...
Defense spending is the most controversial of them all. For example, the majority of the American taxpayers remain opposed to spending the tax revenue on reckless invasions of third world nations, such as Iraq and Libya.
The money spent invading Iraq could have bought cheap housing for 90% of America's homeless, and still be money left over to feed 10 million hungry people in the 3rd world for 10 years. Pulled those numbers out of my ass but they are probably close.
A couple years ago, I heard that the cost of eliminating world hunger was $30 billion a year. US "defense" spending is at $700 billion currently I believe. And lol @ using the word defense, when it none of it takes place on US soil...everything is initiating offence on foreign soil.
Not sure how many people aren't getting adequate food and water, but one year without making guns, bombs, tanks and fighter jets...would give approximately 23 years of food and clean water...and probably a sustainable infrastructure that could provide it for even longer (water filtration + farming infrastructure). But who needs that when you have the mother of all bombs?
War is a business where some die for others to make money. Arms manufacturers, military contractors, construction companies that are in charge of post-war reconstruction works, oil companies, etc. War is disguised of ideals such as peace or democracy but in reality it´s just a business, this is why wars are made in countries with oil or other natural or geostrategic resources. Something similar happens with hunger and poverty. Hunger and poverty allow large companies to set up their factories in these countries for a wretched salary, hunger and poverty serve to have weak countries whose natural resources can be easily dispossessed and also serve to create the kind of baldness that generates civil wars, which are also a business.