One of my main beefs with the recently passed Health Care Reform bill is that it’s very short on reform.  It caters to certain constituencies, and it calls for painful spending cuts in the future to Medicare, to pay for itself, that will likely never be made. If Congress didn’t have the will to make Medicare cuts now, what makes us think they will get any braver in the future?

Anyway, the reform bill catered to unions, lawyers and politicians, and thus the Democrats really never had to take on any of their core constituencies.  In fact the main complaint from most on the Left is that the bill did not go far enough in turning over our healthcare system to Uncle Sam.

However, in these extremely lean times it would be hypocritical of conservatives to call out Democrats for failing to stand up for cuts, while they refuse to do the same.
So, what Republicans really need to do is put defense spending on the table.  Our defense budget is out of control, and anyone who doesn’t realize that hasn’t looked at a balance sheet lately.

The truth is we can’t address many of our budget issues without addressing the military.  It’s time for a Nixon-goes-to China-moment. 

The United States still fields 5,113 nuclear warheads. For what purpose? 

Now, the U.S. and Russia recently negotiated the so-called New Start Treaty, which would institute a ceiling of 1,550 warheads deployed on 700 missiles and bombers.
That sounds like plenty of a nuclear deterrent to me.  In fact, there are military experts who claim the U.S. could very plausibly get by with as little as 311 nuclear weapons.

Now, I don’t know the exact number of warheads that is appropriate, but 5,000-plus is a bit much, and it’s not like the Cold War ended yesterday.

President Obama was roundly criticized by many on the Right for the treaty, but I think it was a good decision, and I’m not going to oppose it simply because Obama is for it.  However, the president did make things more difficult by openly musing about a “nuclear weapon free world.” 

Sorry Mr. President, but we don’t live in “Superman 4.”  This situation was one of those times where being an academic, who likes to wonder aloud, backfired on Obama.

What’s sad is that in the wake of the Cold War’s ending, our politicians gutted the military and CIA of much-needed personnel and opted to keep all the nukes.  In hindsight, is the there anyone who still thinks that was a good idea?

Cutting the Department of Defense’s budget is a touchy subject for several reasons, but mostly because it means job losses in somebody’s state and congressional district.  Try cutting military spending in the Hampton Roads area and see what kind of response you get from their congressional delegation.  It won’t be enthusiastic.

It goes without saying that we have to be smart about how we manage our military and its budget.  We live in a dangerous world.  But it seems painfully obvious to me that we still have a military that is better equipped to confront the dangers of 30 years ago than the dangers of today.  And we can’t forget about the dangers of tomorrow, lest we risk repeating a 9/11-like disaster. 

But now is the time to get real.  The DOD had been developing two fifth generation fighters, the F-22 and the F-35.  Both cost billions and billions of dollars, and both had significant cost overruns.  The plug was finally pulled on the F-22 after only 187 were ever produced, and a fortune had been spent.

Some military experts claim we need to stay on the cutting edge lest we are surpassed by Russia, China or some other unforeseen adversary.  We do need to stay out in front, but in a responsible way, which means other wealthy nations, like in Western Europe, can pull their own weight.

Truthfully, I’m not convinced the Russian Air Force could produce a fifth generation toilet seat anymore, and the Chinese’s major conflicts over the next few decades will be internal not external.

Anyway, with the new F-35 coming on line it’s time to start working on a sixth generation fighter.  (The Air Force maintains a minimum fleet of 2,250 fighters.)
Here’s what airforce-magazine.com had to say about it:  “The possibilities for a sixth generation fighter seem almost the stuff of science fiction.

“It would likely be far stealthier than even the fifth generation aircraft. It may be able to change its shape in flight, “morphing” to optimize for either speed or persistence, and its engines will likely be retunable in-flight for efficient supersonic cruise or subsonic loitering.

“The sixth generation fighter will likely have directed energy weapons—high-powered microwaves and lasers for defense against incoming missiles or as offensive weapons themselves. Munitions would likely be of the “dial an effect” type, able to cause anything from impairment to destruction of an air or ground target.

“Materials and microelectronics technologies would combine to make the aircraft a large integrated sensor, possibly eliminating the need for a nose radar as it is known today. It would be equipped for making cyber attacks as well as achieving kinetic effects, but would still have to be cost-effective to make, service and modify.

“Moreover, the rapid advancement of unmanned aircraft technologies could, in 20 years or so, make feasible production of an autonomous robotic fighter. However, that is considered less likely than the emergence of an uninhabited but remotely piloted aircraft with an off-board “crew,” possibly comprising many operators.

“Not clear, yet, is whether the mission should be fulfilled by a single, multirole platform or a series of smaller, specialized aircraft, working in concert.” 

Sounds expensive.