Student handout · Discussion & Debate
Cutting military budgets to fund public services: a discussion lesson for Korean high schoolers who know exactly what's at stake
Budget Priorities: Defence vs. Public Services
The scenario: Korea's government has ₩100 billion in additional funding to allocate. It must choose where to spend it — or it can reallocate money from one area to another.
Current spending breakdown (simplified)
| Category | Annual Budget (₩ trillions) | % of total budget |
|---|---|---|
| Defence | 57 | 11% |
| Healthcare | 95 | 18% |
| Education | 78 | 15% |
| Welfare | 210 | 40% |
Arguments: For maintaining/increasing military spending
- North Korea remains a direct threat; cutting defence puts lives at risk
- A smaller military budget could mean longer conscription terms or worse equipment
- Defence jobs support families in smaller cities
- If Korea reduces its military, it becomes more dependent on the U.S.
Arguments: For cutting military spending to fund public services
- Korea spends more on defence per capita than Japan or most EU countries
- Free university tuition would cost ₩10 trillion/year — less than 20% of the current defence budget
- An aging population needs healthcare more than new fighter jets
- Conscription already provides cheap labour; the budget goes to procurement, not soldiers
Your task (Part 2): In your group, decide on ONE reallocation. Cut ₩20 billion from one category and add it to another. Write one sentence explaining who benefits and who loses.