Thread killer. :-)
You have a few too many verys on there, particularly as it relates to me, but thank you. Now let's get back to some government questions...
Defense spending is an interesting topic. Since the end of World War II we have attempted to maintain a ready military, capable of immediately reacting to crises anywhere in the world (that we anticipate). This is an expensive proposition, but arguably it has more than paid for itself (many times over) by helping to stabilize a much more peaceful world than preceded it. Arguably. (I agree with that proposition, but I'm sure there are reasonable, contrary views).
A massive portion of our defense budget (the budget traditionally considered capital "D" defense), somewhere between about 1/5 and up to about 1/3 is not for operations, but is for R&D, procurement, and other forward looking expenses. Those expenses are arguably necessary to maintain the kind of military presence we've had since 1946.
More cynically, a significant portion of defense department costs are really just disguised jobs programs. It's why bases are hard to close and weapons systems are hard to cancel, even when the service for which they exist doesn't want them. As big a government cost cutter as McCain had a reputation for, one of the biggest reasons the Air Force still has the A-10 is that it is built/maintained in Arizona (McCain was FAR from the only elected official to fight for an arguably unneeded weapons system or base). Personally--as an Army guy--I really like the A-10, but listening to an Air Force officer involved in the budgeting process talk about why it should be phased out (or replaced), I came away convinced.
Another interesting question is what would happen if we simply scaled way back on R&D and particularly procurement. The U.S. will always be likely to be able to ramp up production if necessary, but that would lead to military situations like we had at the beginning of World War II, in which we were pretty far behind the curve for what we needed. There is an argument that given our economy, that would be an acceptable risk: that we should spend less on the military, knowing that we can spend more when the time comes. Obviously, that risk comes with a large cost at the outset of any large military endeavor (especially the kind that calls for total mobilization like we had during WWII).
However, another piece of these hugely expensive weapons systems--the F35 is a perfect example--is that it is the research and development, not really the procurement, that drives the massive price tags. That's why when we order more F35s, the price per aircraft comes down. It is almost certainly the case that the F35 was too expensive, but the decision to order fewer of them also drives the higher cost per unit, which may make it sound worse than it really was.
