The best comment on the "sunk cost" canard put forward by F-35 supporters.

My blog post titled, "The biggest lie ever told..." got a good response.  Many of them good, a few questionable but one of the best was from William James...

Irregardless of the capabilities argument, (the F-35 is a "silver bullet", etc.) I keep seeing the fallacy of "sunk cost" at play in many of the supporter's arguments. Many of the supporters of the F-35 argue that since we have spent so much money on the program already, we might as well go the distance. This is commonly known as "throwing good money after bad."
The correct economic decision should be "where do we go from here?" Irregardless of any money already spent, decisions must be made that only consider present and future costs, not just in money, but also in "opportunity costs" What are we giving up if we stay the course? What are the consequences? And, most importantly, what do we REALLY have to work with. If we had to go to war in 2015, what would the F-35s that we have in inventory bring to the fight? Could that same job be done quicker and cheaper with other assets?
Too many supporters have fallen in love with the F-35s potential based on paper projections. Big deal. My so-far unbuilt airplane that I'm going to pitch will be invisible in ALL wave lengths (if only the tech comes on-line in time) My point is that perhaps someday the F-35 will be capable of all that has been promised but can we, should we, continue to wait and bleed cash, time and goodwill. Can we as a nation even afford that luxury? Can our allies?
I think the best decision could be arrived at if we come to the conclusion that we WILL be at war within five years with a near-peer adversary. What assets do we currently have to bring to the fight and what can we get our hands on that will get the job done in the next five years if not sooner. Perhaps this will help sharpen the focus of our decision makers. Perhaps the events in The Ukraine and the South China Sea are already doing just that. One can hope.

Many said much the same but this comment by William James sings to me.  It takes the argument one step further than I took it and breaks it down cowboy style.

Reason no longer figures into this debate.

A reasonable person would say that enough is enough.  No, this isn't about reason.  This has become a matter of faith.  Despite evidence to the contrary the supporters of this program want to BELIEVE that the plane will deliver.  It hasn't since its been in development and the requirements have been steadily watered down but they fervently believe that it will turn around.

Faith is believing in something despite the lack of evidence.  How do you argue with that? 

SIDENOTE:  James Bacon (another one of my frequent commenters I'm proud to say) gave this link to a James Hasik article.  Read it here but the takeaway?  The F-35 will soon consume 40% of US defense procurement spending.  Let that sink in.  One airplane will gobble up 40% of the US defense procurement budget.  Amazing.  We are heading into dangerous territory.  If left unchecked Lockheed Martin will soon be the only US defense corporation.  I once shot down that argument but Hasik is compelling.  We're about to inaugurate a government sponsored corporate monopoly because of decisions being made by leadership today that will cost us dearly tomorrow.