Monday, November 14, 2011
The best defense is...
Posted by Skyler Frink
The best defense has changed throughout time. While the old phrase "the best defense is a good offense" has been popular, is it always true?
As times change it seems the best defense has changed with it. Trench warfare showed us the best defense is, indeed, a good defense. The cold war turned around and showed us that the best defense was a good offense (that you chose not to use, lest the other side use their own good offense).
Now we are at a time where the best defense is early detection. Everywhere from airports to the front lines are utilizing advanced forms of detection, which is currently as the best way of preventing an attack or halting one that has already begun.
We possess systems that can prevent any manner of attack, from our missile intercept systems, anti-torpedo measures and even a vehicle-arresting barrier, if we know an attack is being carried out we are capable of halting it (or at least severely limiting the damage done).
However, these systems are worthless if they can't detect a threat before it is too late. This is what has caused a paradigm shift, and led to many of the technological advancements of the day. From the full body scanners at airports to the new radar systems used by our military, we have begun pushing for more accurate and earlier detection.
After all, what's the point of a system that can stop a missile mid-flight if you don't even know the threat is there in the first place? ¶ 11/14/2011 04:20:00 PM
Posted by Skyler Frink
The best defense has changed throughout time. While the old phrase "the best defense is a good offense" has been popular, is it always true?
As times change it seems the best defense has changed with it. Trench warfare showed us the best defense is, indeed, a good defense. The cold war turned around and showed us that the best defense was a good offense (that you chose not to use, lest the other side use their own good offense).
Now we are at a time where the best defense is early detection. Everywhere from airports to the front lines are utilizing advanced forms of detection, which is currently as the best way of preventing an attack or halting one that has already begun.
We possess systems that can prevent any manner of attack, from our missile intercept systems, anti-torpedo measures and even a vehicle-arresting barrier, if we know an attack is being carried out we are capable of halting it (or at least severely limiting the damage done).
However, these systems are worthless if they can't detect a threat before it is too late. This is what has caused a paradigm shift, and led to many of the technological advancements of the day. From the full body scanners at airports to the new radar systems used by our military, we have begun pushing for more accurate and earlier detection.
After all, what's the point of a system that can stop a missile mid-flight if you don't even know the threat is there in the first place? ¶ 11/14/2011 04:20:00 PM
Comments:
<< Home
The point is well made, but with respect to paradigm shifts, the focus and results of the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) in the latter part of the last Century would seem to have also be stating that the best Defense is Intelligence, Analysis, and Counterintelligence. It is not always about capabilities and overt actions, but about intentions and covert acts, be they prelude to combat or stand alone.
This model has served us well in the more recent conflicts, and in your example would tell us that the missiles were being prepared for firing or even that a date had been set for such. But as an author critical of select DOD thinking in RMA, I must add that...
To the Pentagon, RMA has also meant redefining the list of threats against which it must prepare to face in an evolving World. Terrorism, Cyber attacks and other systemic attacks (e.g., water supply) and other hostile threats short of open war are good examples. The role of the military today is seen as needing to be much broader and more active (even proactive) than ever before. This, too, certainly relies on the above cited 'best defense.'
Unfortunately, their list also includes preparation and a good deal of strategic thinking about what is termed the Politico-Military Force Matrix which in oversimplified explanation sees (in part) the military as a resource for policing citizens. From this thinking we have seen statements at the highest levels expressing presumption that nationwide Martial Law will at some point be declared.
The danger in such planning is that planners and the Joint Chiefs cannot help but observe that the very tools and procedures they have established and continue to establish for meeting any such challenge could also be used to usurp power and political control with little difficulty.
Since we cannot rely on absolute power to police itself, the best defense in my opinion as student of military thinking is, perhaps, improved observation and control of the planners. Actually, I would prefer a means of divorcing centralized control of National Guard in any such action and instead allowing State's Governors to be the sole local commanders. And no, I don't trust FEMA in that role given their less-than-zero-performance track record.
This model has served us well in the more recent conflicts, and in your example would tell us that the missiles were being prepared for firing or even that a date had been set for such. But as an author critical of select DOD thinking in RMA, I must add that...
To the Pentagon, RMA has also meant redefining the list of threats against which it must prepare to face in an evolving World. Terrorism, Cyber attacks and other systemic attacks (e.g., water supply) and other hostile threats short of open war are good examples. The role of the military today is seen as needing to be much broader and more active (even proactive) than ever before. This, too, certainly relies on the above cited 'best defense.'
Unfortunately, their list also includes preparation and a good deal of strategic thinking about what is termed the Politico-Military Force Matrix which in oversimplified explanation sees (in part) the military as a resource for policing citizens. From this thinking we have seen statements at the highest levels expressing presumption that nationwide Martial Law will at some point be declared.
The danger in such planning is that planners and the Joint Chiefs cannot help but observe that the very tools and procedures they have established and continue to establish for meeting any such challenge could also be used to usurp power and political control with little difficulty.
Since we cannot rely on absolute power to police itself, the best defense in my opinion as student of military thinking is, perhaps, improved observation and control of the planners. Actually, I would prefer a means of divorcing centralized control of National Guard in any such action and instead allowing State's Governors to be the sole local commanders. And no, I don't trust FEMA in that role given their less-than-zero-performance track record.
You make an excellent point, I appreciate such a well written and thought out comment. Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence are certainly important, and definitely more useful as they are capable of preventing a conflict before it even begins.
I apologize for not responding sooner, as a response that well said deserves one.
You've given me quite a bit to think about!
Post a Comment
I apologize for not responding sooner, as a response that well said deserves one.
You've given me quite a bit to think about!
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
