>Sure, the US strategic goal is to dominate the world militarily. It could achieve that with half its military spending, arguably even a third Major citation n

>Sure, the US strategic goal is to dominate the world militarily. It could achieve that with half its military spending, arguably even a third Major citation needed on that one. There's inefficiencies in any large organization, sure, but this has nothing to do with a need to prepare a deterrent strategy for the actual wars that matter. Agreed that playing COIN in the desert for 20 years was stupid, and we should all be upset at the politicians and media apparatus that encouraged that stupidity. That doesn't have anything to do with the current situation. I can't parse what your second paragraph is getting at, other than SpaceX is cheaper than ULA, which I'd consider to be irrelevant given their different mission profiles. >So, your premise that you can just overspend your way into invincibility is not sound either, if anything the opposite might happen. I never said this.