In terms of R&D for dollar spent, the military is awful compared to fairly parallel state institutions like public universities and NASA. If you want R&D, you s

In terms of R&D for dollar spent, the military is awful compared to fairly parallel state institutions like public universities and NASA. If you want R&D, you shouldn't do it indirectly through researching ways to blow people up and murder - you should just do R&D spending. A lot of the problems when discussing the military budget are intentions. Nobody is proposing to grow or keep the current scale of the military on the idea its a valuable source of research. It is in the same vein as how you would not fund a basic income for research purposes - surely a lot of valuable R&D would actually come from a UBI by letting more people experiment as a hobby, but you wouldn't use it as an argument for making a UBI because the research per dollar spent ratio would be awful compared to dedicated research institutions. Funding CERN et al is on the order of magnitudes more bang for your buck if you are spending money to advance science than spending it on a military. Which relates back to my original point. All government spending needs to be interpreted through one of two lenses - either the government is absorbing an absolutely unavoidable expense and using its scale to lessen the burden (infrastructure maintenance, healthcare, retirement) or it is investing money with the intent for it to improve the country. There is absolutely a lot of overlap, but we are back at intents - when healthcare makes your citizenry healthier more often so they can be more productive that is a nice perk but does not come close to justifying public healthcare spending. Infrastructure can fall into both camps - building last-mile roads is absolutely not in all likelihood going to grow the economy - people would live more densely if not for state subsidies on public housing developments hooking into the public road network. But when they build highways to increase traffic throughput that is almost always with intent to grow the economy. A UBI falls in both camps, but conservatives should focus on the later benefits. The economic growth potential. On the topic of the military budget, anyone arguing for the current scale of the US military is arguing for a "necessary expense" perspective, not an investment one. Because its investment value is atrocious. And in general people are very skeptical of anything suggested to qualify for the first camp - and we should always be skeptical of those expenses, because they are the legitimate expenses where government spending actually contracts the economy.