Random Thoughts on Modern War

Generals and Admirals seldom want the weapons they need, or need the weapons they have. All this reveals itself belatedly in wartime.

Nuclear weapons are of little value, since their acquisition by your adversary cancels out your own stockpile. Greater relevance is then placed on conventional forces, which vastly increases the burden of the arms race.

The Fall of the Soviet Union to inside forces is proof that nuclear bombs cannot secure a weakened regime indefinitely against a determined foe. Iran should take notice.

Anti-Ballistic Missile Defenses are likely more trouble than they are worth. Though defensive in concept, such weapons foster an inferiority complex and paranoia on those who fail to match our technology, thus breeding an even more dangerous environment.

The recent "Hormuz Crisis" reveals an interesting fact: Both the Iranian Mullahs and the Western Anti-War Left desire a military attack by the US. In today's backward political environment the inevitable and possible disastrous loss of life in such a conflict on both sides is less important than the international sympathy for the radicals such an action would garner, especially from the liberal Worldwide Media.

So-called World Peace Organizations actually cause more wars than they prevent. An aggressor nation can always count on an "easy out" provided by a UN mandated cease fire when their attacks go awry. This allows them to declare victory, pull out, and prepare for the next conflict at their leisure.