world total.

A friend who saw my letter of April 19 asked if I had a plan to address the problem. I do not. The April 20 Recorder shows just how difficult it would be to reverse the direction of the past 60 years. A problem 60 years in the making requires a long-term solution and lots of patience.

Would term limits help? Maybe. Would campaign finance reform help? Maybe. The solution requires more than either of those options. It requires a change in our cultural values, a change akin to that which has seen our attitudes toward smoking transform so dramatically over the past 60 years. Change starts with small steps.

Can the United States spend less on the military and remain a safe and secure nation? Yes. Could we devote more of our resources to crucial domestic priorities, such as education and health? Of course we could. Will we?

Larry Dean lives in Greenfield.

]]>