Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Why Do Nations Have Marine Forces?
As any Defence News station will tell you, the term "military" or "defence" can be utilized in a person sense in respect of a single soldier and what strategies the person soldier takes to defend himself such as; carrying protecting tools, utilizing armaments or constructing protection such as a digging a trench or a foxhole. Defence is essentially a time period used when describing a navy unit's defensive tactics when working in opposition to an opposing forces offensive, maybe by seeking to circumnavigate the enemy place, delay an enemy assault or to wage a conflict of attrition whereby the enemy will lose numbers ultimately allowing the defensive force to form a line of defense or carry out an offensive maneuver.

In army operations planning, a defensive strategy is the coverage of stopping an assault, or minimizing the harm of an assault, by the forces assuming protection in strategic depth for stopping an enemy from conquering territory. Within the scope of a nationwide defense coverage, protection is used to incorporate most navy issues. The Vietcong employed each regular military units and guerrilla items with a purpose to struggle an offensive and defensive strategy. By means of smaller cell guerrilla forces the Vietcong waged a conflict on the resources of the American soldiers, which included using Military Aircraft
to help them to destroy supplies and supply routes. They also used the Americans assets when producing booby traps, together with discarded items comparable to tin cans as well as unexploded bombs which they would collect and use for mines. Defensive army strategy can also be hugely obvious within the arms race, and more lately the nuclear arms race. The opinion being that with a nation holding such highly effective weapons it will be inadvisable to attack until of course the offensive nation holds weapons of a similar nature.

Nowhere is this instance extra outlined than in the Chilly Warfare stand offs of the mid to late twentieth century. One particular instance of this is the Cuban Missile Crisis which involved the US and the Soviet Union in 1962. The Soviet and Cuban authorities had placed nuclear weapons on Cuba as seen by American reconnaissance planes and, with the strain between the 2 international locations already palpable, a standoff ensued with the 'very real' threat of a nuclear battle occurring. Happily diplomatic proceedings ensured that the crisis was settled relatively amicably with the dismantling of the weaponry and a no-invasion agreement in place from the American authorities.

The role of Military Technology has been gradually shifted away from its primary role of providing security to enhancing commercial interest. With industrial growth and advancement of science and technology, 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.

But restraining factors were at work. The intellectual circle and the wisdom 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 prosperity through friendly trades and to handle conflicts via peaceful dialogues have been recommended 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 strength of the defence force. The military men take great pride in 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 idea of exalting the national self esteem. Recent history of military powers have proved 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.

There are some folks who believe that the United States is usually ready 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 truth 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.

"But is it ever really possible to rationalize having them. Speeches is a grerat place to look. In many ways I think not. It is Catch-22 for sure. If one have them, more will want to have them, since they get afraid of the one nation getting them in the first place. In the end it is only about killing in a big scale..." This is of course true, and I wish it weren't, I wish we lived in a perfect world, but that's not the world we live in, so we must protect ourselves. 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.

You are viewing emilyguz