The B-2: A Key Component of the Cost-Effective Defenses Needed for the 21st Century

(Washington, D.C.): 1997 promises to
be a decisive year for the American
military. A new Secretary of Defense will
be sworn in. Several blue-ribbon studies
concerning defense spending and
priorities will be published by leading
Washington think tanks. An internal
Pentagon Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)
will be completed. And a congressionally
mandated National Defense Panel will
second-guess the QDR’s conclusions and
recommendations — and offer some of its
own.

It is widely expected that the
upshot of these several developments will
be to inflict still further cuts in the
U.S. military’s force structure.
The justification for doing so will be to
free up funds within a fixed (or
declining) “top line” so as to
permit more resources to be applied to
long-deferred research and development
and procurement activities.

Unfortunately, there are ample grounds
for concern that savings realized through
cutting back divisions, air wings and
ships will not find their way into
urgently needed investment. They may,
instead, go toward additional
peacekeeping activities, humanitarian
relief operations or other non-defense
functions. Alternatively, the temptation
for the President and/or the Congress to
pocket these funds for deficit reduction
or another national priority may prove
irresistible.

Even with these resources — and
especially in their absence — a
premium is going to be placed upon
advanced technologies that will enable
the Nation to bring power to bear against
distant targets in a timely, discriminate
and cost-effective manner. The <a
href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=97-D_01at”>attached op.ed.
article published in today’s Washington
Times by a distinguished member of
the Center for Security Policy’s Board of
Advisors, former Rep. Jim Courter,
and Loren Thompson of
the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution
makes a persuasive case that the
B-2 bomber excels in meeting these tests.
An additional procurement of the B-2
beyond the 21 now planned for operational
deployment should, therefore, be given
fresh consideration by Secretary of
Defense-designate William Cohen and all
those who will be offering him advice on
how to get the biggest and most
valuable bang for the proverbial
buck.

The Bottom Line

As the Center for Security Policy has
consistently pointed out,⁽¹⁾
the United States simply cannot afford to
be without a large and flexible force of
B-2 bombers. To be sure, the
technological edge provided by these
stealthy assets will not, by itself,
offset the effects of the cuts now being
contemplated. It does, however, offer the
Nation a practical means of maximizing
the combat potential of whatever force
survives such ill-advised reductions. <br
wp=”br1″>

– 30 –

1. See, for
example, the Center’s recent Decision
Brief entitled Election ’96
Endgame: There’s Still Time — and An
Urgent Need — to Address Security Policy
Issues; A Case in Point: The Requirement
for More B-2 Bombers (<a
href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=96-D_108″>No. 96-D 108,
1 November 1996).