| |
In lugnet.build.mecha, Mladen Pejic writes:
> I agree 110% with James!
>
> Look at the Cold War for example, both the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. had enough
> nuclear weapons to annihilate the world, but did they? Deterrence is what
> prevented both nations from even thinking about launching their arsenals.
If anything, I'd say that this reinforces a point that Eric made, at least by
example. That point being that a strong military is useful in deterring other
nations from attacking yours, but speaks nothing as to whether or not your
nation will attack another.
The USSR never (directly) attacked the US, and vice versa, given that their
adversary in those cases had a comparable miltary might.
BUT, neither nation has, since WWII, displayed much consternation over
conflicts against supposedly inferior (militarily speaking) nations - e.g.
Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Panama.
I don't think anybody will argue the point that the 98 pound weakling is very
unlikely to go head to head with the 280 pound bully (that's about 6 stone and
18 stone, respectively ;), but drawing the conclusion that by being 280 pounds
the bully will live peacefully ever after seems somewhat misguided. Given that
it is unlikely that all nations will be on equal footing anytime in the
forseeable future, having large armaments doesn't ensure peace - though it does
ensure that (most) others probably won't directly be the instigators of any
non-peaceful situations that you are involved in.
Note that I am *not* saying that a strong military should therefore be
discarded ... I recognize the merit in the notion that it is advantageous to at
least ensure that no one is likely to attack you - that way, you've at least
eliminated the external source of conflict.
Interesting sidebars:
(1) How do "police actions" fit into this? When a nation acts in a way that is
detrimental to another nation's interests, without actually challenging the
sovereignty of that nation (i.e., Iraq, Serbia, Bosnia, Somalia (?)), who is
the actual instigator if the two nations engage? Keep in mind, behaving in a
way detrimental to another nation's benefit doesn't necessarily constitute a
call to arms ... businesses have to do it all the time to other businesses, and
we (the US, that is - we can rag on Imperial Britain some other time ;)
certainly have few qualms about doing it to other nations. Given that the
nature of many countries' relationships is competitive, who is the actual
instigator in a combatative situation as described above?
(2) Clearly, a strong military is next-to-useless against a well organized
terrorist movement. All our tanks and planes and ships didn't help much in
Oklahoma, or at the World Trade Center. And given that terrorism is a popular
means of combatting the policies of stronger (aka 280 pound) nations, how does
the strong military promote peace and a safe population?
-shaun
As always, the views expressed above may not reflect the views of the sender :)
He may just prefer the role of devil's advocate/antagonist/instigator
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Are we doing the right thing?
|
| (...) I think that "police actions" are birds of two different feathers: 1) Those with a clear moral imperative - Rwanda comes to mind. Oh wait. We just watched the massacre happen. Never mind. 2) Those "police actions" that are really calculated to (...) (23 years ago, 31-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Are we doing the right thing?
|
| I agree 110% with James! Look at the Cold War for example, both the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. had enough nuclear weapons to annihilate the world, but did they? Deterrence is what prevented both nations from even thinking about launching their arsenals. To (...) (23 years ago, 31-Aug-01, to lugnet.build.mecha)
|
50 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
