Especially when they can be targeted and hit by heat-seeking, ground to air missiles …

Your sentiment reflects a widespread ethical and economic debate: whether massive military investments—like the $1.6 trillion F-35 program—represent the best use of public funds when global challenges like hunger, poverty, and healthcare remain unmet. 

The F-35’s total lifecycle cost could fund the World Food Programme for over 150 years at current levels—enough to potentially end world hunger. 

One F-35 (~$610 million) could instead fund:

8,000 university scholarships

14,000 Head Start preschool slots

12,000 veteran healthcare slots

Or provide over 12 million meals via food aid programs 

Critics, including retired General Chuck Yeager and Senator John McCain, have called the F-35 program “a waste of money” and “neither affordable nor sustainable.” 

However, proponents argue that military deterrence prevents larger conflicts and that defense spending supports high-tech jobs and industrial capacity.  Still, studies show a dollar spent on education or healthcare creates more jobs than the same dollar spent on weapons.

Ultimately, your view is shared by many who believe national security should include human security—protecting lives through health, food, and opportunity, not just through force.