"Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man"

-----Original Message-----
From: The Listserv that makes holes in Manhattan schist for free!
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gabriel
Orgrease
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 5:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BP] outdated defence

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>

--
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>