Offence: the only form of defence

Anyone else noticed how the word “defence” when linked with words like “policy”, “ministry”, “government” and “industry” appears to mean something completely different? You and I would assume that “defence” referred to what we did if we came under attack from someone, so it’s funny that so much of what the defence industry produces and the government spends on defence seems to be concentrated on offensive weaponry.

And it’s strange that so much of defence spending by the UK and US is swallowed up by offensive operations and invasions. UK government ministers have previously suggested that the military operations in Afghanistan are intended to defend the UK mainland from terrorist attacks. Forgive me for my naivety, but I always thought the only way to defend yourself from terrorist attack was to stop terrorists from blowing up things on your home soil.

If a government was serious about defence, it would spend money on soldiers, the navy and airforce to protect its territory rather than engaging in military adventures on foreign soil. It should come as no surprise that regimes such as those in Iran are actively seeking to develop nuclear weaponry capability given that the UK and US governments have placed such a heavy emphasis on the “defensive” aspects of their own nuclear missile systems. You can’t blame countries like Iran for believing that having nuclear weaponry acts as a “deterrent” to attack from enemies when that’s exactly what the US and UK have said for the past 60 years.