It is a valid question. The way i see it is that the equipment sent to ukraine is either old and rusty or not in use. So while in theory you spent money by shoo

It is a valid question. The way i see it is that the equipment sent to ukraine is either old and rusty or not in use. So while in theory you spent money by shooting an arrow, in practice you havent since it wasnt in use anyway. But since it does have accounting value you can claim you spent 1$ by shooting it in the forest. Once the war is over the us can get the 1$ back from ukraine in various ways, and therefore it made a profit out of nothing. Edit: if the equipment is new then the 1$ spent is basically a subsidy for the local weapons industry and the workers building it.