Low military spending should lead to the increased likelihood of being assassinated by patriots or having a coup, currently there doesn’t seem to be any cost to not funding the military (especially if your mil spending was very high).
It’s not that easy IRL.
Still, the increase should be more than zero, there should be some anger amongst patriots and military for defunding the military.
1 Like
I feel like security for the head of state would be separated from military spending in most countries. For example the Secret Service in the US.
1 Like
well its the inverse, in that the patriots like the military, so by definition reducing funding will reduce their happiness. Also, if you take a look at the US, the military spending boosts technology and reduces unemployment a lot. Reducing military spending in the US seems like a game-exploiting easy win, until you realize unemployment is shooting up.
There are also some events (most notably the foreign neighbor missile test, but soon to include 2 special ones for the UK) that are triggered by a reduction in military spending, and those events have negative impacts.
I agree with Gilliam that presidential security is more of an intelligence service issue than military. If the safety of the president was linked to the military budget, Kennedy wouldn’t have died, and nobody would have got anywhere close to shooting at Reagan 
3 Likes
The Military funding supports all the paramilitaries in the US too for example, so after the Capitol attacks, there would’ve been no National Guard to protect Congress, and the Right-Wing Militias would’ve had a free run. And many patriotic soldiers would probably form some said right-wing militias after the defunding of the military to attack the seat of power. Military spending keeps some extreme right-wing types out of the streets and in the military where they can be controlled by the state. Or to be more politically neutral many extremist militants.
1 Like