4 ms·
Prior to WW2, such mobilizations were possible. In the post WW2 era though, the increases in firepower and mobility made this point moot. A well orchestrated a
by ckozlowski 12y ago
Prior to WW2, such mobilizations were possible.
In the post WW2 era though, the increases in firepower and mobility made this point moot. A well orchestrated and timed advance could conquer a nation in days, nuclear weapons not withstanding. the Army's Active Defence doctrine post WW2 reflected this, recgonizing that in the era, a war would be won or lost in the first few battles.
Eisenhower reflected upon this in his Farewell Address. The warning regarding the "Military-Industrial Complex" was placed in the context that such a construct was necessary, but needed to be kept in check:
"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions."
- ScottBurson 12y agoI think it's worth quoting a bit more of that speech: Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.