Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

DetlefK

(16,670 posts)
4. It could lead to some kind of global disarmament.
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:20 PM
Nov 2012

Fewer and fewer soldiers and war-machines. But, as the war in Afghanistan, showed again, you still need massive amounts of those if you want to win a war of aggression.

What are Master-Chiefs and Space-Marines and Battle-Mechs good for, when you can only build and maintain so many of them, because they are too expensive? Defense and deterrence.

If everybody agrees to phase out their military for a small high-tech-army, then, at one point, the armies will be too small to actually WIN a war. ("Damnit, we need more cannon-fodder!&quot
As Napoleon said, war is about controlling time and space. Well, Afghanistan has too much space to be controlled and having a smaller army will only make war less desirable.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Veterans»U.S. Stealth Fighter Pilo...»Reply #4