The United States is unlikely to fight a war at home, and a potential great power conflict abroad would likely be a choice rather than an inevitability. Yet Washington demands that Americans make a generational investment in the military without naming the costs or identifying the conditions in which the United States would decrease security spending in the future. Arms industry spokespeople and government officials promote a military buildup in the name of great power competition, but they neglect to define its contours – or make a compelling case for how it advances core national interests.

At this moment, inflating the Pentagon budget appears to be an end itself rather than a means to building an effective national defense. The military is not, in fact, the best or the only way for the United States to address national security threats. So as decisionmakers digest proposals to increase national security spending, expand the defense industrial base, and loosen weapon acquisition, they should consider the strategic and fiscal challenges that might face their successors in thirty years.

In 2024, interest payments on the debt will exceed the Pentagon base budget for the first time. In the next decade, personnel and weapon sustainment costs will exceed the rate of inflation – accounting for nearly 70% of Pentagon budget growth. These problems will only compound with time, with future generations forced to shoulder the economic burden if the United States does not change course.