Interwar decision-makers repeatedly used commercial insurance to explain defence spending, but the analogy produced opposite conclusions. Warren Fisher argued that neither individuals nor countries can afford to insure against every possible danger. Bridgeman replied that an owner does not insure a valuable car for only half its worth simply because total destruction seems unlikely. Applied to strategy, his point was that a premium had to be judged against ruinous national defeat or the immense cost of eventually winning a major war. The exchange helps viewers see that the dispute concerned both affordability and what level of loss a responsible government should prepare to absorb.
Notable Point · 8:08-9:24
The interwar argument over defence as insurance
Competing insurance analogies expose the central interwar spending dispute: accept that no state can cover every danger, or fund forces against the full cost of national defeat.