The United States and many other countries have spent trillions of dollars on sophisticated weaponry in past decades to counter uncertain threats.

True if defence-spending data show that over the decades before July 2020 the US alone, plus many other countries together, spent cumulative sums in the trillions of dollars on military equipment and weapons systems (procurement and R&D, not only total defence budgets), and that this spending was justified at least in part as preparation against uncertain or speculative threats. Mostly true if the trillions figure holds for the US and for several other countries but the 'many other countries' part is a slight stretch (for example only a handful of countries reach large cumulative sums), or if the figure is only reached when total military spending is counted rather than weaponry alone. Mixed if the US part holds but the evidence shows that few other countries spent comparable sums, or the reverse. Mostly false if spending on weaponry falls well short of trillions and the claim depends on reading total defence budgets as 'weaponry'. False if cumulative spending on weapons by the US and by other countries is shown to be far below a trillion dollars over that period.

Set before the research began.

1. E1 [PDF] 13. The Cold War: Costs and Results - University of Warwick University of Warwick (course lecture slides, EC224 War and Economy in the Twentieth Century, by Mark Harrison) · 2018

   “During the Cold War half century the United States spent around $13 trillion (at 1996 prices) on defence.”

2. E2 Department of Defense Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E): Appropriations Structure Congressional Research Service · 25 June 2018

   “the perceived need for technology capabilities to address emerging and unanticipated threats”

3. E3 The U.S. Defense Industrial Base: Background and Issues for Congress Congressional Research Service · 12 October 2023

   “From 1948 to 1963, annual spending on defense increased by an average of 8.4%, with annual outlays for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) and procurement each growing by an average of 19.7%.”

4. E4 The U.S. Defense Industrial Base: Background and Issues for Congress Congressional Research Service · 12 October 2023

   “From 1948 to 1963, annual spending on defense increased by an average of 8.4%, with annual outlays for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) and procurement each growing by an average of 19.7%.”

5. E5 The U.S. Defense Industrial Base: Background and Issues for Congress Congressional Research Service · 12 October 2023

   “Commercial firms played a critical role in this expansion, developing and producing the sophisticated technologies and weapons systems on which U.S. military power increasingly depended”

6. E6 Department of Defense Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E): Appropriations Structure Congressional Research Service · 25 June 2018

   “DOD alone accounts for nearly 40% of all federal R&D appropriations ($49.2 billion of $125.3 billion, or 39.3%, in FY2017).”

7. E7 Cutting the High Cost of Weapons The Heritage Foundation (Richard Araujo, Visiting Fellow) · 16 March 1982

   “Military investment expenditures for the period, however, amounted to $1 .5 trillion, for an investment shortfall of $900 billion”

8. E8 Cutting the High Cost of Weapons The Heritage Foundation (Richard Araujo, Visiting Fellow) · 16 March 1982

   “This means the United States should have spent some 2.4 trillion on weapons procurement and R&D over the last twenty years to maintain its arsenal at constant 1960 inventory levels.”

9. E9 An Undisciplined Defense: Understanding the $2 Trillion Surge in US Defense Spending Project on Defense Alternatives, Commonwealth Institute (Carl Conetta) · 18 January 2010

   “In the decade before the 9/11 attacks, the United States spent over $1 trillion on military modernization.”

The evidence supports US spending in the trillions on defence overall [E1] and over $1 trillion on military modernization in one decade [E9]. No evidence item covers spending by other countries, so the 'many other countries' part of the claim cannot be assessed under the criteria.