My point was different: it's that some of the so-called military spending is in reality simply a way for the federal government to fund research it wants done, without any relation to actual (direct) military applications.
The sad reality is that it is easier for people to accept a massive military budget than to accept a large National Endowment for the Sciences, or to accept direct government grants for a strategy of technical development (that would be 'government interfering in the market'). Of course, this reality was created through a lot of fear-mongering propaganda, and through a lot of anti-"socialist" propaganda.
Sure, and we're discussing it via a consequence of such a case (arpanet). But because the military by default has zero accountability, any funds that go there should be strongly vetted.
The sad reality is that it is easier for people to accept a massive military budget than to accept a large National Endowment for the Sciences, or to accept direct government grants for a strategy of technical development (that would be 'government interfering in the market'). Of course, this reality was created through a lot of fear-mongering propaganda, and through a lot of anti-"socialist" propaganda.