Colonel K, Ike was wrong. His “zero sum game” assumption about the economics of defense spending is overly simplistic. For example, the U.S. investment in capital ships, lift capacity, and trained expertise has huge implications when deployed in various regions of the globe. Money spent on a naval ship does not equate to theft from the hungry. The ensuing stability, relief from disaster, and deterrent effect, bolster productivity and investment, the formation of stable governments, and the efficient distribution of essential goods. Open sea lanes allow for the benefits of global trade. Lawful use of international airspace, likewise produces benefits that far exceed the costs of a vigorous military program. To assume that funds allocated for defense security are all “wasted” and consist of depriving civilian expenditures is illogical. Is a well financed and trained police department a drain on the town where it operates? Or do the residents, businesses, churches, and schools thrive in peace and security? So it is with national and global security issues as well. A properly-funded (not over indulged) military is an asset.
Charles Martel:
Nicely stated. Winning the Battle of Tours was of huge economic benefit to France.