World's (In)Security

AK_CS

Many a times, I seriously think man is delusional when he boasts himself of being the most rational being on earth. Many a times, at many a places I find our race to be the most idiotic.
US defense budget is $700 billion. China competes with it, India in turn competes with China, and Pakistan in turn tries to be at level of India. These kind of webs of mutual insecurities dot the world and makes the total milltary budget to be roughly equal to India's GDP (World's 4th largest economy in terms of PPP). I don't want to be a Pacifist because i believe world is a very nasty place to live in. But, If you ask me why do we maintain so mammoth conventional armies when most imminent threat seems to be non-conventional, low-intensity organisations>terrorism, insurgents? I dont find any answer except that we all want to fight each other in future and are making preparations for rainy season? If those fights dont happen, then we are idiots to maintain armies, if those fights do happen then also we are idiots engaging in wanton self-destruction . Do you have any solution for this paradox?

Partho

@AK_CS is philosophy your optional?

AK_CS

should i suffer the ignominy of accepting it publicly/explicitly? :P (btw, i knew it was coming)

AK_CS

Also, there is enough strategic potential against UPSC hidden in the question viz. namely, significance of conventional defense/armies in the days of nukes/cyber war/globalisation/sub-conventional threats across the world(9/11 and Af-Pak quagmire) and blah blah blah
(On the humorous note i just quote one statement of a taliban leader regarding the world power USA's post 2014 withdrawal and obama claiming victory over Al-Qaeda,"this has been the old habit of USA. They did it in Vietnam. They are doing it here. Claim victory and Run with its tail between its legs. " this made me laugh for minutes at US's huge millitary budget.

mach24

Many a times, I seriously think man is delusional when he boasts himself of being the most rational being on earth. Many a times, at many a places I find our race to be the most idiotic.
US defense budget is $700 billion. China competes with it, India in turn competes with China, and Pakistan in turn tries to be at level of India. These kind of webs of mutual insecurities dot the world and makes the total milltary budget to be roughly equal to India's GDP (World's 4th largest economy in terms of PPP). I don't want to be a Pacifist because i believe world is a very nasty place to live in. But, If you ask me why do we maintain so mammoth conventional armies when most imminent threat seems to be non-conventional, low-intensity organisations>terrorism, insurgents? I dont find any answer except that we all want to fight each other in future and are making preparations for rainy season? If those fights dont happen, then we are idiots to maintain armies, if those fights do happen then also we are idiots engaging in wanton self-destruction . Do you have any solution for this paradox?

@AK_CS very thoughtful words.

I think, you being a realist and probably a student of philosophy, shouldnt have got into such a dilemma, & that too, to such an extent.

Anyway I'll try to pen down my thoughts about it as precisely as I can.

Your words,
If those fights dont happen, then we are idiots to maintain armies, if those fights do happen then also we are idiots engaging in wanton self-destruction

My input,
Justification-
If you want peace, prepare for war, and to some extent Prevention is better than cure.

Why does this happen?
An empty mind is a devil's workshop. We need activity, any kind.
You can also consider the concept of Existential anxiety here,

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5675928_existential-anxiety_.html
(Read the significance part of this article carefully).

Soln?
Keep playing by the rules!

mach24

Ok I see it. (Had missed that small comment of yours).
You're a student of philosophy.

PS: One more point in justification, Practicality (Had missed it too).

mach24

Alternate Soln:

Realize the futility of all actions, distance yourself from worldly affairs, go in search of nirvana/moksha (If it exists, or if u believe so). (Supposed to be a more enlightened approach, but I dont see any realistic aspirations being fulfilled in this case. Hence was in 2 minds to post this comment).

If you take this further and ask why doesnt every one follow this?
Try using maslow's pyramid to ans this question, probably you'll get the ans.

AK_CS

@abhinrao: thanx for such an hearty response. you are right..man is restless and he needs security and he finds security mostly in overpowering others. so, we are perfectely rational in maintaining armies to avoid future colonialism and invasions from brutes (as one previos comment on a thread quoted napolean that one doesn't reason but shoot intellectuals...Nalanda library burnt for months! so, nukes are pre-requisite for peace and development.) But, at the same time, as you mentioned in alternate solutions, this paradox testifies the ancient knowledge that from a larger point of view that 'evrything is maya':P Having said all this, i have a deep faith that we are evolving towards being a greater race. a time will come when armies will lose significance.(an opinion only)
But, my question had another aspect(realist one) too. Armies cant protect us in today's world. Just develop a code, sneak into enemy's industrial, nuclear, critical control systems and boooom!lo! destruction everywhere. and it may be the case enemy never knows who did this for sure.
It took 8 fanatics to hold mumbai at hostage. it took three days for procedures to be completed and SPG commandos to start fighting them and kill them after they were able to dispropotional loss. It took 3-4 persons to hijack plane and bring down WTC. Realistically speaking , conventional armies are fast losing significance. More informal security architecture would be needed, i believe.

Partho

I heard Kapil Sibal say something about "Cyber Security" recently. :O

Eric

minimum credible deterrence..unfortunately this "minimum credibility translates" into magnimous proportions of capital and revenue expenditure in the insatiable arms race..

mach24

@AK_CS First of all, I would like to point out sth, which I guess, you've not taken in the right perspective. I felt that ur understanding of the quote of napoleon, was a lil misplaced.
Napoleon probably(as I've understood it) was not against reasoning, but his quote was more directed towards the ego factor of the intellectuals(they're considered to be so, from ages). Napoleon, as I've known thru various books etc was a very hard working and learned man(not at all averse to credible, constructive reason. But mostly wouldn tolerate it if someone used it against the state(himself ) ).

Had he been so against reasoning, he should have shot himself, the very first time he would've been in an dilemma(highly principled view, in an ideal world, so hypothetical).

What I wanted to tell you, other members of the forum and whoever would be reading this, is that-

It is very important to see things in the right perspective. Knowledge is formless, its like clay, which could be moulded the way one wants. Knowledge in itself is sth, which cannot be commented on, its more or less a fact(provable maybe). What matters more than the amount of knowledge is the way u put to use the knowledge avl to u.
I remember an incident where one of our polticians ended up comparing dawood and buddha(I guess, not sure). I guess he was trying to make a similar point, but his timing was awful.

I also remember, and would like to borrow the Jaina theory of tri-ratna to make the point more clear.

Jaina theory of Tri-ratna-
1. Right Faith
2. Right Knowledge
3. Right Conduct

I quoted this to emphasize the aspect that in the jaina theory faith and conduct are also given equal importance along with knowledge.

Hope I'm clear and sorry for the lecture.