Re: hi tec weapons

["Marvin Gandall" <marvin.gandall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Good point, but I would say it requires both a military doctrine and the
technological and economic capacity to implement it, and one is not in
contradiction to the other. But In this case, also, I'd say politics follows
rather than leads technical development. The political will to empire is in
itself insufficient, as every secondary imperialist power trying to match a
hegemon has discovered. The US reliance on overwhelming firepower in a bid
to mimimize casualities predates Vietnam; it was apparent in WW II and was
(and remains) based on its scientific and productive superiority. Advanced
weaponry is an incentive to conquest to the degree it offers the assurance
of easy success.

Marv Gandall

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jose G. Perez" <jg_perez@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Marxism List" <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 7:57 PM
Subject: hi tec weapons


> >>It's the result of the breakthrough in military technology, which has
> given the US the capacity to wage war from safe distances at much less
> cost in blood and treasure to itself. The new high-tech weaponry thus
> serves as an an incentive to launch wars for reasons other than
> self-defence....<<
>
> Actually, I think this flips cause and effect.
>
> U.S. military doctrinne has been reshaped as a result of the imperialist
> defeat in Vietnam, and particularly the human side of it, the
disintegration
> of the U.S. army in the field.
>
> Based on that, the U.S. rulers concluded that they could no longer count
on
> an actual infantry force in fighting, at least in the Third World, and
> instead began relying on ever more indiscriminate application of
firepower.
>



~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.