- Samson Blinded - http://samsonblinded.org/blog -

Good army need not fight

Posted By Obadiah Shoher On March 2, 2010 @ 9:05 am In military matters | 4 Comments

The Israeli army is heading into major trouble. The army was never great in the first place. Jews suffered unreasonable losses in 1948, fought only on par with the Egyptians in the War of Attrition, prevailed by sheer divine grace in 1967, and were lucky in 1973 that the Egyptians were not trained for the mobile warfare necessary for their advance through Sinai. On a tactical level, the Israeli army is very good: Jews are ingenuous at everything, war-making included. But strategically, we just cannot be good, we’re too small. Muslims purchase many more advanced weapons than we do, including aircraft; they also have nuclear weapons.

Israel copies the US army in its thirst for hyperexpensive gadgets, but lacks the Americans’ major advantage, the mammoth financing. Only 4 percent America’s, the Israeli military budget pales in comparison. IDF purchases ultra-modern weapons untested in any real combat, whose marginal utility dwindles as the price skyrockets. The weapons quickly become obsolete as developers promote new systems.

The marginal utility of incremental improvements confirms that the current weapon types become obsolete. This is like the last weapons of every kind: super-large mechanical bows, fortress walls built hugely thick in a futile attempt to defend against artillery, and mammoth artillery pieces that lacked logistics. Now it’s airplanes at $2 billion apiece or $200,000 interceptor missiles for hundred-dollar Kassam projectiles. We don’t know what will be the next stage in arms development: lasers, earthquake modulators, or even the narrowly avoided nuclear-induced atmospheric fire. Maybe we will see a return to cheap, mass-produced weapons, to $10,000 apiece drones and toy-size ATVs with explosives.

New types of weapons are always considered barbaric, inhumane, too destructive, and abusive to the art of war. Recall the professional soldiers’ opposition to firearms, and later to artillery, or the running of cavalry against machine guns in WWI. Nuclear weapons are another such type of qualitatively new weapons. They are not even overwhelmingly destructive, given the numbers and spread of populations as well as ABM facilities. Nuclear weapons are most dangerous to knowledge rather than humans: in a major nuclear exchange, it would make sense to attack universities rather than population centers; wiping out all significant universities, with their labs and libraries would do more damage to a nation’s economy than killing even ten percent of its population. Even there, defense catches up with offense as electronic technology provides the means for highly dispersed and massively duplicated storage of information, making it nearly indestructible.

Israel cannot rely on air domination in the face of S-300’s. Defense always catches up with offense, and there was no qualitative hike of the means of offense after the introduction of anti-aircraft missile defense. The SAM-5 made Israeli aircraft virtually useless in 1973, and the TOR-1M and S-300 can similarly force the tens of billions dollars worth of Israeli aircraft to the ground.

Even after the Muslim states go nuclear, Israel can still maintain her nuclear deterrent through the expanded Mutually Assured Destruction. Muslims should know that an Israeli retaliatory strike would wipe out not just the offender but every Muslim thing on earth. Let Muslims hunt each other, lest the mad Israel hunts them all down.

Cheap Russian weapons, rather than much smaller quantities of the American ones, might suit IDF’s purposes better. Given the Israeli tactical advantage, lower-quality Russian weapons would do against our Arab enemies. The current situation is the opposite of the 1960s: now America controls the Arabs, and Russia would be happy to rely on Israel. France, too. There are no eternal friends, and the US Administration, which pushes us toward the national suicide of peace, is hardly a friend. It was the US who twisted our arms against preemption in 1973, and we consider their subsequent (too late) support as a mitigation of the damage. If silly Jews desire to have a strong Christian friend, Russia is worthy of note. Israel would be a great client for Russia, better than all the Arab states.

The American payments to Israel are insulting. They give us a bit more military aid than they give to Egypt—about the same amount that Palestine gets from its donors. Americans pay us less than 1 percent of their spending in Iraq. What, controlling Israel, the major regional power, is a hundred times less important than some silly adventure in a British-created Frankenstein of a state called Iraq?

Mossad should concentrate on collecting discrediting facts on foreign public figures. Clinton pushed Barak to give away Jerusalem to cover his Lewinsky scandal; she was Jewish, and it strains credulity to imagine that Clinton was not angry at Jews. What, we cannot find another Lewinsky to get an American president to confirm our right to everything from Litani to the Nile to the Euphrates?


Article printed from Samson Blinded: http://samsonblinded.org/blog

URL to article: http://samsonblinded.org/blog/good-army-need-not-fight.htm