I could be missing the point about military spending, and the five-year-old in my head asking the question does just want forcefields over every country in the end.
In: Technology
Defense spending is mostly on people and weapons and logistical support that can be used offensively or defensively.
What things are “offensive” and “defensive” isn’t simple. On different levels or looked at different ways the same thing can be either. Many things are similar in effectiveness on offensive and defense.
You might consider fortifications defensive, but by themselves they don’t usually provide good defense (they slow down and maybe weaken the office or channel them in to specific areas, so more mobile forces can assist in the defense or counter attack.). And in any case fortification can be used in a strategically offensive way (you take some of your enemy’s territory, then you build fortifications and bases that protect your grab of territory and support further attacks).
Armor is physically defensive, but it allows for attack. Soldiers with weapons and armor often have had an advantage against soldiers without (particularly with weapons like swords, and spears, and bows). An armored tank is physically defended but that enables it to attack more, compare that to a machine gun or anti-tank gun (now usually replaced by ATGMs), or AAA gun or SAM battery, which physically don’t provide much protection if any and are almost pure attack in a direct physical sense, but are quite useful on the defense. Protective force fields don’t exist. If they did, they would presumably be used on ships and land vehicles to help attacks.
Considering the above what would PURE “defense spending” even mean, spending that allows you to defend but doesn’t enable attack?
Latest Answers