If the US can already outspend both its geopolitical rivals together at 50% of its current expenditure, then it does suggest that the other 50% is not achieving anything more.
Thats not how militaries work. Money doesn’t fight other money. Unless they all develop, order, and make the same tech, and employ the exact same steategies you can’t even begin to make that comparison. The US likes to spend its money on things and programs it considers ‘deterrants’. Deterrance inherently cost much more than Destruction. Simply spending more money does not win wars and it’s assanine to think forces of equal monetary value are necessarily equal. My only point is that the US military funds comes at the expense of the US population. No where have I tried to justify their budget, and simply refusing to believe 50% of it disappears to middlemen is not a support of the military, it’s a rebuke of an obviously blown out of proportion claim. Let’s take an example, do you think Russia or the US spends more effort on making sure its soldiers come back home, and which option do you think costs more money?
The US spends more than the next two superpowers, and they also occupy/defend more territory than the next 10 since we can now say today European security is dependent on American money and weapons. Not to mention the US collab with Isreal for security in that whole region, and the over 700 military bases across the world. Again this is all money American citizens are giving up, so that people much much closer to a problem that will never effect them dont have to sacrifice as much. People love running to America when they have military needs their country wont fulfill, but no one wants to consider helping Americans with needs their country won’t fulfill.