Personally, I don't object to defense-oriented research being funded by the feds. I see that as one of their few legitimate functions. The problem here, as in most things, is in knowing where to draw the line. Much of NASA's work is defense-oriented. But not all of it. I can't sort it all out, so I'm resolved to live with NASA. I don't want to cut it too close when it comes to our defense industries. Better too much of that than too little.
I don't either. As far as beating it to death goes, my viewpoint is expressed a lot less often than the "gosh wow isn't NASA great let's give 'em even more money" viewpoint. Just trying for a bit of balance here.
in 1969, when Wilson was in the hot seat testifying before the Congressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Sen. John Pastore demanded to know how a multimillion-dollar particle accelerator improved the security of the country. Wilson said the experimental physics machine had "nothing at all" to do with security, and the senator persisted. "It has only to do," Wilson told the lawmakers, "with the respect with which we regard one another, the dignity of men, our love of culture. It has to do with: Are we good painters, good sculptors, great poets? I mean all the things we really venerate in our country and are patriotic about. It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending."