I'm not trying to insinuate that the US is rich only because it has invaded countries and overthrown governments when doing so suited its economic interests, only that that behaviour has played a large role in its success. As such, the commonly-held libertarian view that an end to military adventurism will be a boon for the US economy strikes me as naive. I still think it's the right thing to do, but I don't argue for it on economic grounds.

Driving economic activity by having the military act as a major consumer is really just running on a treadmill. We need to find an outlet which will lead to increases in economic activity. There is a huge investment hurdle involved, but space exploration and colonization could fit the bill. Once there is a significant human presence in space beyond low earth orbit, there will be tremendous economic growth. The major problem is that hundreds of billions of dollars of investment would be required to jump start it.

I think you're missing my point. It's not that military spending drives manufacturing, service, and R&D industries (although it does), it's that direct military action has often been, and is often used to promote US economic interests. See the military's actions in Latin America in support of United Fruit, military support of right-wing (pro-US and pro-business) dictators everywhere, or the military-political interventions in the Middle East in support of energy interests.

My contention is not simply that making tanks is an economic activity that many people benefit from, but that those tanks are used to assert and defend economic dominance, which has a massive spillover effect for other industries.

And the need for the assertion of force to defend economic dominance in turn cements the need for the military machine and perpetuates the military-industrial complex. We are essentially in agreement. I think it would be better for the US to concentrate on economic dominance through sheer commercial and industrial awesomeness combined with forward-thinking research and exploration.

You missed my point. Sure, space exploration won't cure our economic stagnation in the 1 to 30 years time frame. But it will decide if we are a first, second, or third-rate power in the next 100 years.

There are many paths to wealth. Germany is rich because of - in part - the almost total rebuilding of a ruined nation and the creation of a pretty effective post-war consensus in West Germany. In fact, I'd argue that an important part of the US's success were also an effective post-war consensus (different, but also hugely effective).

Not really, have you been in England, Rome or Spain?

Rome legionaries were used to make roads and bridges and mining 90%of their time. If I show you the extensions of the land they "washed" to get mineral you won't believe it(you can see it using google earth, e.g in the north of spain, look for grooves around mountains).

England made itself rich because of commerce, like Spain(they took the risk to travel the ocean and won the first mover advantage, and when the rest of the world notice, it was late for them). That was what made them rich, not the military.

The US is rich because... IT IS RICH. It is a huge place with huge resources for a small population.

The US became the more powerful country on earth because Japan and Europe totally destroyed itself by the military in the WWII. The US waited for them to auto destroy, and then entered the world and finished it with all their cities untouched, 90% of the world gold reserves and creditor to them all, being able to force the dollar as world currency and english the official language of aviation, and naval commerce. Every body lost their colonies and US got them all(they just wanted the commerce and influence without having to build roads like English or Portuguese did in Africa).

Yes, it was a coincidence(being far away), no, US was not the most prosperous nation on Earth 200 years ago. If you believe in that, please study some real history. US was not the technical leader that is today thanks to all the Europeans that went there thanks to Hitler(militarization and economic totalitarism), the Edisons, the von Brauns and von Newmans.

Thomas Jefferson and other of the US founding fathers thought a permanent military and central banking would ruin the country because military people do nothing while things work at it should they need to create new enemies so they can justify their existence.

I had family members that were in Soviet Russia when something like 95% engineers were used in the war industry, while people needed cars, washing and sewer machines. This was not wealth for Russia, that was a bully inside. Mass media brainwashed them all them about how cool they were being able to destroy anybody else.(This strange pride remains today)

Today 60% of the engineering in US goes to war efforts, 50% of all their money to the military, so they can kill better, while the rest of the world expends significantly less.

They will talk about GPS, but the question is if this money expended in real economy would be able to create as much as the military does?

The rise of a professional military is often cited in as a major factor in the decline of the Roman Empire. Military Conquest drove economic gain, which provided wealth, which in turn motivated greed and more conquest.

Nowadays, we don't need conquest so much as the economic activity motivated by a military, but the same cycle is there, minus the emphasis on holding territories.

It's curious to think about: The reason a state needs particular access to petroleum, is to support a large mechanized military of the kind first realized on a huge scale in WWII. This petroleum resource now creates a US dependence on other nations, which in turn justifies a large military. While a lot of other things we do need oil, there are alternatives which could offset a lot of those needs. None of those is viable for a mechanized military, however.

http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hh Death Throes of the Republic: The Fall of Rome

You will find so much fantastic similarities to our own downward spiral, re: military, political class of protecting special interests, where near the decline, voting blocks were outright purchased, etc. He brings together several historians, records, etc.

The entire series is wonderful, and you WILL find yourself spending way too much time on them :)

Military spending is still government spending. It's going to contractors, vendors and soldiers. They are, respectively: making jobs and selling to everybody (not just the gov't), and buying cars and houses.

When the government spends a million dollars building a bomb, it also creates a bunch of jobs for the same reason.

The thing is, a bridge gets you a useful public resource that makes lost of people's lives better and encourages economic growth by making trade easier. A bomb blows up, kills some people, and disappears.

If I pay you $100 to clean my house, you've got $100, and all I've got is a clean house. Nice, but there's no market value. There's no multiplier effect.

But there is SOME utility to the gov't injecting capital in the form of military spending. As I mentioned in the comment below yours, the most extreme example of that is WWII, which finally and permanently ended the Great Depression, in a way that the WPA/etc building bridges just did not.

But remember that what did more than anything to cure this county of the great depression was the massive Keynesian capital injection that we called WWII.

http://qed.princeton.edu/getfile.php?f=European_Colonialism_...

In conclusion, you've made a spurious correlation.

Also, no need to say "in conclusion" when the sum total of your argument is a single sentence.