🚀 go-pugleaf

This article is from pyramid!dual!islenet!scott
 and was received on Fri Aug 15 07:21:52 1986
 
Henry Spencer writes:

> There is a distinction here, which John may be aware of but didn't mention
> explicitly, and it's important:  "military" is not synonymous with "warmaker".
> It is fashionable to ignore the distinction, and in the case of the US or
> the USSR this may be justifiable.  But it's not a universal principle.
>
To equate the military of a totalitarian state and a democratic one is both
fatuous and dangerous. Let's face it, there are bears in the woods, and
we need defense. Switzerland's stance will only work for Switzerland
when there is a third party to conquer aggressors. In WWII Switzerland would
ultimately have been overrun but for the allies. 

Thus, if one grants defense is necessary, there is a social duty to provide
it. You are of course quite correct that not all "military" work is
aggressive.  However, there is no effective defense that is not warlike. 
The whole objective is to be more effectively warlike than the aggressor,
for there is no reward for second best in war. 

Now, there are those who argue that such violence is not required for
national survival in this day and age. If deterrence works, perhaps not.
But non-violent deterrence leaves to the aggressor the freedom to use
as much violence as he wishes without opposition.

Frankly, I find the efforts of engineers to analyse strategic issues such
as these rather tedious and simplistic. I fear for the future of free
societies when skilled persons choose to withdraw from the defense of
the society on which their own survival depends. In the final analysis,
such people make themselves irrelevant to the most important issue of these
times.