As I understand this Federalist argues for proactive preparation. But can’t it also be argued that proactive and overt strength is an argument for deterrence. Aren’t I less likely to attack an opponent whom I believe is ready and capable of opposing me. (And if I missed this my apologies)
Deterrence as a means of national security is a more modern concept. To some degree it is implied in what Hamilton said, but for him this was more about the mechanisms of readiness in the inevitable face of war.
Wonderfully done, Scott. I'd say the best of the lot, but only because of recency bias.
I am slowly finding the rhythm. But timeliness is essential.
Thanks for these as always Scott.
As I understand this Federalist argues for proactive preparation. But can’t it also be argued that proactive and overt strength is an argument for deterrence. Aren’t I less likely to attack an opponent whom I believe is ready and capable of opposing me. (And if I missed this my apologies)
Deterrence as a means of national security is a more modern concept. To some degree it is implied in what Hamilton said, but for him this was more about the mechanisms of readiness in the inevitable face of war.