Naveed Yaseen replied on Saturday, December 20, 2008 07:38 AM
How powerful are their offenses and how weak are our defenses, it doesn't really matter much. Apparently this may look stupid, but this is real. I would try to explain below the reason why.
Defense against offense is usually one of least effective ways of defense because of,,,,
- choice asymmetry (of place, time, method)
- information asymmetry (of palce, time, method)
- thermodynamic asymmetry (it is lot easier to destroy or disable things than to build or maintain)
- required sophistication (more possible error points)
- ease of dodge (serial dependecies between parts/processes)
- resource intensiveness per unit (depth)
- resource intensiveness for wide coverage (breadth)
- often it isn't perfect enough to protect all hits in actual battlefields (fewer hits damage is usually as capable of disabling a process as many hits damage)
- even when highly effective, still it alone cannot keep enemy from "rolling the dice".
Defense by capability to inflict damage (or by deterrence), is relatively far more effective, by choice asymmetry, by information asymmetry, by thermodynamic asymmetry, by fewer resources needed, and more importantly by it’s effectiveness in actual battlefield.
Pakistan's defense strength is in deterrence. While nuclear deterrence is the backbone of Pakistani defence, it is not the only thing that keeps enemies away from Pakistan. There are also some more deterrences in Pakistan's bag,,, like capability to destroy rival's infrastructure, capability to catalyze naturally potent insurgencies and intruders intolerant social dynamics.
As a recent real example of all said above, the reason US and Israel could not attack Iran, was not it’s defenses, but deterrences. |
