One might think this is simply a budgeting and accounting exercise. That's part of it, but it's actually a conceptual exercise: what do we mean by "defense" or "national security"
I like thinking of the "defense budget" as "the money dedicated to fighting wars, preparing for yet more wars, and dealing with the consequences of wars already fought."
- The Overseas Contingency Operations & Supplemental Budget
The "Base Budget" includes pay to personnel and staff, procurement for weapons systems, R&D, facilities maintenance, and a portion for the US nuclear weapons programs (we'll come back to that).
The Overseas Contingency Operations & Supplemental Budget is essentially the "War Operations" budget
This is what covers the costs of war operations IN Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or anywhere that is classified as an overseas "Global War on Terror" operation
Combined, these make up the bulk of what we call the "defense budget"
In sum, coming up with a final number for 🇺🇸 defense spending is hard. It's both a conceptual (what is defense?) & budgetary (who gets how much money for what?) challenge.
That's just ONE reason it's difficult to know much the 🇺🇸 spends on defense compared to the rest of 🌏.
I'll go into more reasons in later threads
[END]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The @WhiteHouse released an "Interim National Security Strategic Guidance" this week. After reading it, I'm sure international relations scholars will go.....hmmmmmm 🤔
Don't get me wrong. I agree with @MatthewKroenig that releasing this document is a good thing: folks are anxious to know more about what "America is Back" means. This document offers some...well..."guidance" (hence the name)
And given how early it is being released (for example, 2017 NSS wasn't released until December of Trump's first year) sends a useful signal about intentions
Possible 🇺🇸 arms sales restrictions on 🇸🇦 raises a question: Is there such a thing as a "defensive weapon"? Can some weapons ONLY be used to STOP attacks?
International Relations scholars are (mostly) unanimous: No
Also, it is possible that a state's military will have a "defensive strategy" -- i.e. non-expansionist -- rather than an "offensive strategy" -- i.e. expansionist.
What causes civil wars? Are they driven by ethnic differences? By poverty? Something else?
Here is how my Quantitative Security students will explore those questions.
[THREAD]
Unlike the quantitative study of interstate war, civil wars didn't receive big attention until the 1990s. That decade witnessed a spike in the number of internal wars, especially relative to "inter-state wars".
After 4 years of Donald Trump, the US must "reassure" its allies.
That's what I'm reading/hearing lately, such as in this @nytimes piece. What do international relations scholars know about reassuring allies? Can it be done? Is it even needed?
This passage from the article captures well the call for "reassurance": the US must convince its allies in Asia and Europe that the US would indeed use its nukes to protect them.
That's a tall order!
Indeed, such a tall order that it's been a major question explored by international relations scholars for a long time. A LONG TIME.