Frankly, the only way the US could be said to 'pay for the world's defence' is if one could argue that the bulk of US military spending increases the security a

Frankly, the only way the US could be said to 'pay for the world's defence' is if one could argue that the bulk of US military spending increases the security and safety of the world. Prima facie, this is obviously not the case. The big-ticket items, the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, have obviously reduced both regional and world stability, to the extent that bloody ISIS-inspired terrorist attacks are now a perennial threat in european cities. I'd hazard a guess that the Obama-era, 'drone strikes for jihadis' programme probably was a net gain for world security, but the whole point about drones and targeted assassination is it's very cheap. The other aspect of the US contribution to world safety is in the sense of a deterrent - the US keeps nations like Russia or China from getting too pushy. On the other hand, it has a habit of poking such nations in the eye with a stick. It's hard to see whether US actions have deterred Russian aggression, for instance, or whether they have actually provided the impetus for such aggression. Certainly, the latter interpretation is what the Russians think. So I guess the US does pay for a lot, but I feel it's more in the sense that the US pays for the world's healthcare. Being the sheep that gets fleeced the most doesn't put the less-fleeced sheep in your debt.