Is that what $2T a year is buying? Looking at the wars over the last twenty years, it's far from clear that the presence of the US military has really helped reduce or end conflict.
Not living in a war-torn country like Ukraine where schools and scientists are being hit by missiles?
You might make a compelling argument that us defense spending hasn't helped conflict abroad, but the last military conflict of note on us soil was Pearl Harbor in World War II.
A reasonable person might conclude that us defense spending has been very effective at preventing military conflicts on us soil.
And maybe the case that us defense spending even increases the number of global conflicts if it reduces the chance of conflict at home.
The question isn't if the US defense spending increases or decreases total conflict, but for whom it increases or decreases conflict
> Russia invaded Ukraine. Unless you think Russia is a US puppet helping the US weaken Russia, I think you should check your prejudices.
The US had been supporting Ukraine before that, both by proxy and explicitly (https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/). The Russian invasion was incidental to, not a trigger to instigating, the US support of Ukraine. The over-arching behavior, of weakening Russian influence in a region, has been consistent.
I think it's a valid point and the meaning is clear. If you want me to spell it out, it would be to the advantage of the US military security if every combat capable Ukrainian and Russian were dead.
Ukrainian life isn't a threat as much as trivial cost.
Given this priority, it should be no surprise that US military policy results in great death and destruction abroad but not at home.
> it's far from clear that the presence of the US military has really helped reduce or end conflict
This is difficult to answer. What can be shown is the post-WWII era has been unusually peaceful within the scope of the modern era of nation states. We’re coming up against the century of no great power conflicts of the Metternich Era.
The fact is that US military spending is not to prop up the military. A lot of it is basically just a make work program for civilians.
Military leaders have warned for years that one of our biggest threats is our deficit and borrowing money. Every time that the military tries to close unneeded bases and get rid of weapons that aren’t needed, they are thwarted by Congress who doesn’t want to lose jobs in their district.
There is a reason that military weapon makers spread out manufacturing throughout the US.
The worldwide US military presence has a suppressive effect on wars; I'm confident south-east Asia would have been in multiple wars since WW2 if it wasn't for US presence, and Russia would've tried to take back its former soviet countries if it wasn't for NATO which is mostly the US's $2T army.
And I don't think the US has had to deploy its full capacity for a long time, not even Iraq / Afghanistan. That's more of a logistics issue though, they could've multiplied their forces and materials but it wouldn't be any more beneficial.
