America's military is the country's biggest business. According to the House Budget Committee, in 2000, defense expenditures represented 16 percent of discretionary federal spending. Excluding entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, all nondefense spending combined was only 19 percent of the federal budget. In the Department of Defense's most recently published report, the 2001 defense budget will be more than $300 billion, of which $60 billion would be spent on procurement and almost $40 billion on research and development. The budget for national defense is expected to exceed $360 billion by 2006. Thus it was big news in February when, in his first major speech on defense, President George W. Bush announced that his administration would challenge the military status quo by developing new technologies and by significantly increasing spending -- particularly on military procurement and R&D. Military analysts, however, already knew that the RMA was about to become a matter of public debate when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld noted at his January inauguration that, as the Ford administration's defense boss, he'd signed off on many of the weapons systems that were now due for replacement. Today's world, Secretary Rumsfeld said, is a quite different place from what it was during that Cold War period. Still, he said, "some things don't change." Indeed not: an old friend of Secretary Rumsfeld's named Andy Marshall, who had attended his previous inauguration ceremony 25 years ago, was once again by his side. Mr. Marshall used to be described as "the most influential person you've never heard of." No longer. After assuming his old position, Secretary Rumsfeld promised a radical review of U.S. global strategy. Then he named Mr. Marshall -- director of the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, and a gray eminence in the defense world for 51 years -- to lead the review. Mr. Marshall was instructed to pick panels of experts from outside the conventional cabal of defense contractors, members of Congress, and serving officers. Secretary Rumsfeld's review is due to be released any day. Now, European and Asian capitals are in a state of consternation about the reordering of geopolitical priorities that Mr. Marshall will likely recommend. America's defense establishment is perhaps even more alarmed, with rumors flying that the iconoclastic 79-year-old futurist will argue that large armies and navies are becoming as antiquated as cavalry charges. Many in the Pentagon are profoundly resistant to this message; most nevertheless accept that some kind of RMA is inevitable. Secretary Rumsfeld and his faction of futurists are unlikely to achieve their full agenda. RMA will more likely be a gradual evolution than an abrupt transformation. But the admirals and generals are keenly aware that if military history teaches us anything, it's that the winning side is the one possessing the technological advantage. Indeed, technological supremacy has become the single, defining characteristic of the American way of war. And so, in anticipation of Mr. Marshall's review, but with much grumbling, the Pentagon has officially endorsed the RMA. Link: http://www.redherring.com/index.asp...00001&doc_id=1760019976&rh_special_report_id= So what do you think of RMA ( Revolution in Military Affairs)? and the new technologies that will spawn and changes in the oraganizational structure of Military?
Let Vietnam remind us that technology DOESN'T win wars. As my title states thats great if you have tons of new technology it doesn't mean that you can win an enemy over with it. First example: Vietnam. Gurellia warfare killed the US, if this had been linear like WWII, than the Viet Cong would have been finished in a year. Except the VC, had very few tanks, planes, and ships. They ran around in trenches, popped up, shot, and ducked back down. A big army doesn't, or shiny new technology doesn't guarantee a win. What we need to do is train US SOLDIERS, not robots to fight in a gurellia type warfare if it comes to that. This way we won't be in Vietnam II. After the First World War the popular thought is that there would be no major wars, just a few scrimishes if any fighting at all. Oops, what happened twenty years later. The Nazis, we know where that went. Odds are we are in relitive peacetime between the Cold War, and another major conflict or period of fighting between countries. We still need navies and armies, they'll become more agile and much more deadly.
Didn't China or Russia enter Vietnam in some way to help the north vietnamese. But I don't really get Vietnam. It was probably psychologically the worst war. You didn't really know who your enemy was. I heard it was Frances fault or something. I did an essay once on the Vietnam war and didn't really know what to say. I think Australia has something to that effect with volunteers I think it was 5000-40000 people. But anyway, that was a few years back and havn't heard anything since, but it isn't military supported. A lot of people may not know this but Australia was kind of afraid of being invaded by Indonesia a 3-5 years back. I heard that they already considered the Northern part of Australia as southern Indonesia. I'm sure you've also heard the phrase. The war to end all wars. Well for now you definitely need an army, navy, airforce. If you don't then you're basically up for the pickings.
But why does the US need such a vast military? Where's the threat? Who is planning to invade the US? Or are we still on about the old projection of power argument and 'vital interests'. Nothing more than an excuse for economic colonialism through force. Of course, even that's a bit pointless since the US is terrified of casualties to the extent that they refuse to fight anywhere. The effort needed to get the US to commit just a handful of soldiers to the Balkans was immense. The bulk of the commitment eventually falling on the UK. If only the US had a 'robot army' they could conquer the world without troubling the over-sensitive domestic audience. A frightening prospect. At least the over-the-top sensitivity has kept a leash on the US military since Vietnam.
We are working on it...thank you for the idea though. Why expose our citizens to unnecessary risk? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Especially when they're under constant threat of being shot at in their own streets. I suppose we have to give you some credit for not dragging that aspect of American culture with you around the globe, though a lot of us 'foreigners' seem to do quite well on our own (Somalia, Israel etc.). We await with some trepidition the starred and striped robot hoards that shall one day come calling - backed up by Nike and McDonalds to pick up the pieces...
Well, some of us will say that for the last 50 years, everybody and their brother wants to emigrate to US? Why? We must be doing something good! Like they say, "dont knock it until U try it..." And with that spirit of thought, the Hollywood culture with its Pizza hut, Mc Donalds, and Compaq...and let us not forget Celebrex, Aricept and Viagra...ready to offer a better quality of life for those who seek it... ...and RMA needs to change in tune with the change in our society...for the seekers too...for a better world of tomorrow. just a thought...from across the sea...
Undoubtedly you have a point. I think we would all agree that international culture and, let's not pull punches here, civilisation in general has beniftted from such films as 'Dumb and Dumber', 'American Pie' and the collected works of that genius, humourist and impressario Adam Sandler. Equally, as I walk down the Champs-Elyse'es I thank good old Uncle Sam for providing a McDonalds on every corner - somewhere I can buy a Big Mac identical to the one I could have in London, Tokyo or New York, saving me from the burden of finding an independent local cafe selling unpredictible French foods. Who wants Belgian chocolates when there's Hershey's. Why play cricket and football (soocer I guess I should call it), when we can play US football and baseball? Yes, we should all look forward to the day when global culture becomes a homoginised US attempt to sell us inferior products. Thank goodness we can get rid of those French, German and Italian films and watch Americans open fire on: A) Arabs B) British character actors Yes, I know I'm exaggerating tremendously. And we are as guilty as anyone for supporting US films, McDonalds etc. What concerns me is the ferocity of US business - for now we have difference, but if US business had its way it would dominate and drive out the competition. A global film industry based on Hollywood's conservative world-view would leave little room for interesting independents. We don't really want everything to be packaged and marketed. But, as you say, don't knock it 'till you try it. I wonder of the Stepford wives said that.... Drifting way off the thread now.
You have a point too. What you missed is this: Companies prosper by being innovative and providing quality products/services to the masses. Japanese are eating our lunch in the car industry. Everyone around us drives a Toyota Camry. I am thinking of buying a Highlander. It is the value proposition. Are you saying we should restrict trade decided by a small group of people as to who can buy what and pay how much? When Microsoft was puttering around, IBM decided not to compete in the PC market. At the time, every Briton laughed at Sinclair that could have taken over the world. The point is, competition is healthy for customers. As they say, if you can not compete, get out of the market. There are large European companies such as UBS Warburg, Shell, BP. I worked for a French/Dutch company a short while ago. This company had their head up their as_. To sneeze, you have to fill out forms. So bureaucratic and procedural that they have a tough time in US. Change is stressful, but necessary. Another example. In US, K-Mart, a discount store is having a difficult time competing with Wal-Mart, that uses advanced technology to run their operation. Now Wal-Mart is heading to Europe and soon will be in your neck of the woods. If European companies pay no attention to modern technology and run over by Wal-Mart, is it Wal-Mart's fault? BTW, I was in Hong Kong sometimes back. The McDonald food tasted exactly the same. Best surprise is no surprise. IS not BurgerKIng a British venture? There is room for more variety. I do not see very many food places that serve Gyros, Indian dishes, any British delicacies we are not aware of except fish & chips..... We love James Bond Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Drifting Wildly From Military Futures... I hear what are you saying, and it is true that ultimatley the consumer will buy what thye feel offers the best product at the lowest price. It is almost self-defeating to argue that we should restrict companies that could offer us better products at a lower price, be they US, Japanese or Mexican. Competition, as in the PC market drives prices down and processor speeds up - better for us all. But there is the dark side of competition, particularly in developing markets. It's the case of offering money to a developing country for infrastructure projects, wait until the country starts defaulting and then offer IMF help with strings (lower tariffs, deregulate markets, I'm sure you know the kind of thing). US firms, backed by deep pockets that comes from success at home, the world's largest economy, move in and local firms simply can't compete on an equal footing (locals are priced out of the market as the conglomerates make losses to develop market share). Such an economic environment leads to cheaper products but does somewhat trample on diversity. True, European conglomerates are also in there, but you have to admit that leading car, computer, electronic manufacturers tend to produce a very similar product. I certainly don't have an answer, and I'm not suggesting that trade ought to be stopped. Perhaps more intervention - after all the US has anti-trust laws but international regulations are far from advanced. The market works to an extent, but it isn't perfect - economically and, more significantly, socially. There's also the issue of international advertising, branding and cultural imperialism (for want of a better term). US movies, radio, music etc. all ends up promoting US products across the world under the banner of freedom. I think that's why a lot of developing countries take IMF money with reluctance, and fret about rapid deregulation. More phasing in might be beneficial, both for the country concerned and diversity. Yes, I do take your point about economic efficiency and competition, but I still think it might be nice to be able to pay $4 for home-made brie baguette with honey and spiced chilli chicken, than $2 for a Big Mac. I guesss the consumer chooses ultimately, but those darn consumers seem to have bad taste (apologies for the snobbishness). I suppose it sounds like the US is reviled - it's not really, but you have to yap at the heels of the biggest kid in the playground. It's not all bad.... ...We love Woody Allen and the Coen brothersPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I have to say this before we get into RMA (there is a context and they are related). You are looking at the effect not the cause. If we can identify and manage the "cause" the dark effect will be minimized. The reason the country defaults is that they do not use the brains of their own people who are very successful elsewhere and have a vested interest in improving their own country. When US (+Germany & Japan) sponsors the lending program, they expect the money will be used in a similar fashion as in their own country. And when such contries apply for the loan for the infrastructure projects, they document all the great stuff they will do, almost similar to a US Company business plan. What then happens is that, the borrower fails to setup proper management to adminster the program. It happens in US too. Look at the dot.com fiasco. Now vultures are cherry picking the assets of those companies. It comes down to education and mostly experience. If these counties really do not want to be shafted, since they do not have the expertise, they should hire people who do. Right now, I am involved in one such infrastructure development activity for a developing country. Inspite of my warnings, the borrower is hring the consultants (out of Washington DC) that the lender suggests - meaning, it is heading for a scenario that you presented. All I can say is : It is their own dam_ fault. And there is nothing you can do!
Are you suggesting that lenders specifically recommend incompetent consultants to the borrower? I would also suggest that the lender tends to have some sway in what the project ends up looking like. But of course you have a point. Then again, as you say, the borrower simply doesn't have the experience often to assess what they're being told. Under what criteria are they to judge the competence of consultants? I would also suggest that alot of these projects are never likely to pay their way from the outset. That doesn't mean they're not necessary for growth, just that the benefit of a massive power plant will not of itself sort the economy out. And while developing countries are told to remove trade barriers, their products still face unfair competition in Western markets with all the subsidies we (mainly EU) put on agriculture and textiles etc. But what is the RMA angle? (sorry for the absence of a reply until now - weekends...)
I agree with you. It is one of those buyer beware type situation. Many years ago, when I was involved in China affairs, at the time, China was exporting apparel to US. The US clothing industry and the Cotton industry got very upset and wanted to put a heavy tariff on the trade. The Chinese said, if we can not get money by exporting our goods, then how can we buy you airplanes, computers and automobiles where you make a lot of profit? So US compromised by putting a smaller tariff and a subsidy to hightech gear. The bottom line is, as I have stated elsewhere in the forum, is education on the part of the developing countries to understand economic politics and take steps not to get railroaded. Unless there is a big brother somewhere watching over, people will take advantage of the situation - on a personal level, company level and in the country level. That is the human nature and that does not make it moral or ethical. RMA comes to picture by understanding these dynamics and developing the new framework that provides a better protection due to the changing environment. Even though military intelligence is an oxymoron, in this case there are some forward thinkers that are driving the change. Whether it will happen for the benefit of all - due to the fact that it is a global dependency system, is another matter .
