Rightsizing the politics of defense

It is becoming increasingly clear that the nation-state is not longer the 'optimal unit' to deal with many defense issues. This is certainly the case for smaller and mid-sized countries, but arguably even for the larger ones. When 'national defense' essentially meant territorial 'self-defense', the centrality of the nation state in defense matters was self evident, even almost tautological. But for many developed countries this is no longer the case.

Both components of the expression 'national defense' ('national' and 'defense') are continuing to evolve. 'National defense' has gradually morphed into a broader concept of 'national security'. And as the international system has become ever more interwoven and 'complex', the concept of 'national' is also far less obvious than it used to be.

For a long time planning defense was just a purely 'national' matter. Nations did of course enter into alliances for various purposes and varying amounts of time, but forward defense planning remained essentially a national activity. Since the end of World War II and the advent of the Cold War, at least some NATO countries (and to some extent  - but in a different way - also Warsaw Pact countries) added a fairly thin layer of multinational defense planning on top of their national efforts. The NATO defense planning process represents probably the most developed form of multinational defense planning - even though its actual impact    on national defense decisions has been fairly disappointing throughout NATO's existence. The European Union has recently also become somewhat involved in defence planning, but the added value of this additional effort has so far (unfortunately) been marginal.

Confronted with the current fiscal tsunami that is starting to hit our National Defense Organizations, nations can essentially head in three different directions.
More multinationalism
A first option is that nations would opt for a more systematic multinational approach. This would appl