World Military Spending
World military spending in 2007 (Data: Wikipedia) |
The Long Road Towards Peace
Despite the massive build-up in global military spending a road to peace still exists. Paradoxically this very build up could spur nations to take this road purely to save money and maintain security.
Defensive-Only Armed Forces
Weapons systems can be loosely be grouped into two categories - offensive and defensive.
Expensive Offensive Weapon Systems:
- Amphibious Assault Ships - almost exclusively used for invading other countries. (~$1 Billlion each)
- Aircraft Carriers - exclusively for force-projection. (~$4-$5 Billion each)
- Destroyers - exclusively for force-projection. (~$2-$3 Billion each)
- Nuclear Submarines - used to blockade other countries, launch surprise attacks, etc. (~$2-$3 Billion each)
- Long Range Bombers - intended to bomb other countries.(~$2 Billion for B2 stealth bomber)
- Large Tank Regiments - intended to invade other countries. (~$5-$10 Million each)
Cheaper Defensive Weapon Systems:
- Anti-Ship Missiles - now often supersonic and with sophisticated guidance. (~$1-$2 Million each)
- Anti-Air Missile Systems - relatively cheap and can detect all but the stealthiest aircraft.
- Anti-Tank Missiles - can be shoulder or light-vehicle launched. (~$20 - $100 thousand)
- Non-nuclear Submarines - a strong deterrent to invasion but of little use for invading anyone else. (~$200-$400 Million)
- Short/Medium Range Fighters - vital for defence but unable to occupy foreign territory on their own. (~$70-$100 Million each)
- Light Armoured Vehicles - useful for peace-keeping but not much good for large-scale invasions. (~$1 Million each)
As it happens you can buy far more defensive assets with a given amount of money than you can buy offensive assets. For example - you could buy hundreds of state-of-the-art anti-ship missiles for the price of one destroyer. And yet no destroyer could withstand an attack by hundreds of anti-ship missiles.
This means that countries that invest only in defensive weapons will be more secure than if they had invested in a mix of offensive and defensive weapons systems. Additionally it is difficult to justify invading a country to your own people when it is well known that the target nation posses no threat to your own territory.
The Defensive Only Treaty
The fact that nations who adopt a defensive-only posture are more secure for less money than those that do not leads to the possibility of establishing a voluntary treaty which sets down the rules as to what is a 'offensive' or 'defensive' weapon system and what the phase-out periods would be.
Clearly China, India, Russia & the US would block any attempt to create a UN resolution on this issue. But the huge offensive military spending of these super-powers actually drives other nations to follow a defensive-only strategy - if only for reasons of economic and military necessity.
The Outcome
Over the decades the number of nations formally signing on to the 'Defensive - Only Treaty' would be likely to gradually increase to include most non-superpowers. This would be largely driven by fear of the super-powers. Smaller nations will realise that the only military way to deter the super-powers will be through focusing all their available military resources on defence.
At some point internal politics within super-power states will force a re- evaluation of their own military strategy. For example the US may decide that Aircraft carriers really cannot be defended and a step-down to a more defensive submarine-only strategy increases their security while delivering huge cost savings. The Chinese may be forced by a realisation that an invasion of Taiwan would actually fail militarily to offer a far-improved autonomy deal which the Taiwanese could accept.
Slowly, over many decades, the need for even defensive weapon systems actually starts to decrease.
The Impact on Australia
This site recommends that Australia adopt a 'defensive only' posture irrespective of what other countries are doing.
This is because this approach:
- Is cheaper.
- Provides the best level of security for the minimum amount of money.
- We can't afford to be a super-power anyway.