This Week at War: The General’s Dystopia
21st April 2012
In a post-industrial era, the correlation between population and military power is sharply reduced. Examples of this transformation abound. Very small countries like Israel and Singapore field military forces far more powerful than their populations would suggest and provide security for themselves in regions with far larger neighbors. Last summer, Special Forces soldiers from the tiny nation of Qatar led the boots-on-the-ground unconventional warfare campaign inside comparatively massive Libya that brought down Muammar al-Qaddafi. Among non-state actors, Hezbollah in southern Lebanon has the military organization and enough sophisticated weapons to rival many states in the region. Mexico’s Sinaloa and Los Zetas drug cartels have the resources and structure to merit consideration as small but troublesome quasi-military organizations.
The falling costs and increased dispersion of militarily useful technology has lowered the barriers for organizations, be they nation-states or non-state actors, to become dangerous military threats. For such potential military powers, acquiring warehouses of small arms, munitions, and equipment is merely an afterthought. Anti-aircraft and anti-ship guided missiles, once only for major military powers, are now available for sale or fabrication from commercial components. The dispersion and cheap access to technology applies not only to munitions but also to supporting components such as optics, night vision sensors, communications and navigation devices, and electronic warfare equipment — areas where the Pentagon has invested enormous sums over past decades. The advantages U.S. forces formerly gained from those investments are now fleeting, a consequence of the falling costs and increased dispersion of such technology.
April 21st, 2012 at 10:40
But the right would have us believe that the world is safer when everybody’s packing…
The UN should spearhead a concerted effort to arm all organizations, large and small, state or non-state, including PTA’s, Alter Guilds, and bridge clubs–it’ll spell the end of any threats by drug cartels and/or islamist militants…won’t it?
April 21st, 2012 at 14:43
No, the right would have you believe that everybody is safer if everybody on the right were packing. And it would be.
Ask the people on death row whom they vote for in elections. I guarantee you it ain’t Republicans. Ask the Crips and Bloods whom they vote for in elections (if they can be bothered to vote). I guarantee you it ain’t Republicans. Ask the illegal immigrant driving an unlicensed, uninsured car who gets drunk and crashes into a mini-van, killing somebody’s kids. I guarantee you it ain’t Republicans.
April 21st, 2012 at 17:04
So, you’re for gun control for those not in your particular clique, is that it?
I guess some animals are more equal than others…
April 21st, 2012 at 20:31
Gun control doesn’t enter into it, except insofar as it means being able to hit what you aim at, and ‘progressives’ seem to have a problem with that. Since ‘my particular clique’ includes most of the population of the state, it’s a pretty lame characterization. As far as animals are concerned, I can walk safely through downtown Dallas; can you say the same for Detroit? I think not.
April 22nd, 2012 at 11:26
“Gun Control” only restricts law abiding citizens. Criminals pay no attention to laws – by definition.
Yeah, I’m ok with everyone packin’, as long as I’m allowed to do the same. There aren’t many muggings at a shooting range.