What's in the News Today?

Recently there have been somewhat disturbing news items - dismissed by the general media merely as President Putin flexing Russian muscles.

These items concern the expansion of the US military into such things as defence shields and weapons systems in space and also so called defensive missile systems installed in countries that just happen to place a ring around Russia and to some extent China.

Russia has responded somewhat aggressively by (among other things) re-commencing long range bomber flights in August of last year, in a move that has been most commonly regarded as 'flexing of military muscles.'

The latest example of this was just the other day when the BBC reported that:

"Two Russian bombers approached a US aircraft carrier in the Pacific and were intercepted by American fighter jets."

The incident comes amid renewed tensions between Moscow and Washington over American plans for a missile defence system based in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Mr Putin has complained about these developments before and has suggested that there is a new arms race that is in train.

Today he also suggested that while Russia does not have the power to stop its neighbours joining NATO it does have both the power and the responsibility to safeguard Russia by targeting both Poland and the Czech Republic if they permit such weapons systems on their soil.

China is also concerned about the development of American weapons systems - especially in space, and recently demonstrated its ability to shoot down a satellite in orbit.

It is also concerned by the fact that the latest military missile defence systems have been permitted on board Aegis class ships purchased by the Japanese Navy.

Both Russia and China appear to be so concerned about these developments - ostensibly to protect Europe and the continental United States from attack by 'rogue states' that they have proposed a new treaty to ban the use of weapons in space and the use or threat of force against satellites or other craft at the recent Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.

Meanwhile the Russians are also expanding their trade relations with India by concluding a deal to supply and build four nuclear power stations in that country. Once again this is ostensibly to enable India to meet its nuclear power requirements by 2020. Of course at the same time it was announced that India and Russia would be expanding the extent of their defence, engineering and energy cooperation.

At present Russia has supplied well over 70% of India's defence requirements - however this has had to be supplemented from other arms suppliers including Britain France Israel and the USA because there have been issues with deliveries from Russia for a variety of reasons.

It's ironic to note that the Russians and the Indians hope that their trade will increase to some 10 billion dollars a year from it's current level of around $5 billion per annum.

This is ironic, because with the recent meltdown in the US economy there is one obvious way for the USA to revitalise its fortunes, this being to ensure that military contracts can be found for firms most notably those that are currently difficulties, contracts that are funded from outside the USA.

Today's announcement, for example, that General Motors has suffered the biggest annual loss in the history of car making, a loss that has far exceeded analysts predictions, coming in at a staggering $38.73 billion, is a case in point.

If one then expands one's look at the businesses that comprise what in former times would have been called the "US military industrial complex" then one will realise that for the USA there is a major imperative, from a whole variety of perspectives, to once again try and create or at least capitalise on the international situations in which it's capacity to make and market weapons systems and ancillary support systems - be they electronic or not, are utilised by others as one way of "buying" their way out of their current fiscal difficulties.

Of course the greater the threat to world peace and the more unstable things become, the "better" it is for those firms that make or support the manufacture of armaments and/or related products.

At present, the dangers posed by the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq cause the USA a problem.

On the one hand, the USA is using high tech (read expensive) weaponry to combat these forces and to create levels of intelligence and security systems for the USA. These come at a cost - a very high cost.

On the other hand the terrorists are able to achieve their aims with very low cost solutions - for example the use of suicide bombers and IUDs.

The costs of maintaining these "wars" as well as maintaining and enhancing military operations around the world are hurting the US. This is not just in propaganda terms and in the loss of human lives, but also in terms of the cost of hiring, training, arming, deploying and then losing their military personnel and their equipment.

The reality is that, unless someone else, other than US taxpayers, pays for the weapons and allied systems that the USA is deploying and expending on the battlefields where it is and has been deployed at least since 9/11, it risks losing not only the battles, but also its ability to fund such battles in the future.

At least one "solution" to this problem might be to take advantage of situations in which other economies are required to invest in the purchase of military goods made by the USA for their security, protection or conduct of operations against insurgents or others hostile to their governments.

Certainly the purchase by other economies of goods made in the USA would not hurt the economy of the United States.

Recent sales of military hardware to countries such as Saudi Arabia are cases in point where the money coming in from such sales can not only offset the trade imbalance caused by oil but can positively advantage American companies that make the products that have been purchased and through taxation also bring some revenue to the US government.

Alas the levels of instability in international relations and within nations is surely hurting the well being of the people who live in those unstable circumstances and does very little to allay the fears of those who do NOT dismiss the Russian and Chinese activities as mere "muscle flexing."

I do not know about anyone else who was born after 1945 - but I for one do NOT want to see another world war or another cold war, especially if the potential combatants are all in possession of nuclear weapons systems!