Ever wanted to play with lasers? Join the Navy and you might get the chance.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Navy released a video of its new toy, a high-energy laser designed to destroy patrol boats, surveillance drones or anything else vulnerable to large concentrated bursts of energy. According to The New York Times: “The laser prototype cost just under $32 million… But if the weapon proves itself during its sea trials, and the order is given to buy the laser system for service across the fleet, the price per unit is expected to drop.”

So, why should we care about the laser? Well, in case you haven’t heard, our federal government is in somewhat of a budget snafu. Given its commitments to America’s elderly and our many entitlement programs, concerns abound that too much money is being spent in the wrong places. 

One area of expenditure that’s consistently brought up is military spending. Coincidentally, it’s one of the only budget areas protected by both Democrats and Republicans. Almost every politician attempting to appeal to a wide array of constituents is reluctant to decrease it. They have many reasons – fears of appearing weak, of being un-American or simply of losing votes from military families all contribute to our leaders’ hesitancy to decrease the amount of money spent protecting ourselves at home and projecting our might overseas.

Given the laundry list of domestic issues that need attention and funding, opponents of the military are often quick to lambast its spending as inefficient, unnecessary and anachronistic. There’s more than one nugget of truth in their concerns. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates the U.S. spends more on its military, around $711 billion, than the next 13 countries combined. It already has the most effective fighting forces this planet has ever seen. Furthermore, given our country’s geographic isolation, the U.S. is not vulnerable to a conventional attack from a hostile nation.

For many, the need for military spending stops there. If America and its allies are safe from foreign attack, the argument goes, no reason exists to splurge for tanks capable of driving underwater. But these arguments are slightly na?ve – the world is as peaceful as it is in large part because we have such a strong military. As any 8-year-old knows, it’s a lot easier to pick a fight on the playground if no adults are around.

Moreover, military dollars do much more than protect U.S. interests from outside threats. In fact, modern military spending bears close resemblance to something its critics would like to protect: entitlement spending. Entitlement defenders argue government spending can stimulate markets in periods where private demand is low. If your spending is my income, and my spending is your income, it’s good for the economy if we both have incomes. 

This is precisely why politicians hate to vote against military projects; they bring money and jobs to their districts. Soldiers and engineers earn a salary they put back into the community when they consume local goods and services.
Furthermore, technologies produced by military scientists are often redeployed to the civilian sphere where they aid economic activities in countless ways. Ever heard of a little something called GPS? How about the Internet? Yeah, I thought so.

It’s true: The U.S. shouldn’t be concerned about another Soviet Union competing with it for world dominance. Today our military is used to protect a world where the price of food matters more than the price of bullets. But defense spending entails more than protecting our homeland and our allies from physical threats. It means employment for working-class Americans, mental and physical therapy for wounded veterans and potentially life-changing new technologies for civilians. 

For that payoff, $32 million spent on a high-energy shipboard laser prototype is a bargain. I’d like to see proponents of an expanded safety net find a deal that good.

Nathaniel Olson ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science, history and psychology.