Reading this article makes me realise that it would take a relatively small let up in funding such projects to permanently lose the knowledge and expertise it takes to build these fantastic machines.
How about just higher and higher r&d spending instead so our choice of tech development is governed by public welfare rather then military utility? We've already had technologies like Nuclear fusion that have developed in inferior directions because they benefit adjacent military technologies.
The general public is hard-pressed to support basic research with taxes, but they do support unlimited defense funding. This is one hack that the US system uses to do basic research under the umbrella of defense.
This is anecdotal, but I've not run into a single real life American who hasn't agreed with the general premise that we spend too much money on "the military industrial complex". Even the hawkish folks agree with this notion to some extent, usually arguing that specific projects are a waste of money and that's where the cuts should come from.
Cynically, I think our congresspeople don't actually take our feedback about the budget into account. They'll talk a big game about wasteful spending and the need to reduce deficits but the pork never stops flowing.
Better science and tech than the other guy gives you a military advantage. Thus some fraction of your science funding is effectively military funding, and some fraction of your military funding is well spent on science.
Also, more science projects lead to more experienced scientists and engineers, which leads to a stronger pool for the defense industry.
