observation of small standing forces, it is clear that there is no
adversary on the horizon even remotely approaching the military power
of the former USSR. While we might conjure up nominal regional
contingencies against Korea or Iraq as sensible planning scenarios for
establishing the building blocks for force structure, it will prove
difficult to sustain the current defense program over the long term
without a real threat materializing to rally and coalesce public
support. Allocating three percent or less of GDP for defense could
easily prove to be a ceiling and not a floor. It should be noted that
in Europe, defense spending is closing in on 1 to 2 percent of GDP.

Ironically, as the Department of Defense seeks to come to grips with
this new world, the structural limitations and constraints in how we
develop systems and procure weapons based on current technological and
industrial capacity for producing them will be exacerbated by downward
fiscal pressure giving us little room for mistakes and flexibility.
Air, land, space, and sea forces are currently limited in the actual
numbers and types of systems that are available for purchase and more
limited in that there are virtually no new major systems on the
horizon. That could change.

The M-1A-1 tank is in production only for foreign sales. Despite the
allure of the Arsenal Ship, the Navy still has only four active
classes of warships from which to replace its capability and, for the
first time this century since aircraft entered the inventory, is
without a new aircraft in development. The Air Force can be placed in
similar straits if the F-22 program is deferred or canceled because of
rising cost and fiscal constraints. Time will tell what happens to the
Joint Strike Fighter. Assumptions about reliance on technology and R&D
providing insurance policies for future defense needs may prove