Originally Posted by
Heathrow Harry
Spending the festive season re-reading some of Bill Gunston;'s books and was struck by the number of times one side would develop a type and then the other would immediately start building something similar.......
Why?
Was it :-
1. OMG we have to have the same as them just in case
2. OMG they've spotted a scenario/role that we missed
3. NOW those b******* in Red Square/Congress will listen to us
4. Wow! another opportunity to fill our factories in Long Beach/Kazan with something new and profitable..............
1, and 2. In the "game" of strategic brinksmanship, parity is everything.
The notable thing about intercontinental ballistic nuclear armed missiles is that that's effectively it; there is nothing more potent than that, especially if sub launched (though chemical weapons are a big worry too). So once both sides have a lot of those, that's an end to development through fear.
Everything else (aircraft, etc) is just in case some other dispute brews up elsewhere, and / or keeping the chaps busy and out of trouble. The politicians are less keen on funding things like that.
There is a 5th component; being seen to be keeping up with the Jones'. If a dictatorial government wants to steady it's own internal politics with talk of strong leadership, there's no better way of doing that than building a lot of things that look impressive in or over or bobbing in the water alongside a parade. The louder / bigger / greyer the better. The alternative, being seen to be militarily impotent, is unbelievably risky for a tough talking dictatorship. Most dictatorships are full-time scared ****-less of their own populations.
The tricky thing is that ultimately a dictatorship might be forced into doing something rash by it's own internal politics; hence Falklands '82, Gulf Wars 1 (Iraq/Iran) and 2 (Iraq / rest of the world). Let's hope the ratcheting up of tension in the Far East doesn't get out of hand.
The other notable thing about a dictatorship's view of its own military capability is that it's perfect ground for a conspiracy of optimism to develop. It's highly likely that the guys at the top think that they've got more military capability than they actually have. I mean, who is going to volunteer to tell them that it's all junky old rubbish? How are they supposed to find out for themselves? What dictator gets an external auditor in to check?! Worst case is there's some dangerous social engineering going on. The guys at the bottom egg on the guys at the top, giving them a sense of "invincibility". The guys at the top start a war they think they can win, but actually get done in by the USA / whoever. The guys at the bottom get a change of leadership. Result.
When a conflict is started, deliberate non-involvement on the part of everyone else is not really an option. So everyone else is still kinda forced to maintain superiority just in case a situation becomes dangerous (e.g. Gulf War 2, Iraq vs. Rest of World). The attraction of massive technical superiority is that it feels "cheaper" (lots of swatting power for less manpower).
Though "superiority" is less clear cut these days; a lot of the technology is now readily accessible to, well, almost anyone. Want a cruise missile? An amateur can build one in their garden shed these days.