Weapons for defense only
One of the main challenges of maintaining peaceful international relations is the escalation of distrust and the ensuing arms race.
The possibility that others might attack you is a reason to arm yourself. But this step will in turn be interpreted as a threat by the other, who will in turn arm itself (even more). Etc.
Aren't there ways to simply invest in purely defensive weapons? So that your efforts to remain safe do not in turn threaten others? Which in turn allows others to also de-escalate?
In other words, are there military set-ups that are useless for offensive actions but good enough for defending a country?
10 replies
The distinction between defensive and offensive weaponry is a bit of political theater. Like the first boots on the ground in Vietnam were "military advisors." Sure, a missile shield is more defensive in nature but its rockets or drones would not refuse to go on the offensive, if so ordered, on philosophical grounds. A rifle may aid in repelling an attack as well as participate in it. So the premise of your strategy is on shaky ground.
If something is purely defensive and incapable of harming anyone else then it's not really a "weapon" at all. It would be more like... I don't know... A really big shield?
It's a nice thought on paper but I don't think a big shield being put up is going to convince any other country to stop producing more weapons.
It may actually lead to them producing more powerful weapons if they think they need to get past a big-ass shield now
You shouldn't underestimate the damage you can inflict by whacking someone in the face with a shield, either.
Some sort of energy-absorbing energy shield or force field? Doesn’t exist yet.
Even in Star Trek, anything with a shield has some sort of weapons too.
If everyone was defensive only then there wouldn't be a need for a defense. It's a core principle of military combat that a good defense is offense, can't shoot back if their already dead.
Well we haven't blown ourselves up (so far) from the fear of mutually assured destruction. It seems to have worked for north Korea as well.
I mean there's the Iron Dome the US helped fund for Isreal. It's a short range air defense system. It's not built for offense, and wouldn't work well for it from what I understand.
But even that there's still the 'self-defense' mentality where the iron dome could shoot down non-combatants flying within range because of a supposed threat.
The other part of the “self defense” mentality is that a well defended entity is more likely to attack others through whatever means is available with the confidence that they don’t have to fear retaliation. It’s Titanic syndrome.
I would say no.