Whereas if we import from offshore, all we get is the stockpile and none of those benefits - then it's a drag for sure. Sadly the world is rapidly becoming less benign, and defence is an unfortunate necessity. Best outcome is if spending can be directed domestically as much as possible.

The point I was trying to make originally is that investment in something like UAV design could lead to positive economic outcomes: developing sci/eng workforce w/ good jobs, R&D, IP that could be applied outside defence applications, etc. Whether the product is stockpiled in a warehouse or not.

Yes, but - why not both? NZ needs better healthcare _and_ defence (and infra, and ...). Surely we can train some people to be doctors and nurses, and others to be scientists and engineers at the same time. We have many un[der]employed; the false scarcity of money narrative is a political problem.

...all while creating good jobs, exportable IP, and increasing our defensive resilience. It might even be worth spending *more* into existence 🤔

Great explainer as always. So what if govt directed some of the arms money go to developing local industry? (e.g. making our own UAVs) Then instead of flowing offshore those funds would be circulating domestically, some draining back out as taxes...