Patricia Marins
Israel has a cutting-edge military industry, but to carry out just over a week of attacks on Iran, it needed the US and allies to send hundreds of flights with weapons and nearly 150 ships. That was enough for just over a week. Its missile defense stocks, accumulated over a long period, would be sufficient for less than two weeks.
Ukraine had the second-largest military contingent in Europe, behind and only after Russia, and its army and missile defenses lasted about a little over a year in combat, until Western supplies began to arrive.
Massive shipments of military material leaving all of Europe and heading to Ukraine created what would be the 4th army on the planet. A force that lasted no more than 20 months.
The Russians, who had hundreds of tanks, modernized armored vehicles, and artillery, lost everything more than once.
In all these cases, I am talking about thousands of units lost at the cost of tens of billions of dollars, very quickly.
What do all these situations have in common? All these actors believed they were prepared for a real war but had no idea of the challenges involved.
The same applies to India and Pakistan. Neither possess enough material for more than 20 days of modern warfare involving missiles, aviation, and navy, with unimaginable costs for both sides.
This aspect of deterrence should be as important as nuclear capability.
The truth is that the culture of conflict that has been developing led to this false idea that countries can arm themselves and be prepared for war when, in fact, they are only prepared for days of war.
And more military spending is no longer the answer. Maintaining an arsenal increases vulnerability and the risk of preemptive attacks as well. The more weapons are purchased, the more vulnerable a country also becomes.
Part of this mentality of being sufficiently armed comes from coalition wars like those in Serbia, Iraq, and Libya. These are situations that Ukraine has shown are not comparable to real warfare, neither in terms of arsenal, training, nor true costs of war, proving to be a real military mirage.
Wars are extremely costly, and today, they are more expensive than ever. But nations only realize their true cost once they start, at the moment when all logistical, economic, and military bottlenecks must be overcome, at a high cost of time, engineering, and billions of dollars, besides the political cost of shifting national priorities.
Military preparedness is not about buying weapons but about investing in energy infrastructure, controlling supply chains, connecting research centers with reverse engineering and a competitive military industry; having the capacity to build universities and invest in Human Resources, forming quality personnel.
It’s more about all and less about buying weapons.
interesting, but it would be nice to explain more how these long-term factors (conteolling supply chains, reverse engineering…) can take place without a large army geared with large military hardwarw.