Your editorial, ”Wanted: More honesty on defense,” should improve the level of debate. Three criteria might help us be more honest:
1) In 1978, defense outlays of $105 billion were adequate to meet the threat that the Soviet Union posed at that time. We need to compare the present threat to the `78 threat, and proportion our outlays to that
(inflation-adjusted) level.
2) The task is not to find other roles and missions for the vast forces we have, but to find the size of force needed in the present world for the traditional military roles.
3) The world is risky in all sorts of ways: Terrorists could find an ICBM, AIDS could continue to grow at present rates until more have it than don`t, the greenhouse effect could drown both coasts.
We should proportion our expenditures on each risk to their likelihood and the damage that they would cause.
