Air power projection prevents five scenarios for nuclear exchange Khalilzad and Lesser 98 (Zalmay and Ian, Senior Researchers – Rand, Sources of Conflict in the 21st Century, http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR897/MR897.chap3.pdf, AD:6/26/10) jl
This subsection attempts to synthesize some of the key operational implications distilled from the analyses relating to the rise of Asia and the potential for conflict in each of its constituent regions. The first key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that American air and space power will continue to remain critical for conventional and unconventional deterrence in Asia. This argument is justified by the fact that several subregions of the continent still harbor the potential for full-scale conventional war. This potential is most conspicuous on the Korean peninsula and, to a lesser degree, in South Asia, the Persian Gulf, and the South China Sea. In some of these areas, such as Korea and the Persian Gulf, the United States has clear treaty obligations and, therefore, has preplanned the use of air power should contingencies arise. U.S. Air Force assets could also be called upon for operations in some of these other areas. In almost all these cases, U.S. air power would be at the forefront of an American politico-military response because (a) of the vast distances on the Asian continent; (b) the diverse range of operational platforms available to the U.S. Air Force, a capability unmatched by any other country or service; (c) the possible unavailability of naval assets in close proximity, particularly in the context of surprise contingencies; and (d) the heavy payload that can be carried by U.S. Air Force platforms. These platforms can exploit speed, reach, and high operating tempos to sustain continual operations until the political objectives are secured. The entire range of warfighting capability—fighters, bombers, electronic warfare (EW), suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD), combat support platforms such as AWACS and J-STARS, and tankers—are relevant in the Asia-Pacific region, because many of the regional contingencies will involve armed operations against large, fairly modern, conventional forces, most of which are built around large land armies, as is the case in Korea, China-Taiwan, India-Pakistan, and the Persian Gulf. In addition to conventional combat, the demands of unconventional deterrence will increasingly confront the U.S. Air Force in Asia. The Korean peninsula, China, and the Indian subcontinent are already arenas of WMD proliferation
Defense Uq – F-35s Now
Bipartisan support for maintaining the defense budget – F-35s are protected Goozner 2/10 (Merrill, independent author, former journalism prof @ NYU, http://gooznews.com/?p=2474) JPG
While a showdown looms between the White House and Republicans over steep cuts in spending, the single most costly procurement program in Pentagon history remains fully funded with bipartisan backing. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky., who this week proposed $74 billion in cuts to a broad range of domestic programs, simultaneously proposed a 2 percent increase in defense spending, enough to fund the purchase of 32 F-35s, a stealth fighter that is slated to replace most of the existing U.S. jet fighter force over the next several decades. The Pentagon also purchased 32 F-35s in 2010. The combined Air Force, Navy and Marine Joint Strike Fighter program, which is at least three years behind schedule and significantly over its original budget, is currently slated to cost $382 billion for 2,456 aircraft by 2035. The spending resolution being drafted to carry the government through the remainder of the fiscal year alsoincludes $450 million for continued development spending on a second engine for the F-35, which would be built by a joint venture between General Electric and Rolls Royce. “It’s our understanding it is in there,” said a spokesman for GE, who was in the nation’s capital Wednesday as part of a company lobbying team.
Defense Internals – NASA $ing = Cuts
Calls for NASA-DoD trade-off now Roop 11(Lee, NASA Correspondent, The Huntsville Times, 2/3, http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/02/congress_will_cut_defense_cong.html, accessed 6-29-11, CH)
HUNTSVILLE, AL - U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Huntsville, said here Wednesday that Congress will "probably" cut defense spending next year, possibly including R&D programs based in Huntsville, but, if he gets his way, it will boost NASA's manned spaceflight program. "I hate sounding so melodramatic," Brooks told The Times editorial board, "but I do want to emphasize the seriousness of (the deficit) .... We're looking at truly catastrophic effects on our country." Brooks took office in January and joined a new Republican House majority determined to cut federal spending. On Wednesday, he returned repeatedly to what he called the urgent need spend less while still funding programs he supports, such as NASA. Those programs benefit taxpayers, he says, as opposed to wealth-transferring entitlements that should be cut. Tax increases on "job producers" are off the table to bridge the budget gap, Brooks said, but capping unemployment benefits is not. The House will cut spending this year to 2008 levels, Brooks predicted, but that will be "across the board, not per agency." "I hope to increase (NASA) spending for manned spaceflight," Brooks said. The extra money would come from other agencies or other NASA line items such as studies of global warming, he said. Brooks, who sits on the House NASA oversight committee, said there will be hearings soon on global warming. Brooks also said money for NASA could come from the National Science Foundation budget. "We might have to shift money from there," he said. "I think national defense is probably going to lose some ground," Brooks said, although he will try for "level funding." Asked how cuts might affect Huntsville, Brooks said, "I don't know." There are at least three independent estimates already before Congress, he said, one of which would mean "$4- to $7 billion in R&D cuts and that's what we specialize in (at Redstone Arsenal)." Brooks emphasized those estimates are by outside experts with no vote on the outcome.
There are at least two judgment calls involved. First, what percentage of all the defense related stuff not in the DOD do you add to the DOD budget. For example, is there a military purpose for NASA? Second, what percentage of the national debt is attributable to current and past wars? That translates into debt service which is a part of the budget. (about 6% now but growing) There the estimates seem to be ideologically driven. The estimates I have seen range from a low of 15% to a high of 91%. Ultimately the conclusion is right. At this point the budget is a zero sum game. Add to one portion and you need to take from another, especially if 40% of the budget is debt financed. (Consider that of that deficit the military portion is about 8% of the budget alone.) But in this case the ultimate question just like in Oregon Trail - how do we set priorities.