Whether you believe the F-35 should join the Air Force or that the project should be killed, we can all agree that nobody wants to see pilots killed because they're training on aircraft that aren't fit to fly.
With the nation in grave economic distress, why are some Congressmen and Senators refusing to cut defense spending? If we hadn't invested in the F-35, our national debt would be almost 3 percent less than it is now.
That the economics of peace have had such a hard time prevailing in policy conversations is, in part, because the dominant language, lobbies, and learning environments are all geared toward the mechanics of war.
Military contractors are crying crocodile tears right now about the "fragility" of their industry. But in fact that industry is flush with cash, and will do or say anything to protect the one thing they care about above all else: profit.
As budget cuts come to the fore, military contractors will undoubtedly try to obscure the fact that every $1 billion of military spending costs anywhere between 3,200 and 11,700 jobs or more when compared to other ways of spending the money.
If we redirected 25 percent of defense spending to renewable energy, we could spur competition and innovation amongst the top defense contractors for federal renewable energy contracts instead of military contracts.
The F-35 is the "next generation" weapon system for the Navy, Air Force, and Marines -- who plan to buy 2,443 of these aircraft -- and for eight allied nations who are cost-sharing partners in the program and will hopefully buy hundreds of additional aircraft. But what's its cost?
As the space shuttle Atlantis returns to earth this week and closes the curtains on two decades of NASA's shuttle program, privatized space flight may provide a similar opportunity for innovation - and investors.
A critical component of Iraqi's national defense capabilities will be how well its air defense systems and fighter aircraft can defend and control its airspace and provide air sovereignty in case of an enemy attack.