“This seems like a circular argument. If there is no general guide line to make a weapon then no weapon can be made.” [Steve Van Doorn, post 87]
Asserting that there are circularities is a statement of indifference. “I know what I know and that’s that” is frequently resorted to in this forum; doesn’t mean it’s accurate. Nor is it any use in furthering the analysis.
There are guidelines aplenty, general and specific, on how to make weaponry, and how, and why. Entire bookshelves are filled with laws, rules, regulations, analyses, conjectures, and opinion. Some is nonsense, most is unavoidable (having been put in place by enacted law, directives from appointed officials, departmental instructions, and local unit procedures). We Americans - with conservatives at the leading edge - love to trash it all in a single dismissive gesture and repeat a bunch of “common sense” mouthings on how we won the Revolution with rifles, so everything since has no meaning or is a conspiracy fomenting tyranny and oppression.
A few hours’ perusal (not to say study) of historical developments since, oh, the introduction of gunpowder to Europe negates such fanciful thinking. In large part, military endeavor has been the story of technology and artificial energy sources replacing manpower and muscle.
The trend has picked up speed since the 1760s; essentially, since the Industrial Revolution took on a life of its own. To deny this is not to reiterate “timeless American values,” it is rather an invitation to disaster.
“Doctrine” in a military context has no religious content. It is, rather, the professional community’s codification of what is believed to be the best current thinking on the organization’s mission, and the best ways to accomplish it. Each armed service promulgates its own, and contributes (moreover) to the development of joint and combined doctrine.
Since most casual observers confuse military doctrine with religious dogma, they make sport of organizations & people devoted to the task of figuring out what this or that conflict or confrontation means, and how our own military establishment ought to adapt to developments.
The religious connotations assume a high degree of self-assuredness, moralizing, and “unchanging verities,” while in the military context doctrine is just the opposite. The situation is never static and mostly unpredictable; self-righteousness and certitude have no place. Advances in technology will not let us stand still; there is no place where we can stop and declare we are perfect. To assume there can be such certitude is to run the risk of not surviving; it is better to be effective than moral.
Those who do not realize the limitations here will also fail to recognize the opportunities. Thus they sacrifice any chance of contributing to the discussion on a meaningful level.
When the military has no control or very little control over how the weapon should be made. Who will make those decisions? The politician? The guy that can get a few more votes in his district if he builds more Sopwith Camels “five” which he miss understood to mean a fifth generation plane?