Safety more than military spending

Robert Samuelson is entitled to his anachronistic opinion on “defense spending” (“Defense spending is less than you think,” Jan. 29), but it’s a shame someone entitled him to spread it on newsprint. I’ve been accused of comparing apples and oranges to advocate for slashing our death spiral of military extravagance, but Samuelson uses kumquats and cantaloupes to prove a ton of methane weighs the same as a ton of fresh manure.

His exercise is pointless without considering the moral and fiscal costs of our addictions to doomsday weapons, ubiquitous military outposts, coups in Latin America and welfare to the largest military contractors.

What Russia or China spends upon futuristic warships or archaic tanks is irrelevant to Americans who crave security. Our safety would be better served by universal health care, clean energy and up-to-date infrastructure than a bloated, muscle-bound military. No. Defense spending is not less than I think, and it’s not anything to brag about, no matter how xenophobic you are. Military spending is killing us.

Rusty Nelson

Rockford