normally, i reserve political-type posts for my other blog, but i have decided to make an exception in this case. recently, a friend commented on my favorite quote from albert einstein:

you cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.

i began writing an email response to him, but part way through decided it is appropriate to share that response with everyone. below is his comments, followed by my response. its an important issue and maybe this post can spark a conversation with others, so here it is….

It probably takes a lot of gall to disagree with a genius but I simply don’t agree with Mr. Einstein.

I may be a conservative (God forbid!) at heart.

But I believe that frequently, the best defense against an attack (or even being diplomatically intimidated) is a strong defense. The U.S. was very unprepared for war in December 1941. Many historians say if we had been better prepared, the war would have been over in about a year. And millions of people who died at the hands of the Nazis would have been saved.

i have to disagree. i agree that ‘the best offense is a strong defense’ is the common and current opinion held by most people and governments, but i can’t help but find the logic flawed. the point of weapons, it seems to me, is to use them. a person or government that stockpiles weapons will eventually be compelled to use them.

the U.S. spends more on ‘defense’ than the rest of the world combined. can you honestly tell me that’s solely for the sake of deterrence? in the last 20 years, have we gone to war with a single foe that was remotely close to being evenly matched to the power and sophistication of our military? i don’t think so. and since WWII, the only ‘wars’ we’ve fought have been either for territory, political or economic control, or rhetoric.

i don’t know much about the korean war, other than i understand it was a response to ‘aggression’ by communists. the vietnam war was, as i understand it, actually started by the U.S. and of the rhetoric variety (to stop the advance of the evil communists!), and used as a cover for an illegal war in cambodia.

regarding your comment that we were ‘unprepared’ for WWII, i would agree, but that was because america didn’t want to enter the war. from what i remember (i think i read it in howard zinn’s history book), the U.S was aware of the possibility of a japanese attack in the pacific, but did little to prevent it. the government wanted to intervene in the war, but didn’t have the population on their side; of course the population changed their minds after the attack on pearl harbor.

what’s more, the decision to use atomic weapons on japan wasn’t so much to prevent a high U.S. troop death toll as it was to display absolute U.S. dominance. i’m not sure how this works into the previously stated theory about a good defense.

finally, while i will agree that today there is the persistent threat from ‘terrorists,’ i think it is foolish to believe we can beat them by sheer brute force, nor has our enormous and advanced military offered much in the way of a deterrent against them. in this case, i would equate our battle against ‘terrorism’ as a guerilla war, which we cannot win with larger numbers and more firepower; it didn’t work out for us in vietnam. and while the government and media tells us the ‘terrorists’ hate us because of our freedom and our way of life, i simply don’t believe it to be true. the U.S. has a long history of militaristic and economic imperialism and it is this policy to which the ‘terrorists’ are now responding.

i will admit there are certainly some who are motivated solely by religious zealotry, but i’d argue that’s not the case for the vast majority of them.

ultimately, this notion of a strong defense only serves to motivate other nations to build larger and more sophisticated militaries of their own, creating an ever-growing stockpile of arms which i believe can only lead to one, inevitable conclusion. given this, i feel it is appropriate to end with yet another quote from einstein:

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.