The reason for this seeming lack of foresight and planning was that it had been so horrified by its experience of standing home based armies in the 17th century Civil War that its first move at the ending of a war was to disband the lot. I recall this little nugget of information in the context of the current debate, if debate it can be called, regarding the purchase of the Swedish Gripen fighter aircraft.
Two comments about this intended or actual purchase struck me as being especially interesting not least because both can be differently interpreted. ‘Deterrence is a part of military defence’ stated the one as proven fact and ‘we cannot take a chance by letting our guard down’ maintained the other. Has deterrence worked anywhere in the world in the past? Increased deterrent militarisation in Europe led directly to the outbreak of the First World War. Indeed no kind of supposed deterrent was likely to have persuaded any of the great aggressors, Alexander, Genghis Khan, Louis IV, Napoleon or Hitler to hold back.
