By Van Abbott
America once built dreams; now it builds weapons and calls it security.
Over the past five years, the United States has increased defense and related security spending from roughly $700 billion to nearly $1 trillion annually. Projections suggest total outlays could approach $1.5 trillion by 2027. These figures are so vast they no longer shock.
Yet the central question remains largely unasked in Washington: Why?
Are the threats facing the nation truly so great as to justify ever-expanding commitments? Or has the country come to equate security with spending while overlooking the costs elsewhere?
Every bomber produced, every missile tested, carries a tradeoff: a school not built, research deferred, a patient left without care, a community left behind.
During the Cold War, policymakers spoke of peace through strength – but strength was paired with restraint. Today, it risks becoming an end unto itself.
Instead of prioritizing medical breakthroughs or energy innovation, the nation channels its intellectual capital into refining weapons systems. Each additional trillion directed toward defense reduces the capacity to invest in long-term economic vitality.
The consequences extend beyond budgets. Policies that restrict skilled immigration and limit educational visas discourage global talent from choosing American institutions. In the name of security, the nation risks weakening one of its greatest sources of strength: openness to ideas.
Proponents argue that defense spending supports jobs and economic activity. In a narrow sense, this is true. But much of that activity is tied to weapons production rather than broadly shared prosperity.
Communities need investment in education, healthcare, and infrastructure, not dependence on military contracts.
An economy oriented around conflict cannot deliver durable growth. Redirect even a fraction of current military spending toward clean energy, transportation, or disease prevention, and the benefits would multiply across generations.
This concern is not new. President Dwight Eisenhower warned that a growing military-industrial structure could distort national priorities. That structure has since expanded into a network of contractors, lobbyists, and political incentives. Budget decisions now reflect not only strategic necessity but also institutional momentum.
At the same time, the assumption that greater military spending guarantees greater security is rarely examined. Many of the nation’s most pressing challenges are domestic: aging infrastructure, rising costs of living, uneven education, and widening inequality. Military power cannot repair bridges, reduce household strain, or improve public health.
America’s global leadership was built not only on military capability but on innovation, openness, and cooperation. An overreliance on military dominance risks eroding those advantages. By prioritizing military strength over internal renewal, the nation weakens the foundation it seeks to defend.
The United States now faces a defining choice. It can continue expanding the machinery of war, or it can invest in the conditions that make strength possible: education, research, infrastructure, and public health.
Strength is not measured by the size of arsenals. It is measured by the vitality of a society and the opportunities it creates.
Van Abbott is a retired financial manager who served as a teacher in the Peace Corps. He resides in Alaska.
