RE: How much security does $1 trillion buy?

["Alex Eckelberry" <AlexE () sunbelt-software com>]

All true and well said.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Drsolly [mailto:drsollyp () drsolly com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 7:25 PM
To: Alex Eckelberry
Cc: Brian Loe; funsec () linuxbox org
Subject: RE: [funsec] How much security does $1 trillion buy?

On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Alex Eckelberry wrote:

> It's worth noting that Chamberlin vastly overstated the abilities of 
> the Third Reich and had MPs literally cowering in their seats, 
> buttressing the argument for appeasement.  It's kind of what happened 
> in the Bush administration, but as a converse -- the power of Germany 
> was overstated in order to argue for appeasement, instead of war.
>
> (The truth was that Hitler's Germany was not nearly as powerful as 
> everyone thought and that the Czechoslovak army was at a complement, 
> strength and morale exceeding the German army.  But the European 
> powers sabotaged the ability of the Czechoslovak government to fight 
> through the Sudetenland arrangements made between France, Italy, 
> Germany and the UK  -- the Munich Agreement/Dictate.  Etc., etc., long

> historical discussion could follow but I'm on a short leash time-wise)

You have to put yourself in the position of people in the late 1930s. 
Let's say, 1938.

World War I was a very recent memory, it ended only 20 years previously.

And it was a very horrible memory; millions dead in a futile war. A
great many people were resolved "never again".

There was also a new WMD - the bomber, together with poison gas. People
were expecting hundreds of thousands of *civilian* casualties. "The
bomber will always get through" was the thinking of the time, and the
memory of the use of poison gas in WW1 was very fresh. So, people were
looking at hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.

The children of London were separated from their parents and evacuated
to the countryside. That's how seriously it was taken. And everyone
carried a gas mask at all times.

Yes, WW2 would have been shorter and better if we hadn't dumped the
Czechs in the mud. But you have to understand the motives and feelings
at that time. Maybe Germany wasn't strong, but they had a bomber fleet -
a modern equivalent would be "Iran has a weak army and navy, but they
have nukes".

At the time of the Munich appeasement, we didn't have the Chain Home
radar operative, and our fighter fleet wasn't Spitfires (wasn't even
Hurricanes, as I recall). We desperately needed time to "rearm", which
mostly meant the RAF, I think.

Churchill had been advocating rearmament for several years, but the
thinking was, that leads to an arms race, and that leads to war. And
there was a massive depression raging, and thinking at the time was that
in depression, you balance the budget. Keynesian economics hadn't been
invented yet.

It's easy to use hindsight and say, well, they should have known ....

But they didn't.

Oh - and no-one imagined that the French would crack as easily as they
did. 


_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.