The Stealth Is No Steal
Almost a decade after plans for its development first became known, the latest weapon system in the U.S. strategic arsenal, the B-2, or stealth bomber, has had its coming-out party. While remaining largely mum about how the unusual plane works and what its supposed capabilities are, the Air Force and Northrop Corp., its developer, haven’t hesitated to praise it as a marvel of advanced engineering and technology. For now, Americans will have to take that claim on faith. What elicits the greatest awe and wonder at the moment is the B-2 program’s cost. The General Accounting Office estimates that if the Air Force buys all 132 B-2s that it wants, and given the usual cost overruns, each stealth will carry a price of $450 million to $500 million.
That is a staggering sum of money, and the arguments that have only begun about whether the bomber program is worth its costs are certain to continue for years to come. In a refrain that has been heard about virtually every new strategic weapon developed over the last 35 years or more, supporters of the new bomber say that if the B-2 helps to deter nuclear war, it’s worth every penny of its cost. To be sure. But the question that critics ask over and over remains relevant: Are there no cheaper and equally effective weapons to preserve the peace? Each B-2 will cost up to 80% more than the $280-million B-1B bomber. All this for a plane that has so far literally never left the ground.
Are what have become the world’s most expensive and complicated weapons also the most desirable weapons to possess? Do they make an indispensable contribution to protecting national security? If a single bomber costs $500 million in 1988, what will a single bomber of the next generation of technological progress cost? What other things could be bought for the $68.5 billion that the B-2 program will cost, or even the $28 billion so far spent on the B-1B, that would contribute tangibly to making the nation stronger and safer? The joke a few years ago was that the time was coming when the entire defense budget would pay for only a single weapon. It doesn’t look much like a joke anymore.
