Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 1 May 2007 09:51:52 -0100 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I am not saying that the third system forts were useless. Though if the
Brits or anyone in Europe or elswhere made a decision to not attack due
to the 'deterent defense system' I would like to see the evidence of it.
The comment is a conjecture that the means of conducting war had changed
to the extent that massive static masonry forts along the coastline may
no longer have been a primary or particularly important element of war
strategy once they were built. My interest is the idea that as
technology develops it tends to negate it's own usefulness when
implemented as there is always a new technology coming along to over top
it. Subsequent to the third system forts it would be difficult to argue
that the railroads, or the lack of them, or their destruction, did not
play a more decisive role in the American means of warfare than did the
coastal (though symbolic) fortifications.
Here is the full quote:
"The appearance of the ironclad warship armed with heavy guns brought
with it a need for the investment of large sums of money in the defense
of harbours and naval bases. Evidence of the expenditure can still be
found in many places along the south coast of Britain, particularly the
forts around Portsmouth and Plymouth that were built in the 1860s in
case Britain should go to war with France again -- and known as
"Palmerston's Follies" since they were never needed. Similar
fortifications exist on America's eastern seaboard, constructed against
the contingency of British or French attack." The Utility of Force, The
Art of War in the Modern World", General Rupert Smith, p 78.
I do not know what the author means by the word 'similar' but the
conjecture is solely on my part as to the relationship between the
technology of the third system fortifications (which provides a more
universal context for the development of natural cement mortars as being
in part a war industry) and the tendency of the strategy of war to
outdistance our applied technologies. In this sense I wonder to what
extent as a capital investment comparisons can be made between the third
system fortification and Star Wars, or to the current cost of
implementing democracy in Iraq? Do we know of anyone doing mortar
analysis in Baghdad?
Now I got to get back to work.
][<
Brian Robinson wrote:
> The third system forts did a great job in my book. We learned a hard
> lesson during 1812. After the incorporation of the third system how
> many foreign invasions did we have? Zilch.
--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
|
|
|