Great wealth has been created in the manufacturing of weapons and selling them to nation-states, rogue states, great democracies, strong republics, and dictatorships. Yes, as well as terrorist organizations, resistance groups, and guerrillas. In fact, if you will recall Howitzer was selling weapons to both sides during World War II. It was making great guns, and ammunition and the nations fighting in the war during World War II couldn’t buy enough.
Einstein once you said “you cannot simultaneously prepare for and prevent war,” and yet if you are not prepared for war, and your enemy comes calling, you will end up forfeiting your civilization by default, or fighting to the death, or surrendering, Getting An Electrical Apprenticeship and in that case there is no guarantee you will not die on your knees anyway. Karl von Clausewitz warns us that a nation that fails to protect itself, or fails to attack an enemy who is about to attack them does so at the expense of its people.
Indeed, that is the philosophy of preemption, and it is a viewpoint held by historians, military strategists, politicians involved in impasse, and those that see reality, but it is equally reviled by those who prefer peace at all costs, including their own lives and families. Not long ago, I had someone tell me that the best thing that could happen in the world would be to; “eliminate weapons manufacturing to save the world.”
That sounds just wonderful, real peachy, real preaching, and really, really ridiculous. The world doesn’t work that way and so I asked her; “How would you propose eliminating weapons manufacturing? Have you read Sun Tzu or Carl von Clausewitz? How would you eliminate all conflict so this could be done? Would you use force to stop those who made weapons?”
She just gave me a blank stare like I didn’t know what I was talking about. So I asked some more questions such as; What type of force would you use, what type of weapons would be wielded Industry And Competitive Analysis Example to cause this force? This would be an interesting philosophical topic indeed. Since she is so adamant about this, surely she has obviously thought it through, right? Well, hmm.
It is quite obvious, that she had not thought this through, and that we can’t get rid of our weapons, until the other side does. So maybe she needs to run over to the other side, and get them to disband all their weapons, that is if Al Qaeda doesn’t hold her for ransom, or threaten to behead her on video, or both. And even if the other side did disband its weapons, we would have proof that they did. Only then perhaps we might do the same, but not a minute before hand. And even so would that really be wise?
Therefore it’s a Catch-22, and some say a no-win game. A nation that cannot, or will not defend itself will become a client nation of a stronger …
General
