"If I'm going to validate a number for spending, I'm going to need a number that both shows what we have to protect and how much we can use to that effect."
And this is the exact point I disagree with. Both of those things, how much you have to protect and how much you have to use, are much less relevant than another factor: how much your enemies can bring to bear against you. You could be the richest country in the world (you are), but if no power has any chance whatsoever of conquering you (they don't), you don't need any more power than what is needed to generously counter those threats.
"Your whole argument is based on the nuance that it's not just GDP, you're right and I haven't tried to state otherwise."
Any wording of that sentence (Military need is proportional to value) is wrong, no matter how weak. Military need is not even *related* to your GDP, at least in the case of the US. Your GDP could be a trillion dollars, 10 trillion (pretty close to what it actually is, according to the CIA factbook), or it could be 10 octillion. All that matters is that nobody has the power to take it from you, except at the cost of their very existence. That's the relevant measure: you vs. your enemies, as Chaerophon originally said. Not spending vs. GDP, or even spending vs. "value" in any sense.
Are you no longer disagreeing with Minionman and Chaerophon? Or is there some nuance to your argument I'm missing?
Jester
And this is the exact point I disagree with. Both of those things, how much you have to protect and how much you have to use, are much less relevant than another factor: how much your enemies can bring to bear against you. You could be the richest country in the world (you are), but if no power has any chance whatsoever of conquering you (they don't), you don't need any more power than what is needed to generously counter those threats.
"Your whole argument is based on the nuance that it's not just GDP, you're right and I haven't tried to state otherwise."
Any wording of that sentence (Military need is proportional to value) is wrong, no matter how weak. Military need is not even *related* to your GDP, at least in the case of the US. Your GDP could be a trillion dollars, 10 trillion (pretty close to what it actually is, according to the CIA factbook), or it could be 10 octillion. All that matters is that nobody has the power to take it from you, except at the cost of their very existence. That's the relevant measure: you vs. your enemies, as Chaerophon originally said. Not spending vs. GDP, or even spending vs. "value" in any sense.
Are you no longer disagreeing with Minionman and Chaerophon? Or is there some nuance to your argument I'm missing?
Jester