Wednesday, June 10, 2009

The Defense Anti-Stimulus

Michael O'Hanlon argues that we are planning on spending too little on defense to maintain the force we plan to field:

Procurement and research and development are the chief areas in which Defense Secretary Robert Gates has sought savings in the proposals he announced in April. He has proposed cuts to programs including the F-22 fighter, the DDG-1000 destroyer, the Army's Future Combat System, the presidential helicopter fleet, the transformational communications satellite, aircraft carrier production runs, the airborne laser missile defense program and the next-generation bomber. These are solid proposals; he could make additional cuts to the V-22 Osprey and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programs, as well as existing nuclear weapons platforms.

It is important to note, though, that these aren't cuts in current costs; they are cuts in plans. When you eliminate a defense program, you still typically must buy something to replace aging equipment, even if the alternative is less expensive. Moreover, a lot of equipment (much of it purchased under Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush) is wearing out, and we need to replace it soon. Making greater use of service-life extension programs, modifications to existing weapons, and inexpensive but high-performance modern technologies such as advanced munitions and robotics can keep a check on cost growth. But these steps can't freeze costs.


Remember, we may not see any enemy on the horizon, but that just means we don't see them--not that they don't exist.

I can only hope that our version of the old British ten-year rule doesn't last until our military gets whacked in the opening stages of a new war because we couldn't imagine anyone fighting us, and an enemy planned just for that.