was reading this book entitled "Deterrence, A Conceptual Analysis" by Patrick Morgan.

there was this section, he described the following scenario. Two states A and B, where A is a relatively strong military power, while B is a weaker but belligerent one. A wants to preserve peace and deter B from attacking A and A's ally C. So, A builds up a huge army (or beefs up his already stronger military) which threatens B of 'unacceptable costs' should B attack A or C. this is the basic idea of deterrence, B will not attack anyone cos of the huge unacceptable costs of retaliation from A.


However, while B does not attack A or C, B necessarily feels threatened by A's military might. whether or not, A has the intent of attacking B. (in theory, A will only use its military only if B becomes belligerent... but...) So, logically, B tries to build up B's army and etc.


Now, we look from A's perspective. B is building up his army. the question is: is my military (A's) still strong enough to inflict 'unacceptable costs' to B, if B's army become stronger? doubt arises and cost/benefit analysis becomes clouded. the next instinct is: should i(A) attack B and stop this buildup before B gets too strong? clearly, a preemptive attack will minimise costs since this prevents B from attacking A or C. therefore, A attacks B.

i brought up this analysis cos i felt it kinda explained (not to imply that i feel it's right/ethical) why U** attacked I***. i also brought this up cos this analysis was done in 1977. q long time ago, before the gulf war broke out. and it's quite cool that someone so long ago can foresee the problems of deterrence or the problem of military preponderance (ie excessive military might) of one country. dunno if the policy makers of U** actually read the book (i presume they did), but they certainly 'fulfilled the prophesy'.

Now, i beginning to see e wisdom of prof alatas. he's some m'sia uni lecturer who gave a lecture on peace n cruelty last month. when i first heard his lecture, i was q disappointed at his 'naiveness'. one instance was when apple (my gf's sis' bf) asked prof alatas, "wat will u do if u r a leader of a country? and ur neighbour is building an army and has the intent of attacking you?" his answer was a shocker, "i will not build up an army too. i will seek to reason with the neighbour. building up an army will be pointless..." well, till now, i still feel suspect about his views. partly cos i'm in the navy, and partly i thought of aggressors like hitler. but now, i begin to see the wisdom in him saying "... will be pointless".