If it happens, the big military parade wanted by President Donald Trump would probably occur this coming Veterans Day, Nov. 11, in Washington, D.C., but the Pentagon said Monday that funding for the event could be a problem.

"When we talk about the options -- the composition, the theme, the date, the location, the associated costs -- all those are being looked at as part of the options that are being created" for the parade, said Army Col. Rob Manning, a Pentagon spokesman.

"The funding stream is a line that they [parade planners] would have to provide details on," Manning said at a Pentagon briefing.

No funding for a parade was allocated in either the Fiscal Year 2018 or 2019 Defense Department budgets, but the White House appeared intent on going ahead.

Manning said DoD has already received guidance on parade planning from Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, the White House National Security Adviser, and the Army has been designated as the lead service for making the arrangements.

The last major parade in Washington to honor returning service members from the Gulf War in the 1990s cost about $12 million. The cost of a parade today has been estimated at anywhere from $10-30 million.

Over the weekend, Trump told Fox News that "we'll see if we can do it at a reasonable cost, and if we can't, we won't do it. But the generals would love to do it, I can tell you, and so would I."

Manning said he didn't know who the generals were that Trump cited.

"I don't know what specific generals told him that," Manning said, "but again, the president directed the parade to show his appreciation for the military and to honor service members."

For more than 60 years, the U.S. Navy has relied on steam power to catapult planes off the decks of aircraft carriers, leaving behind a telltale trail of steam rising from the track.

A new generation of carriers will rely on something far more technologically complex: an electromagnetic system that could potentially launch more aircraft off the deck and at a faster rate than traditional steam methods.

But development of this cutting-edge technology, built by San Diego defense firm General Atomics, has not been without growing pains.

And the system's readiness, along with that of other new systems on the USS Gerald R. Ford, the first of a new class of carriers, is at the center of a debate between the U.S. Navy and Senate leaders. The Ford was commissioned last summer and entered active service, but it must undergo additional testing before being able to deploy for operations.

"It's certainly true that any time you're introducing something new ... you're going to have issues," said Andrew Hunter, director of the defense-industrial initiatives group at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "There will probably continue to be kinks to work out."

But, he said, it's too late to go back to steam catapult systems, at least for the next two carriers in this class. (President Trump advocated a return to steam in an interview with Time last year, in which he described the electromagnetic launch system as "no good.")

China also is reportedly planning to use an electromagnetic aircraft launch system on one of its domestically designed carriers.

"The die is cast on that," Hunter said.

General Atomics, best known for making the Predator drone, referred all questions about the electromagnetic launch system to the Navy, citing the company's contract.

Top five school safety questions every parent should have answered:

1. When was the last safety and security assessment conducted? Who conducted it? What were the findings? What enhancements were recommended? What actions were taken? When is the next assessment scheduled?

Safety requirements are mandated at the state level, but individual school boards still have a lot of discretion in how those directives get implemented at the local level. Virginia, for example, requires schools to have a security audit conducted every year, but not all states adhere to these same standards. Furthermore, not all states place the same emphasis on the safety of their students. Some schools choose to have their audits focus on property-related concerns like computer theft and vandalism rather than student safety.

2. Who is the administrator responsible for handling the school’s threat assessment and management program?

The goal of a threat assessment and management program is to provide students who self-identify their despair with the help they need by managing their harmful ideation toward peaceful resolution.

Ask about the reporting of concerns at your child's school. Ask what you can do to help. Remember: Everyday safety requires the participation of everyone.

3. What is the school’s access control policy for visitors and student re-admittance once classes are in session? How is this policy enforced?

In most cases, schools have a very well-written policy for granting entry into the school once classes are in session. Regrettably, those who are responsible for allowing access are often inundated with other responsibilities which may lead to a lack of consistency in how the policy is practiced. For example, the gate-keepers may confirm the legitimacy of a visiting parent, but may miss the ill-intended intruder "tailgating" behind them. One of the biggest risks facing many schools is the wide divide between policy and practice -- between what they say is being done, and what is actually being accomplished.

4. What are the determining factors for when to evacuate and when to shelter-in-place? Who is the decision maker?

The difference between when to evacuate and when to shelter in place is pretty cut and dry. As general rule, if the threat is external to the school (high winds, falling trees, severe storms) you stay inside and shelter-in-place where it is safe. Conversely, if the threat is internal to the school, (fire, gas leak, active shooter) the best practice is to evacuate in order to put as much time and distance from the threat as possible.

5. What nearby safe-havens are in close proximity (running distance) to the school where your child could go in the event of an emergency evacuation?

"Safe Havens" are places which offer safety, support, and protection. Restaurants are great. They have food, water, bathrooms, and landlines for making phone calls. When in doubt: Run to a restaurant. (Hint: Restaurants are great for family reunification too.)

Most schools are designed as a series of interconnected and compartmentalized areas that offer their own pockets of protection in the form of dispersion and separation. Evacuation locations negate this protection by having everyone move from their respectively disjointed areas to a single, pre-designated position. If someone really wanted to do the most harm, the evacuation point would offer the most “bang for the buck” because almost all evacuation points are outside of the secure perimeter and are easily researched on social media.

At the end of the day, children deserve a safe and welcoming learning environment.