Why Do States Feel They Must Have Armed Forces?

It's a fact that Military
defence has a number of completely different meanings dependent on what criteria you apply the reference to.

Without a doubt, the term "defense is just another way of describing a battle, used by governments to replicate their non-aggressive posture in their region which does not carry the detrimental connotation of battle, resembling Ministry or Department of Defense.

In navy operations planning, a defensive strategy is the coverage of preventing an attack, or minimizing the injury of an assault, by the forces assuming protection in strategic depth for stopping an enemy from conquering territory. Within the scope of a national defense policy, defense is used to include most military issues.

Defence tactics are employed by nations for numerous reasons. For instance, an excellent example of using defensive technique tactics might be seen when used towards American troopers within the Vietnam Conflict.

By way of smaller cell guerrilla forces the Vietcong waged a warfare on the sources of the American soldiers, which included destroying supplies and supply routes. They also used the Individuals resources including Military Tanks
when producing booby traps, together with discarded items equivalent to tin cans in addition to unexploded bombs which they might gather and use for mines. These

Defensive army technique can also be hugely apparent in the arms race, and more just lately the nuclear arms race. The opinion being that with a nation holding such powerful weapons it might be inadvisable to assault except in fact the offensive nation holds weapons of an identical nature.

The role of military defence has been gradually shifted away from its primary role of providing security to enhancing commercial interest. With industrial growth and advancement of science,technology and Avionics the defence production led to a market oriented producer- purchaser relation between the developed and developing countries.The poor nation afflicted with conflicts became a super market for defence deals. For the powerful, military prowess which was earlier synonymous with political power has become a trademark of economic power.

Nowhere is this example extra outlined than within the Cold War stand offs of the mid to late twentieth century. One specific example of that is the Cuban Missile Crisis which involved the US and the Soviet Union in 1962. The Soviet and Cuban authorities had positioned nuclear weapons on Cuba as seen by American reconnaissance planes and, with the stress between the 2 nations already palpable, a standoff ensued with the 'very actual' menace of a nuclear warfare occurring. Luckily diplomatic proceedings ensured that the disaster was settled relatively amicably with the dismantling of the weaponry and a no-invasion settlement in place from the American authorities.

But restraining factors were at work. The intellectual circle and the knowledge acquired from past experiences as also the active international diplomacy successfully trained the world community to disarm for peace and development. The agreement to network for wealth through friendly trades and to address conflicts through peaceful dialogues have been endorsed vehemently.

Resource is scarce and is even scarcer with rising population particularly in poor countries which are already afflicted with hunger, illiteracy and joblessness. For these countries, the preparation for an impending war, which may never occur, is a sheer wastage of precious resource in terms of man, money and material.

The political compulsions may tempt the authority to take pride in the toughness of the defence force. The military men pride themselves as the savior of the country. With due respect and regard to the defence services, I have a considered opinion to express. I think military might is an outdated notion of exalting the national self esteem. Recent history of military powers have confirmed the fatality of this approach. The pride of the nation is in the human asset and any nation that failed to nurture its most precious asset will lose its national pride even if it owns the most sophisticated war weapons to erase the entire human race.

Big defence budgets in the developed world may entail an economic investment return out of defence production and sale exports. But how long can this go on? For poor countries, big defence budget produces a negative return, and hits the belly of the poor as his pie is taken away with every military purchase.In the new age, the defence security trade mark will diminish as more focus is now on economic security and sustainability of the future. The creative and innovative thinking to meet the future challenges will be a supreme consideration while war weapons will be valueless in the approaching apocalypse.You should definitely check Ctcd for more information.

There are some folks who believe that the United States goes out of its way to start wars, but is that really a fair assessment? No, not really, still it's not to say that a rogue nation-state despot or dictator should go out of their way to provoke us either. Not long ago, I was discussing this with an acquaintance, and they indicated that; "without wars, the defense industry would not exist in the end."

The thing is, they don't care what they build really; they just get a contract and set up a project management team, make prototypes, and then manufacture. They could make day-care centers for kids or military bases, they don't care. It's like lawyers, if they cannot practice one type of law, they will try to sue you for something else. We don't live in a world where there is not some crisis to take care of.

Further, I don't see nations with nukes as so bad, more I am worried about lunatic dictators, or terrorists having them. I'd rather the world didn't have nuclear weapons at all, but since so many nations do, and more will soon follow, I very much doubt any nation will get rid of them, because they will want to be able to protect themselves, against the last nation that refuses to get rid of them. Now then, my acquaintance states the obvious;

In my personal library I have almost a whole row of books on the topic of nuclear proliferation, the Cold War, and many reports put forth during the Cold War by the Rand Corporation. I believe it is scary stuff, and it's quite unfortunate, but it is what it is and we must deal with it without blinders. Please consider all this and think on it. If you have any comments, questions, or concerns you may e-mail me. I will not accept e-mails from anti-nuclear power activists.