Defence hawks worry about Beijing's military clout.
Amid bitter and vital debates about the economy, benefits, housing and defence, why worry about the concerns of what is, for now, a fairly marginal transport option?
By making defence planners worry about fighting two nearly-simultaneous wars like that against Iraq in 1991, this rule-of-thumb has made it harder to prepare for the much broader range of threats which lie ahead.Dropping the two-war axiom is regarded as essential by those who want to spend more money on "transformational" weapons—especially those which can "see deep and shoot deep".
"No other institutional force is more powerful than the former army," worries a Shia on the GC.The defence minister worries that President Bush may be drawn to the idea of stability in Iraq, even if that means military rule.
This was welcome news to defence contractors worried that the grandiose project might fall victim to pressure for budget cuts.
In another chapter in "The Power of Currencies", Yuriko Koike, a former Japanese defence minister, worries about how China might exploit financial power.
Nor is there much sign of direction from the top.James Arbuthnot, the Tory chairman of the Commons defence committee, worries about government foot-dragging on the national security strategy.
A hard fight over spending priorities could begin in June, when proposals for the 2002 budget are unveiled.Some defence-watchers worry that big changes could take place only at the expense of the readiness of existing forces, already, they say, at a post-cold-war low.
In a report issued in May, the country's defence department worried publicly about China's development of a "multidimensional programme to improve its capabilities to limit or prevent the use of space-based assets by adversaries during times of crisis or conflict".But America need not be too jittery.
Why are defence chiefs worried?
