Arming to fight the last war? (was Re: Jane's on Naval `electric weapons')

From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Sun Jun 22 2003 - 19:59:08 MDT

  • Next message: Dehede011@aol.com: "Re: Arming to fight the last war? (was Re: Jane's on Naval `electric weapons')"

    One thing I don't get about the spending on tech weapons.

    Seems the US has such an overwhelming military advantage
    that no single country in their right mind would take them on
    in a conventional or even nuclear war.

    Add to that the fact that the US is linked in through a number
    of alliances. And I wonder what the need is for the type of big
    toy "defence spending". I heard Australian PM Howard talking
    about possibly being a buyer of nuclear defence shielding
    systems. This seems completely nuts to me. The chances of
    being attacked by ICBMs etc seem virtually zero in comparison
    with say a suitcase nuke or dirty bomb or something similar.
    ICBMs leave a trail that's like a return to sender with interest
    message.

    I used to reckon the stuff about the military/industrial complex
    running on an economic imperative that had nothing to do with
    much else besides preserving the status quo in spending was a
    bit batty even in the cold war. But now, who is the US really
    preparing to fight or defend itself against?

    The types of weapons being built seem to be the wrong ones
    for fighting terrorists and small scale guerrilla wars. And these
    seem to be exactly the sorts of conflict that are likely to arise.

    - Brett Paatsch



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 22 2003 - 20:06:31 MDT