> But has all of this made us safer?<p>This is the key takeaway from the article. Most of the expense isn't making anyone safer, and the advantage is held by the aggressor who only has to be successful once to inflict unpalatable physical, economic and political damage to defending developed nations.<p>> The question is whether that funding truly advances the cause of the European citizen, or only that of the industry.<p>The parallels to the drug industry are striking, where often the most expensive drug is the least effective and billions are spent on duplicative competitive approaches.<p>> Let brilliant scientists get down to work, and leave them alone for five years<p>It is interesting the advances smaller, less well funded countries, have made in defense spending. Swedish Gotland subs, Israeli Iron Dome missile defense, Norwegian anti-air missles, reputed North Korean advances in EMP weapons, and reputed Iranian advances in fast torpedos, etc.<p>Sometimes less means more.