Let us imagine
a floating city that houses a population of roughly 6000 individuals.
Let us imagine the costs to provide electricity to these 6000 individuals
is roughly identical to that of providing electricity to a small
city which populates 100,000. Let us further imagine paying these
6000 individuals to live on this floating city as well as paying
any costs to support and maintain their stay. Finally, let us reveal
this floating paradise for what it truly is: a colossal apparatus
of butchery that costs the taxpayer billions in annual dollars!
The purpose
of this article is to fry but a small fish in a vast pond of governmental
inefficiency.
Those who typically
support the construction and operation of the aircraft carrier employ
the following argument "the navy's ability to carry out the
U.S. military strategies is highly dependent on its ability to supply
tactical air power at sea…" (see David Isenberg: The
Illusion of Power), yet at what cost? It is estimated
that a Nimitz Class aircraft carrier costs, on average,
$22 billion dollars each (see below), of which we currently harbor
ten — with an additional three in the pipeline of procurement.
-
Construction
Costs — $4.5 billion -
Mid-life
Overhaul Costs — $2.3 billion -
Operating
and Support Costs — $14 billion -
Other
Costs — $1 billion -
Total
Average Cost — $22 billion each
(As
estimated in life-cycle costs of 1997 dollars)
However, the
costs outlined above do not fully inform the taxpayer of actual
overheads. Like the forty-five carat Hope Diamond, these expensive
naval ships spend more time being secured than actually employed.
According to defense analyst Edward N. Luttwak, it is estimated
"that more than $6 billion worth of ships, as well as salaries,
benefits, and pensions for 8,000 people are needed to keep a carrier-based
air wing of 90 planes at sea (Pentagon
and the Art of War)."
Yet, aside
from their expensive nature what benefits are gained from the procurement
of such expensive vessels? For example, if the U.S. operated under
the banner of neutrality, whereas military expenditures were dedicated
only to the cause of protection, would such expensive acquisitions
be condoned? Indeed, if oceans
or militaries
were privatized would we see such expensive acquisitions? The answer
within such a political environment as we have today is likely no.
In all, these large war devices have no place outside an aggressive
hegemony
There just
is no threat aside from continued tax theft!
At an annual
budget of roughly $650+ billion
dollars, the United States spends as much on its military per
year as the top 21 competing nations. Or in other language, at the
rank of number one for military expenditures the U.S. outspends
ranks 2–21 combined per year on their military (see below).
Rank
Country
Military
expenditures (USD)
u2014
World
Total
1,470,000,000,000
u2014
NATO Total
1,049,875,309,000
1
United
States
663,700,000,000
2
People’s
Rep. of China
70,308,600,000
3
United
Kingdom
65,149,500,000
4
Japan
48,860,000,000
5
France
47,421,250,000
6
Germany
45,930,000,000
7
Turkey
40,936,000,000
8
Italy
40,050,000,000
9
Russian
Federation
39,600,000,000
10
India
32,700,000,000
11
Iraq
32,400,000,000
12
Saudi
Arabia
31,050,000,000
13
South
Korea
28,500,000,000
14
Brazil
23,972,836,012
15
Australia
23,040,500,000
16
Canada
19,038,161,370
17
Spain
18,974,000,000
18
Israel
13,300,000,000
19
Netherlands
12,000,000,000
20
Poland
11,791,000,000
21
Republic
of China (Taiwan)
10,500,000,000
(See
CIA
website or List
of countries by military expenditures)
Furthermore,
at an annual operating and supporting cost of roughly $300
million dollars per carrier, the United States spends more per
year on their 10 aircraft carriers than most countries spend on
their entire military budget!
Thus, before
this country can begin to realize the temperament of domestic security
it must first be stripped of such aggressive and cumbersome armament.
Let these bulky naval bodies be pawned off to carnival cruise lines
or salvaged for it materials. Let this be the end of the era of
large navy ships.
October
21, 2009
Jeremiah
Dyke [send him mail]
is a math teacher who hails free markets and freedom of choice.
