Compared to what?

Compared to what?

I believe that sometimes in some situations, having the “best” military gear is the best way to go.

I also believe that often less than the “best” is good enough, even sometimes better.

And there are practical effects, too.  Like the USA (really NATO) and the Russians for decades reinforced bridges in the central European area so their heavy armored equipment, both the present gear and future “guessed at” gear, could get around.  That made sense to me.  Think Fulda Gap and even the path Napoleon took on his way to Moscow. But then the “gear” later often became too heavy to deploy to the Balkans area (for example) where the bridges had not been reinforced, like many of these bridges would collapse over time when using them for getting heavy gear around (like often these tanks ride on low boy trailers behind prime movers (driven by local people or brought in people)); hence these bridges were unreliable and should not be planned on. So military units with “lighter” gear were sent in as part of what the politicians and diplomats did for their part.

The Navy and Marines and Army “light” units (like the 82nd Airborne or the 10th Mountain Division) routinely face this dilemma all the time. To “heavy up” is generally smart, but there are just limits to how heavy and how many. It only takes more limited gear, or limited numbers, to take over many third world countries if even we wanted to. They usually have the same problems on their end, too. So USA military units with “lighter” gear were sent in as part of what the politicians and diplomats did for their part during their time.

So then there is corruption on purchases, too. The reasons are many, but the human factor comes into play, also. Said another way, one must consider the human element, too; to include all the many people that depend on our defense system to support them and their Families. Here’s one link on this subject:  http://thehill.com/opinion/opinion/213191-for-pentagon-the-price-isnt-right   Now how this came to pass is another subject in its own right, but certainly is a factor that must be considered.

And of course, there is competition between different elements of any nation’s defense department over limited funds. One obvious example is do we buy more airplanes, or more Family housing maintenance?

And last, most countries can only afford “so much” for their own defense. Now from a gunfighters’ point of view it matters little to me whether the 25mm gun (one inch equals 25.4 mm) shooting at me is second generation or third generation. Sometimes I have less than that on my side, or have another way to defeat that weapon and its people that operate it, but it does take time to use, like getting limited airplanes with bombs hanging under them diverted.

So this post is not some article suggesting unilateral disarmament, like trying to do more with less beyond being smart. Every nation I know of will defend itself and its citizens as best it can, as well as advance its interests as best it can. And this does require a national defense that does cost money to its citizens.

But keep in mind there are many answers to the question “compared to what”.