While you may have a good idea, that's an awfully dangerous line of thinking because it allows someone to define the "NEED." Especially when that someone can give more "free" stuff out with that money and not be held responsible when it comes back to haunt us. Threats by their very nature are speculative. Why do we "NEED" a conventional defense force today other than playing "world police" and "nation building"? Are Canada and Mexico ready to invade? Are the Chinese going to float 20 million men across the Pacific? We certainly don't "NEED" to be in Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa, Europe, and Asia. Lets pull back our fleet and scrap it. Just keep a few ICBM's online and call it a day. That logic sounds awfully familiar to another once great empire...
I never suggested that, but ever heard of WWII? Certainly there were other factors, but worldwide it was the biggest and arguably most successful "stimulus" ever.
So, instead of building defense for a certain requirement, we're supposed to just spend money until we meet a certain percentage of GDP? The contractors will definitely love that one.
If our requirement is to put out small brushfire contingencies on short notice anywhere in the world, then we need to build a force for that. If we think we need to repel a major conventional force, then we need to plan for that. Planning for everything is a recipe for disaster.
We NEED to defend our citizens. We NEED to be able to defend trade routes. We NEED to be able to respond to crises. The other stuff is WANTS. When we are in dire straits such as the times we live in now, spending billions of dollars on defense capabilities we don't need is actually counterproductive to our national security.
I don't know what other empire you're referring to. The USSR? The reason they went bust is because they had too small of an economy to support the defense infrastructure they were trying to maintain. They're finally back on the scene BECAUSE their economy is back on its feet and they are better able to field a military in line with their national goals. The British and French fell from prominence partially due to the dead weight of colonial obligations on stagnant economies crushed by WWII.
If military spending in WWII was the cause of prosperity, then the Keynesians are indeed right. We could build factories to build whatever we want and it would stimulate the economy. A weapons system or a man under arms is only valuable insofar as it helps defend against a valid threat. Define our real threats and America should and must defend against them. One pistol more than what's required to defeat that threat is a waste of resources.
A great pinko commie once said:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
Who was that guy? He must have been some weak-kneed, anti-American pussy.