I think in order to see what is going on, we need to take a more relaxed view of what constitutes military technology and the true costs of war.
1) The true costs of war don't just involve kill ratios. Following Clauswitz' maxim that war is a continuation of politics by other means, conquering your enemy means not just killing your opponent but imposing your will upon a populace. Using Stealth bombers and other technological advance means we can efficiently kill our enemies, but using these weapons is an enormously costly endeavor. It costs money, and more importantly it doesn't necessarily impose a workable political solution. For example, we could certainly eliminate a good chunk of the threat of terrorism by turning the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc) into a radioactive parking lot, but this would be enormously costly in terms of the goodwill we enjoy around the world (and the simple fact we'd be killing many millions of innocent people). 2) Flowing from this point, other countries (notably Arab countries- this link is as good as any for making the point: http://www.usni.org/Proceedings/Articles03/prolayton03.htm#potential) understand this fact. Weaker countries know they can't wage a hot war against a vastly stronger opponent. The strategy of terrorism is, in this regard, a rational response to national strength. Not only are the weak not going to be re-colonized by the strong, they wage war upon the strong by means of saboteurs and spies. In doing so, they maintain enough political distance between their nation and the terrorist activity that the strong nations do not feel they can morally bring their full might to bear on the governments. Thus shielded from the weapons of the strong nations, they wage a war of attrition to impose their will on the strong. -----Original Message----- From: ArmChair List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bryan Caplan Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 3:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: the sea-change of military competition It is a cliche that at least in the area of military technology, countries rarely let themselves fall behind. At least historically, countries either strived for parity or got conquered. But a weird thing has happened since WWII. The military ability gap between the strongest countries and the weakest has gotten a lot bigger. The British Empire in its heydey did not beat whole countries into submission with 0 casualties, but that is basically what NATO did to Yugoslavia. Colonial kill ratios were something like 20:1, not 3000:0. But despite this widening gap, the idea that the weakest countries are going to be recolonized is now laughable. What in the world is going on? Are we in a weird fluke? Are there any parallels? -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I hope this has taught you kids a lesson: kids never learn." --Chief Wiggum, *The Simpsons*
