Eli5: Why is it that whenever we hear about “defense spending” it’s always on offensive things like weapons? Is there not a way to make actual defense the priority instead of offense?

Question

I could be missing the point about military spending, and the five-year-old in my head asking the question does just want forcefields over every country in the end.

In: Technology

Answer 1

Something not touched upon by anyone so far is the fact that defensive technologies of sufficient efficacy do not exist, if defense against a particular threat is even possible.

Someone walks up to you, shoots at you, what’s the defense? A bunker? Apart from now having to essentially flee from your pre-war life, arguably the the first “loss” of the war, you are sitting in a bunker where the enemy can attack you at their leisure.

Modern technology such as it is, we can breach bunkers. You’re actually better protected when the enemy doesn’t know where you are, but if you’re not stopping boots on the ground (at the least) from searching for you, you don’t stay hidden for long, and this ignores the fact that you can’t hide the people of a country nor their assets (survive but have a destroyed economy, yay).

The only way to protect your people is to eliminate the enemies will and ability to prosecute (go after) your people. You can’t do that using defensive technologies, because we don’t have forcefields and limitless power. You have to launch more missiles than they fire at you to have a good probability of shooting them down. You can mine a road, but if you don’t harass the enemy then they can disarm it at their pleasure.

I understand that this question comes from a place of good natured ignorance, but I daresay that this question did come from the five year old in your head, because it just makes no sense.