There has been much consternation and job related discussion within the F-35 debate in Vermont and more specifically Chittenden County. There are those on the left (of which I am one!) and the right that voice their concern(s) with a great degree of passion and genuine interest, but this discussion strikes me as one that avoids the most important point about the F-35 and the Military Industrial Consortium constructing and marketing it (primarily Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney, General Electric, and Rolls-Royce). The debate is primarily an example of wealth and “security” asymmetry, which is another way of saying this plane and its R & D costs are a zero-sum game for a variety of constituents. Lets briefly discuss who wins in this process, because the list is short and includes the aforementioned corporations and their shareholders along with any country that would love to be hawkish on military issues but has no money or is more pragmatic about allocating capital to education, healthcare, alternative energy, etc. The latter includes any or all of the 182 UN recognized countries that are not ponying up for this project as well as the other seven countries – excluding the U.K. at $2.5 billion or 6.25% – contributing on average $0.41 billion or 1.02% of development costs.
This subject is best viewed from a quasi-monetary perspective given the hoopla surrounding cost overruns ($168-244 billion), R & D ($30-112 billion) vs. flyaway costs ($50 to >150 billion), and supposed financial benefits that will parachute into the state and county upon the F-35’s arrival. Standard balance sheets as any responsible Vermont business owner knows are a product of liabilities, assets, and ownership equity, which seems like a good place to start (and end) parsing F-35 fact from fiction.
In contrast to recent comments and articles in the Burlington Free Press, F-35 associated liabilities will be disproportionately loaded on the backs of: 1) military men and women who most assuredly will die in the F-35’s cockpit or be tortured (Waterboarding Anyone!) upon capture in hostile territory, 2) innocent civilians that will die or be maimed during lethal exchanges, 3) flora and fauna in and around R & D facilities and the war zone, and 4) here in South Burlington, Vermont, and surrounding towns that will experience rapid and broad housing market and quality of life declines. The latter cost will be on top of an already drastic decline in the housing market since The Second Great Recession began in August of 2007. Unfortunately data speaking to points 1, 2, and most likely 3 is either top-secret or extremely rare, but needless to say a prolonged War on Terror will not result in less military or civilian casualties; and, any time you are talking about the construction, distribution, and deployment of war machines you are also talking about the simultaneous transfer and distribution of myriad toxic chemicals into terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. As for point 4, well you need look no further than JB Baird’s recent piece in the Burlington Free Press on airport related real-estate horror stories that probably won’t be alleviated by chronic F-35 activity and acute takeoff related activity at Burlington International Airport.
On the other side of the ledger, Lockheed for one has seen its equity rise by 175 and 200% since October 26th, 2001 and November 16th, 1996, which were the days that it was awarded the F-35 contract and the F-35 concept was announced, respectively. Not a bad return on investment wouldn’t you say? Consider that these numbers beat the Dow Jones Industrial Average by 9 and a whopping 87%, respectively. In all fairness to Lockheed, though, their gains are dwarfed by the SPADE Defense Index – an index of 50 defense, homeland security, and space firms – which has gained 207 and 251% during this period.
A zero-sum game is one in which the winner’s gains are exactly balanced by the loser’s losses. There is nothing in the F-35 equation that would lead a reasonable person to believe that Vermont a/o Chittenden County will be the former. This state has already given a disproportionate number of its young people to two ill-conceived and senseless wars. Why would we allow our government and the Military Industrial Complex to further exploit our human assets while foisting a heaping pile of environmental and divisive liabilities on our state’s social balance sheet?
