Response to: What You Should Know About War and the Economy-Economically Speaking, Peace is Preferable to War; Wining is Expensive But Losing Costs More

article top

“ORENDT-Cir-Flg Image”

Although I agree that military spending is bad for the economy, social program spending is even more so. The war on drugs is by far money worse spent.


A lot of military spending goes toward the development of new weapons. The use of those weapons is bad economically as the broken window example illustrates.

“What You Should Know About War and the Economy Sidebar”

However, the development of new weapons is good economically for a few reasons. One, there are indeed beneficial scientific, engineering and commercial spin-offs from weapons programs. Two, superior weapons are a good deterrent toward war, especially when linked with an administration that puts the weapons to use when necessary as in Desert Storm. Less collateral damage results from a surgical strike with smart bombs and is indeed preferable to dropping a larger, less accurate bomb. The new unmanned, remotely controlled reconnaissance and attack aircraft are preferable to putting American pilots at risk.

“First Airborne Laser Weapon sidebar”

Also, currently under development is the first airborne laser weapon, which could be used to intercept Scud missiles.

A lot of the anti-war rhetoric focuses on the war on Iraq. Let us not forget that Iraq is merely the first target of the war on terrorism. It is hoped that a swift, decisive victory in Iraq will motivate other countries, which currently sponsor terrorism, to clean their own houses. If this does not happen there will be war beyond Iraq.

“John Orendt Bio Sidebar”