Military Power Argument Analysis

Throughout the history of the United States, military power has been one of the biggest sources of national pride. Now we have hit a point where, according to some people, the military has become too large and the costs are too expensive. Others would argue that the military size is a trademark of the United States, and is vital to the safety of the country. Mainstream media constantly publicizes the debates over military size, and this debate has become ever more important with the increasing severity of the war on terror. What makes this argument so unique is the amount of different viewpoints there are on this topic and that it pertains to all American Citizens. Although there are many different views on this topic, arguments over United

One side of the argument states that we need to decrease funding to make room for spending in other areas of the government (ex. healthcare). Barney Frank states, “If we fail to cut military spending, it will be impossible to fund domestic spending at necessary levels.” This is a major concern for people siding with this argument. The idea presented by this side is a “pay ourselves first before we worry about other countries” kind of mentality. Debaters on this side want to make our welfare systems and the development of our country a priority over the size of our military. In the book Money and Sense, Eric Weltman expresses frustrations by stating, “People are upset that there is an overabundance being spent on military, and not on other community programs.” These people believe that there are other ways money could be spent to help protect our communities in other ways. One idea presented by this side is converting a portion of the money spent on the military currently into a community center or community development program that could help end youths entering gangs or other common problems society faces

Decisions made over this could potentially affect the safety of all citizens. It also affects the amount of money that Americans spend in tax dollars each year. An increase in military would increase the safety of our country while also raising the amount of money paid in taxes. On the other hand, decreasing the military size could potentially leave America at a disadvantage when it comes to protecting the homeland, but there would be less tax money paid. The debate lies essentially on whether our military would be able to withstand heavy attacks with reductions in numbers or if it would need to sustain its current size to uphold against any potential heavy attacks. Is it worth risking the lives of many to save money on taxes? Or do we have enough of a buffer zone to still decrease the size of the military and be just as safe? This debate will continue on for many years to come, as it is so vital to the safety of every United States citizen and could determine whether our country prospers or succumbs to outside