The ideal battle

The ideal battle is supposed to be one that is won before a single life is lost. By amassing such a formidable arsenal of weaponry as would deter any potential attacker, a country considers itself to be engaging in this ideal battle.

People talk about which fighter jets, tanks, submarines we should and shouldn't have bought (because there are ones with 'more advanced technology') in such an earnest fashion that the conclusion that we really need a engage in this psychological warfare has long since been forgone.

Obviously the prompt for this post was the recent $10b (over ten years) cut from the Australian Defence budget - despite a real 3% per year increase in spending on defence (ie. 3% over and above inflation). Which in actual fact means the 'cuts' are just a reduction of the even greater increases in defence spending that were already planned by the previous government. Hardly a brazen piece of policy making, but still gets one thinking about why so much needs to be spent on defence.

I don't believe in the preservation of culture for the sake of the culture itself. Cultures have evolved throughout time, as has the maturity of humanity's collective consciousness. Through out that time there is a gradual clarification of a line between right and wrong, with no room for relativism. The International Declaration of Human Rights is the best example of this maturity. So, I would agree with the argument that a military presence on peacekeeping missions is required. When faced with militia (like government sponsored ones such the Sudanese janjaweed) or other armed forces that are committing crimes against their society, international intervention is required. I would even go so far as to put myself almost on the fence when it comes to the invasion of Iraq - obviously done for the oil, but perhaps there may be some good come out of it in the long run - but then again perhaps not - time will tell. The military intervention of the Japanese whaling boats (did that happen in the end? last I saw it was ordered to be done) is another example when military technology and equipment are useful.

But the investment in a defence force that can achieve these basic needs would only be a small portion (and I refer less to Australia than I would to other nations) of the amount spent by countries in fighting their ideal battle