Liars lie. Stupid to state the obvious? 

What about …

 - when Liars drown out the obvious in a cacophony of lies?

 - when a culture commonly questions established thoughts not on the basis of weighing competing evidence, but merely because it’s fashionable to question anything already established merely because it’s ‘established’?

1. The problem:

Lies reap often & deeply from ‘the law of unintended consequences’. 

In ‘objective reality’, lies are the true ‘gift that keeps on giving’. Lies spread suspicion, hurt, and resentment -- in ever widening circles. The spread is especially true among cultures around the world that adhere to, as the best available form of justice, versions of any/all of the following:

 - ‘an eye for an eye’

 - ‘might makes right’

 - ‘rule by self-appointed elites’ (Gnosticism, whether secular or theocratic)

 - ‘the ends justify the means’

Politics, nature, and all other forces in the world are as they are, not as Liars would wish them to be. 

 - Liars ignore ‘objective reality’ to their own peril, even if gaining power in the short term. Prestige, wealth, and the other trappings of power, are never secure; they are less so when built on lies. Power built on lies also afflict the Liar with an interior unease, which breeds (among other things) paranoia. In addition to the overt hurts directly from lies, the varying levels of suspicion (even short of paranoia) also lead Liars to spread unease.

 - Lies also afflict the innocent who Liars subjugate. 

 - Lies also afflict the innocent who Liars merely interact with. 

Liars actually often aim to self-aggrandizement via intentionally hurting the innocent. At best, Liars are merely uncaring if their lies hurt the innocent. Even at ‘best’, Liars are incompatible with Inalienable Rights, more-less the Right of Free Will that underpins the specific Inalienable Rights.

2. Current examples:

 - Defense & Deficits. Liars use economic crises, real or invented, to further denude national defense. Liars conveniently ignore that social spending amounts to *more than three times* the spending on national defense, and that social spending has about doubled in the last couple decades, while defense spending declined 40%, then has remained steady or declined until slight increase in 2008. 

 - Pot & Kettle. The liar often has the nerve to compound the lies’ original dissonance, by hypocritically accusing their opposition of ‘politics of personal destruction’ when the opposition dares to point out lies. This is not new. Recall the no longer taught moral tale, about the thief running from the scene of the crime, who shouts “Stop! Thief!” while pointing further ahead, just long enough to make an escape in the lie-generated confusion.

 - Debate. Liars take half-baked science to enact involuntary worldwide wealth redistribution (even economic collapse), and push for U.N. mandates to tax & make binding laws, disguised thinly in the name of an invented human effect on global climate. Then they invent more ‘evidence’ to smear all who would say otherwise, especially including tenuous (and outright invented) ad-hominem attacks (aka “politics of personal destruction”) that don’t actually address the evidence.

 - Free Speech. Liars insist on asserting their world view of morality, in the public square. Hypocritically, they attempt to silence differing moral viewpoints. Liars poison the discussion with doublespeak, not least by asserting a constitutional ‘freedom of speech’ is instead an imposition of morality.

 - Majority Protection. Liars trump up charges, no matter how minor, to ruin their opponents’ reputations. Meanwhile, they ‘circle the wagons’ around their own who are actually guilty of similar and far worse offenses. Compare treatments to Packwood v. Studds, Hillary v. Newt, DeLay v. B. Clinton, among others.

 - History. It’s been fashionable to overturn centuries of knowing Matthew wrote the first gospel. Liars use embedded lies in this one. The only evidence is a presupposition in a “Q” (aka “source”) document. Not only does “Q” not exist today, but all of history fails to mention any “Q” ever existing. One relies on imagined evidence to overturn evidence-based assessments?

 - Guns. Liars claim inanimate objects must be banned, so they don’t kill people.

3. The solution:

It is not the person who calls a lie a lie, who is the dissonant troublemaker. Rather, it is the liar who causes the troubling ‘politics of hate’.  We have forgotten this.

A truth must be lifted again from subduction within rampant cacophony of lies, including lies that question human knowledge merely for the specious sake of engaging in questioning everything: lies keep on giving pain, over & over again; lies must be exposed & snuffed out. This truth is long overdue, and must again be made obvious.

3. The burning need:  time marches on.

Metal fatigue will make our current aircraft completely incapable in another ten years.  Most would still be capable of flying, but not under combat loads.  Remember, longirons are failing, and old all-metal planes are already breaking up in mid-air.  Those that aren't breaking up are still requiring ever more hours in detailed maintenance and upgrade facilities -- reducing availability across the board.  Worse, retrofits only postpone the inevitable ...

Procurement Lags:

As to new aircraft:  remember we need time to get procured equipment fielded, into battle plans, and into exercises so we really know how to use them – not just theoretically (or even in computer simulations of theory). 

In a decade, could we win with current aircraft supplemented by F-22s?  I doubt it.  But I pose that the cost would be horrendous if we did win.  China in a decade will not be a pretty adversary.  Our current fighters will strain mightily by then;  'in a decade' is when China, Russia, and Islam all pose foreseeable threats far greater than today’s world poses:

 - China WILL seriously threaten our interests in Taiwan, not to mention Korea, Japan, Philippines, Singapore, et al.  China will threaten with quantity of modern aircraft and (more ominously) relatively inexpensive high-tech air defenses that will seriously hurt us.  Already, China possesses anti-carrier weapons that will keep our aircraft carriers at arm’s length.  With 1970s-era airplanes, plus a handful of stealth at far-away Guam, Air Force would have nothing to offer, to replace ‘persistent’ air presence China is increasingly forcing the navy to position ever more distant (in event of war).   

 - Russia’s re-emergence will have re-armed that country, which may not be all that friendly.  Worst case:  xenophobic ultra-nationalists (a Russian historical tendency), whether with a resurgence of 1900s atheistic communism or not.  Best case:  western-friendly leader like Gorbachev or Catherine the Great, who would actually trust and welcome a western alliance --- an alliance that maybe we could make actually useful to Russia and it’s long vulnerable southern borders.  As if Russia's gradual transition from President to Dictator isn't worrisome all on its own, recent international events in Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Georgia, and Ukraine (among others) indicate Russia's western-friendly leaders are about as scarce as USA's conservatives have been in the last several years.

 - Islamic countries’ oil income could indeed well-fund militant Islamic resurgence like we’ve not seen in 600 years.  I propose this is an Islamic funding decision made more likely if we slide along with old all-metal fighters that they can counter with metal-seeking and heat-seeking hand-held SAMs.  That oil is also a potentially lethal chokehold on Japan, and would severely hinder us (the USA) and our European allies.  We have the ability to drill and solve that problem, except for environmentalists --- but that’s another dissertation.  We also have the spacefaring technical ability to dramatically reduce oil needs in non-vehicular uses, which would entirely remove the petroleum stranglehold by reducing the petroleum quantity needs mostly just to vehicles --- but this too is another dissertation.

c.  Why now??

Some say our current fighter aircraft fleet can serve us well for another decade.  Good!!

We will need that hypothetical decade, to acquire stealth aircraft in sufficient quantity for any big fight we hope to fight from navy carriers as well as from allies’ land bases.  A decade from now is when the current monopolar world doubtless will have changed again…

Again, most F-22 presentations concentrate on high-end threats.  Don’t forget the low-end!