- Chad Christensen
- Logan, UT
- United States
This conversation has closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Could a country protect itself through defensive tactics alone?
If countries spent as much money and time developing purely defensive tactics (armor, walls, threat detection technologies, etc.) instead of offensive tactics (guns, bombs, etc.) would the country be destroyed or defended?
Are offensive tactics necessary to protect a country?
I understand that currently we don't have the technology to protect a nation through defense but if we dedicated all military funds to tactics that don't require hurting someone else to save ourselves could we reach a point where we were invulnerable.
Can a terrorist steal a bulletproof vest and use it to hurt someone else without a gun involved?
The people we fight often use guns and bombs we invented or even manufactured. Our current attempt is to get a bigger gun than the other guy. Where will that lead? Extinction of our race? We need a change of direction if we are to survive ourselves.
The lion fights for dominance.
The turtle hides for peace.
If we all had ways to defend ourselves that didn't enable us to hurt others then I believe we would see worlds peace!
edward long 30+
julius sephiroth
Douglas Bell
Well, That Maginot line thing worked out pretty well. For Germany.
The point being that armies that fight defensive battles, lose.
Best wishes,
Doug Bell
Chad Christensen
What I've read about the Maginot Line was that it worked but it was too expensive so they had to discontinue it. I don't think Germany lost because of the Maginot Lines, but among other things they over extended their offensive forces.
I'm not asking if defensive tactics are cheaper or easier in any way. My question is if it's possible. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. I think that killing them before they kill you is unethical.
I also think that one of the reasons people who fight defensive battles lose is because they still use offensive weaponry to fight defensive battles. I think true defensive tactics exclude fighting.
Douglas Bell
Sorry, I get a little too obscure sometimes. The Maginot line as a French fortification built between WWI and WWII so the French could repel a German attack. The German blitzkreig simply went around it and defeated France in a few weeks. The Germans made the same mistake defending Europe a few years later. Once the allies had broken through in Normandy, there was little on the western front to stop them.
You could make the case that the US experience in Vietnam was similar. The US had a far superior force, but geopolitical reasons kept them from invading and probably defeating North Vietnam and ending the war. They fought not to lose, and in the process did exactly that.
The problem with being totally defensive is that you give up the initiative. The effect is that, while you may be able to postpone losing, unless you take the fight to the enemy you will not win.
The concept of deterrence is that a country will avoid starting a war because they know that they might lose.
Best wishes,
Doug Bell
Xavier Smith
Chad Christensen
Douglas Bell
There's a pretty good discussion out there for just how many nukes are needed to make sure that an attack on you would be too expensive for an aggressor to consider.
The US and Russia have thousands, the British and French have a few dozen each, the Germans don't have any. Three strategies that seem to work..
Thanks,
Doug