|
Sept. 1, 2011 Most people are at least mildly aware that the maintenance of a military force costs money and that maintaining a large military force strains the economy. In most countries people support their military for patriotic and prestige reasons. They also feel better by having a force strong enough to deter invasions. Largely, the size of defense forces will depend on the size of the country, its economy and geopolitical situation. For example, despite its strategic position of controlling the Panama Canal, Panama does not have an army, navy or air force. Its National Guard is meant to maintain internal stability. Although it was invaded by the USA in 1989, it depends on its defense on the good will and pleasure of the giant to the north. Prosperous Finland, keeps a small but powerful military that could make an invasion from Russia a costly affair. But, it depends mostly on shrewd diplomacy and strong economic ties to keep the bear next door happy. These are just two examples how small countries around the world stay at peace and at least nominally independent without being able to match military power of larger neighbors. Large, powerful countries depend on the balance of power to stay at peace. A good example was the Cold War where both camps could completely obliterate each other. With the Cold War over, both most powerful nations in the world still depend on this balance for their feeling of security. The difference being, is that Russia spends on defense only one tenth of what the US does. Where is the balance? Russia has enough missiles to destroy the US and the US can do the same to Russia. Then why is the US spending such vast amounts of money on armaments and the military? A good question that leads to the next one. What are US intentions? The totally unprovoked invasion of Iraq sent alarm bells throughout the world. A new question rose, who will be next? When generals begin to ask themselves such question, the result is new plans to defend themselves from the aggressor nation. Although not new, asymmetrical warfare is the buzz word of this century. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq have shown that this type of warfare favors the smaller, weaker belligerent against the larger, sledge hammer opponent. Also the weaker one will develop new, cheaper weapons faster than the mightier foe. A good example are the family of tandem rockets that can convert the most powerful tank into a smoking Swiss cheese. This was well demonstrated when Hezbullah stopped the Israely Army. Of course, weapons of mass destruction can be developed by small countries. It only requires a small lab to produce Anthrax or Sarin and production can go undetected for years. Imagine Army A in charge of defending country A preparing to defend his homeland from the unwelcome attentions of country X which has eleven aircraft carriers. He can´t do much with the three frigates in its navy. But he can easily introduce chemical or bacteriological agents into country X and create a huge disaster. The US has already suffered one asymmetric attack on 9/11. That was when it still had very few enemies. Since the Bush/Chenney administration to the present day, the US has been bombing its way in the Middle East, Mediterranean and Africa, causing insecurity and fear. The more enemies the US collects, the larger the chances for some smaller country deciding to launch a devastating attack. If the US concentrated on having a defense force it really needs, like small ships for anti piracy work and stopped threatening the rest of the world, it will have less enemies, a safer environment, lots of money to create jobs and a vigorous economy.
Excessive spending on armaments creates insecurity and poverty.
Tweet
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|