09-06-2004, 07:06 PM
"The Threat based readiness model is not only outdated, it is reactive, and guarantees one remains behind one's "threat.""
I didn't say you had to be stupid about it. It's not just based on their *current* power, but also on their *potential* power. All aspects of "threat" are important, and preventing a threat is as valuable as countering it. Indeed, much more valuable in a nuclear world.
But, if it isn't threat, broadly speaking, what else could it be about? I can't see anything else while remaining in the category of "defensive war". I suppose you could want a powerful army for conquest, or intimidation (to get things, rather than negate threats).
Jester
I didn't say you had to be stupid about it. It's not just based on their *current* power, but also on their *potential* power. All aspects of "threat" are important, and preventing a threat is as valuable as countering it. Indeed, much more valuable in a nuclear world.
But, if it isn't threat, broadly speaking, what else could it be about? I can't see anything else while remaining in the category of "defensive war". I suppose you could want a powerful army for conquest, or intimidation (to get things, rather than negate threats).
Jester