The Military Balance of Power
In an age where how to manufacture weapons of mass destruction is relatively common knowledge, with the only real limitation being the procurement of the necessary components, we find ourselves asking whether possession of such former aces in the hole connotes the same military power distinction it once did. Knowledge is difficult to contain in the increasingly globalized world of today; weapon systems and arms that were previously exclusive to a select few nations have found their way to other countries through various, sometimes clandestine, channels. The inevitable question in light of such developments is can we still meaningfully compare military strength and power between countries, today and in the future?Like all the other capabilities that may constitute a state's power, military power has no cut and dry definition that enables it to be measured directly. At best it can be characterized by a number of quantitative and qualitative factors which can be categorized as being either internal or external measures of a state's military power. The internal measures include such factors as a state's military budget, its weaponry, and it's morale and leadership; the external measures and their respective factors include a state
The relationship between the United States and Israel and Taiwan, for example, stops short of being a formal alliance between the U. While the importance of collective defense in the context of formal alliances such as NATO is obvious, less-formal coalitions that may not have alliance status are no less significant. Intelligence gathering technology among the Western nations far exceeds that of any other group of countries; satellite surveillance and intelligence cooperation has given the West detailed knowledge of the military capabilities of every nation, and allowed the West and its allies to formulate the necessary contingency plans for dealing with any conflicts as they may arise. A contrasting example is the stunning success achieved by Israel in the Arab-Israeli wars, due in part to the incompetence of the opposition's military but also due to the high morale of its own forces who were, in effect, fighting for the survival of their country (Bracken 74-75). At the outset of the Gulf War, Iraq was considered to have the fourth largest military in the world and yet, under the pressure of the coalition attack, the Iraqi forces all but folded and surrendered in enormous numbers in a matter of weeks, in part due to poor leadership and low morale within its military. furnishing Israel with the Patriot missile defense system during the Gulf War. In this respect a state's economy defines the limits of its military capabilities whether they be offensive or defensive in nature (Viotti, Kauppi 98). Of greater relevance than the offensive capabilities is the defensive component of a state's weaponry, designed to foresee and counter the threat posed by potential aggressors. military (as inevitable as that currently seems). The greater importance that information technology and communication will play, as well as the continued significance of coalitions and alliances, will serve to direct the future military balance of power among nations, and the future of what constitutes military strength today. This leaves potential rogue states to attempt to develop long-range missiles themselves; an expensive, long-term proposition that is likely to be unsustainable given the economies of these countries (Bracken 61).
Common topics in this essay:
,
Korea Pakistan,
Israel Arab-Israeli,
Arquilla Ronfeldt,
Gulf War,
Viotti Kauppi,
Syria Berry,
War Iraq,
Cold War,
United Nations,
military power,
military strength,
state's military,
military balance power,
state's military power,
israel taiwan,
seven countries,
power military,
north korea,
military balance,
gulf war,
measure state's military,
systems arms previously,
systems arms,
weapon systems arms,
|
Acceptance Essays
