The government proposes raising military spending to 2.8% of GDP, a figure that sounds technical but hides a real dilemma: cutting budgets for healthcare, education, or housing. While politicians demand autonomy from the United States, they prioritize guns over butter, leaving working families to foot the bill. The hypocrisy is evident when social welfare is sacrificed for a defense that is never used against everyday threats like waiting lists or rent prices. The solution lies in financing this expenditure through taxes on large fortunes and profits from the arms industry, not through the sweat of those who already struggle to make ends meet.
The Technological Cost of Security: Investment or Waste? 🤖
From a technical standpoint, reaching 2.8% of GDP in defense involves acquiring advanced radar systems, surveillance drones, and fifth-generation fighters, equipment with a 30-year life cycle and high maintenance costs. However, these items are often financed through public debt or by cutting civilian budgets, such as the digitalization of hospitals or the renovation of educational infrastructure. A cost-benefit analysis shows that each euro spent on defense has a lower social return than investment in civilian R&D or public housing. The paradox is that the same politicians demanding technological sovereignty in defense ignore that dependence on imported components remains at 60% in key systems.
Luxury Defense: New Tanks, Old Ambulances 🚑
It is curious that those who demand autonomy from Washington are up in arms about cutting social spending, yet do not hesitate to sign blank checks to buy missiles that will likely never be used. Meanwhile, public hospitals wait 12 months to replace a scanner, and affordable housing units can be counted on one hand. If at least the tanks could transport the sick or the fighters could deliver food, things would be different. But no, it seems the priority is to have a first-class army while public healthcare makes do with patches.