Right at the beginning: He claims it's "fairer" to see military spending as percentage of GDP. WHY??? Just because you are richer you need more military than the next 8 militaries combined? If that's the "logic" of the presenter I don't think he is worth listening to. It's not like I'm not open for argument - but this isn't an argument, it's just silly. Here's how an argument could go: You look at the NEED for a military, and THEN you argue for size. To argue for an oversize military size just "because you can" is stupid. And is that even true, *can* the US afford it? Aren't there some minor issues with employment (and level of pay even if you have employment), infrastructure, etc.? Oh well, never mind. Unless of course one sees the military as a means to have some planned government-controlled economy and socialism through the back door, with a focus on the economic part of the military, the production of arms, the jobs. Which part from any economic or political arguments has the advantage of creating additional military capabilities that would not have been created had the focus been on the military-needs-analysis to begin with. Those capabilities then are available to be used -- and therefore *will* be used (because it's already there).