Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
War is extremely productive.
If it was true that it is a complete disaster for everybody involved then we wouldnt be involved in multiple conflicts already. Yes I am aware that people die and know personally how that feels but that doesnt change the fact that wars progress technology at an otherwise unprecedented rate (no not the only benefit but the most difficult to dispute).
No, it's not. You might see an increase in productivity because of a war but it's at the expense of consumer spending and debt. This is why Keynes whole 'start a war to get out of a recession' logic is fundamentally flawed, at least in the way that it's interpreted by the general populace. This is also why war is always followed by recession. The debt finally comes due.
Now, as for technological advancement. There's no way to prove that those same technologies would not have come about regardless of war. Personally, I don't think the loss of millions of lives during WWII was a good tradeoff for speeding up rocketry and nuclear studies. Both of those technologies already existed prior to the war and were on their way forward with or without it.
Final point: Do you get a return on your investment when you drop a million dollar bomb? Perhaps if you are building an empire and that bomb brings about future tax revenue. Otherwise it has the same return that taking a million dollar bill and burning it would have.
If you are a member of the Military Industrial Complex you are a leech feeding off the taxpayer. You provide no net benefit to society. You create no jobs. You create no wealth. Just like any other arm of the government, you are simply redirecting wealth, not taking part in creation. The same holds true for anything being supported by tax dollars.