STRATEGIC

160 Strategic Choices for a Turbulent World: In Pursuit of Security and Opportunity
in 2010 to 3.5 percent in 2014 to 2.3 percent of GDP by 2024. Nevertheless,
in real terms, the United States would still be outspending its
closest competitors combined, not to mention every one of its allies.
To achieve these spending reductions, the United States would
abandon the long-standing defense strategy that required the military
to be capable of fighting in two theaters simultaneously. It would
accept that the United States will not fight more than one war at a
time, and adjust its military posture accordingly. The Army would
shrink to below its current manpower strength; the Navy and Air Force
would decrease more modestly. Modernization programs would slow
as the United States would need fewer power-projection capabilities,
and readiness would be “tiered” to place more reliance on National
Guard and Reserve forces. Special Forces would be increased in light
of their utility in counterterrorism missions. As part of a robust defensive
stance, this strategy would enhance missile defenses but would
not modernize all of the nuclear triad. The sea-based nuclear deterrent
Figure 7.1
U.S. Defense Spending as a Percentage of GDP
20
U.S. defense spending (percentage)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
Korean War era
16%
4.5%
Vietnam War era
8.5%
Reagan build up
6.5%
Surge in
Afghanistan/
Iraq peaks
4.5%
0
1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005
Year
SOURCE: Office for the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), 2016.
RAND RR1631-7.1
2015