The role of military defence has been gradually shifted away from its primary role of providing security to enhancing commercial interest. With industrial growth and advancement of science and technology, the defence production led to a market oriented producer- purchaser relation between the developed and developing countries.The poor nation afflicted with conflicts became a super market for defence deals. For the powerful, military prowess which was earlier synonymous with political power has become a trademark of economic power.

But restraining factors were at work. The intellectual circle and the wisdom acquired from past experiences as also the active international diplomacy successfully taught the world community to disarm for peace and development. The agreement to network for prosperity through friendly trades and to resolve conflicts through peaceful dialogues have been advocated vehemently. The world community is now wiser and is aware of the bigger threat of survival posed by depleting resources. They campaign for pooled resources through collective efforts to save mankind and the world from further depletion.

Resource is scarce and is even scarcer with rising population particularly in poor countries which are already afflicted with hunger, illiteracy and joblessness. For these countries, the preparation for an impending war, which may never occur, is a sheer wastage of precious resource in terms of man, money and material. History evidenced the worthless used of armed coercion. If a stick is given to a hungry man to stop him from his cry for hunger, he will roar to bite you and connive with the neighbor to cause disaster. Instead of using the resources to crush the anger, it would be wiser to use the resource to fill the hungry belly and teach the hungry man to grow crops to sustain his future needs. The resources used for military purchase can fruitfully be used for peace and development.

The political compulsions may tempt the authority to take pride in the strength of the defence force. The military men pride themselves as the savior of the country. With due respect and regard to the defence services, I have a considered opinion to express. I think military might is an outdated concept of exalting the national self esteem. Recent history of military powers have evidenced the fatality of this approach. The pride of the nation is in the human asset and any nation that failed to nurture its most precious asset will lose its national pride even if it owns the most sophisticated war weapons to erase the entire human race.

Big defence budget in the developed world may entail an economic investment return out of defence production and sale exports. But how long can this go on? For poor countries, big defence budget produces a negative return, and hits the belly of the poor as his pie is taken away with every military purchase.In the new age, the defence security trade mark will diminish as more focus is now on economic security and sustainability of the future. The creative and innovative thinking to meet the future challenges will be a supreme consideration while war weapons will be valueless in the approaching apocalypse.

As with many industries, defence manufacturing has its own distinct characteristics that outsourced engineering and production firms need to cater to. Whether the contractor is tasked with producing military aircraft or submarine parts, very specific considerations need to be made when developing and producing equipment for this sector.

Perhaps differing from other sectors that thrive on the profit from the relative disposability of equipment as consumers seeks regular upgrades, the defence industry looks for durability and the long-term capability of all the equipment and machinery that it invests in.

As budgets can be limited, it is unwise to invest heavily in equipment with the view that it will simply be replaced or upgraded in a few years’ time when a newer technology is developed. Whereas civil aviation engineers may be constantly focused on the drive to innovate, those commissioning military aircraft are also interested in long-term efficiency and an extended lifespan.

This is not to say that the defence industry is not interested in innovation at all; in fact, the opposite can be true. Nations with larger defence budgets tend to be the ones pioneering cutting edge technology such as drones and other unmanned autonomous vehicles (UAVs), which is an indicator of the future of military vehicles.

Although there is a heavy emphasis on quality and durability, there is also a need for the military to harness the latest developments in technology for the benefit of its own military forces. Manufacturers of such equipment are therefore often required to deliver in all departments when designing and engineering such vehicles and devices.

Another key feature of the defence manufacturing industry is that budgets can be greatly restricted when compared with the civil and commercial sectors. The reason for this is simply that the defence budgets of many nations are – as they are state-funded – limited in scope, necessitating strategic spending for maximum results.

It is therefore absolutely imperative that a military aircraft engineering firm or a contract submarine parts manufacturer is able to offer affordable solutions, regardless of the equipment the company specialises in producing. Cost is a critical factor that must be expertly managed throughout the project from start to finish, with little room for wastage.

With this in mind, many companies or departments in the defence sector seek to work with contract engineers and manufacturers with experienced project managers that have a long history of working with the defence industry. This can ensure that the contractor in question is aware of the restrictions that are placed on the defence budget as well as the objectives that need to be achieved.

It should also be noted that, due to the necessity of creating highly cost-effective equipment and vehicles of outstanding quality, the design and development of projects can be longer than engineering and manufacturing in other industries. As it is necessary to have a number of essential components – cost, performance, innovation – in place, this balance can take longer to achieve.

This is now changing, especially in the cases where certain items of equipment are required for urgent deployment. Rather than this being a result of an improvement in manufacturing processes, it is due to the need for bodies in the defence sector to be rapidly prepared for instances of defence and conflict in an often volatile global environment.

From innovation to affordability, there are certain considerations of defence manufacturing that may resemble those of civil or commercial production, but they actually have their own nuances. With the sector on a tight budget yet very demanding in the way of performance, developing optimal parts and equipment can be a challenging balancing act.

Due to this, there are many specialised contract manufacturers – ranging from the military vehicle engineering firm to the submarine parts manufacturer – each catering specifically to the industry, ensuring that these very unique needs are met with attention and precision.

Military Self Defense 3 Basic Problems

1: Focused on strength and speed. Still has a competitive training attitude

2: Trained weapon control more than ending the attack

3: Rules instilled due to current media

**First problem,

Being focused on strength and speed are not bad things, but it assumes that you will better than your attacker. Hey, this might be the case most of the time in the gym, but after a long day at work? What if there is more than one of them. I am not stronger than two guys.

Military self defense training as hand to hand combat is the last resort. They mostly with weapons because that is the most effective way to attack. So when a soldier is left unarmed against a armed attacker, it is usually really bad. They are tired or hurt. Probably the situation you will be when attack on the street.

Criminals go after everyone, but especially the weak.

So you would think that military self defense would create a system with these things in mind and they did, back in World War Two. These systems cut down on training time, but then what are they going to do? Soldiers wanted to train more in hope to be more effective, and ventured out into other combat martial arts. Some found mixed martial arts and liked how you could compete all day/everyday and not injury your training partner.

Please understand that I am not saying that mixed martial arts are weakening military unarmed self defense. No way, but the way of training is. You see it is a know fact that you do as you train. Mixed martial arts is a sports and self defense is not. There are similarities, but you can not just flip a switch during combat and hope that you do the right thing.

Train in a way that does NOT promote physical attributes or sports competition.

**Second problem

Focusing on the weapon usually a gun, knife, or stick, but not on ending the threat. What? Wait, the gun, knife, or stick are not the threat? The person is the threat. You can take the weapon a way from them, and still get killed. Yet if you end the threat, it is over.

Again the military loves weapons and for good reason. Weapons work in ending the attack. Still the whole point is to end the attack and not to get the weapon. Semantics? No way, imagine you are fighting an attack and a gun goes flying to the floor. You dive for it and barely get it. What you did not see is the attacker smashing your skull in with their boot while you go for the gun. A little graphic, but very real. Please understand what the threat is here.

**Third problem

Rules instilled due to current media. That could mean the rules in sports like mixed martial arts or the way media views the military. We have gone over mixed martial arts a lot, but not on how the media sees the military self defense. Honestly this is my take on it, but from the vets I have talked to, this is a huge problem.

The media loves a story and they will tear apart anyone to get it. The military is trained in lethal moves and combat. So if they kill to defend themselves, but that is not acceptable here. The media knows this and plays a killer soldier story to death.

Understand that the media does help keep us all in check, but I believe that it can be abused. Military training knows this and tries to create ways to help their soldiers, but combat is combat. We are fighting for our lives here. So holding back in fear that it might get online or in the news is a real thing for many people not just the military.

So now what can be done?

I do not claim all the answers. I know something has to be done. I suggest you talk to your instructor (military self defense or not) about these issues and seek more help.

Need more military self defense training help?

This paper will examine the more obscure aspects of Boxing as a martial science. It will illustrate that the martial history, tradition and virtue of boxing is an undeniable fact albeit one that is rarely. If ever, seriously acknowledged and understood. It will concentrate upon the military applications rather than the normal sporting elements (although it will touch upon certain aspects of sporting competition where deemed appropriate) demonstrating how it has been an integral part of the training of a warrior since ancient times. It will explore how it was used to develop “fighting spirit” and” how it has continued in contributing to the origins and development of modern military close-combat techniques in much the same way as some oriental martial arts.

Boxing is one of the most ancient of all the martial arts, and has quite a clear and traceable history when compared to other forms of combative systems. The term boxing derives from the box shape of the closed hand, or fist. In Latin, the fist is called pugnus (hence the alternative terms pugilism). Pugnus itself derives from the Greek pugme, meaning “fist.”

Boxing was practiced in one form or another by most of the classical civilisations of antiquity including those of Egypt, Sumer (A form of boxing can be seen in Sumerian Carvings from the 3rd millennium BC, while an Egyptian relief from about a thousand years later actually shows both participants and spectators. In each case the boxers are bare-fisted) and Crete(where it is even possible to see boxers depicted wearing a primitive type of glove). Even more ancient than this, In 1927, Archaeologist called Dr E. A. Speiser discovered a Mesopotamian stone tablet in Baghdad, Iraq that depicted two men preparing for a boxing match. This tablet is believed to be some 7000 years old!

Fighting with the fists is also described in several ancient Indian texts including the Vedas, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Evidence has also been found in certain excavations carried out at the sight of two ancient cities called Mohenjadaro and Harappa in the Indus valley. However. Although fighting using the closed fists would seem to come naturally to most human beings, it was perhaps in Greece that the both the sport and science of Boxing began to gather wide-spread popularity, and was organised and developed accordingly.

It was in Greece that Boxing became an Olympic sport (688 BC), and it was in Greece that it was refined and recognised as being a valuable tool in the training of the warrior. Boxing is mentioned by Homer in the 13th book of the Illiad (Circa 675 BC) Wherein it is described as being part of the competitions the Mycenaeans used to honour their dead.

At this time, while there were some rules (such as forbidding any clinching or wrestling) there were absolutely no weight divisions, no rings, no rounds and no referee. Boxers simply pummelled each another until one was eventually knocked out or gave up. Consequently, serious injuries and even death were not that uncommon Pythagoras of Samos, who won the boxing crown at the 48th Olympiad (588 or 584 B.C.), is recognised as being the first trully “Technical Boxer”, for he was a relatively small man standing about 5ft7in and weighing in at only 160 pounds who never the less beat numerous much larger contestants.

As might be expected, it was the warlike Spartans who were to capitalise most with Boxing, recognising it as an effective means of instilling the fighting spirit in the recruit through not only building up levels of courage and tenacity, but also using it as a means of teaching the basics of fighting with the sword, spear and shield. In this manner boxing training became not only an effective unarmed fighting style in its own right, but also served in complimenting the effective use of certain weapons as part of an integrated system of combat training.

Spartan society was extremely martial, and they trained hard and long to be efficient soldiers on the battlefield. It is said that they were almost as dangerous unarmed as they were with a weapon. (Persian historical records of the battle of Thermopylae, where the 300 Spartans led by their king Leonidas, fought a desperate and suicidal rear-guard action in order to allow Greece more time to muster and organise her forces, even refers to these fierce and fanatical warriors as actually resorting to biting at their enemy!) As the popularity of boxing grew it became split and divided, with one branch being maintaining the martial aspect in order to compliment the armed prowess of the Hoplite, and the other concentrating upon sporting competitions (albeit quite brutal ones!). Thus, you had the professional soldier on the one hand and the sportsperson on the other. Even Homer tells us of the difference between combat sports and actual combat; he describes the lament of the champion boxer Epeios, who asked that his incompetence on the battlefield be excused because of his success in sport boxing, saying that it was not possible to good at all things and that the only place where he wasn’t able to fight well was the battlefield itself! (Iliad XXIII) However, he is also credited with designing and building the Trojan horse with the help of Athena, as is told in the (Odyssey IV.265ff and Odyssey VIII.492ff) so, perhaps the poor fellow had a point after all, and we should let him off!

The Etruscans were particularly fond of boxing and were actually the very first to introduce the term “Pugilism” a word that has since become synonymous with the science and which continues to be used right up to the present day. Later, Boxing became an integral part of the training regime for Roman Legionaries, with a particularly savage form being adapted for use in the so called “games” of the Arena. It eventually became popular throughout Rome, with all types of people participating including members of the aristocracy (A fight between the agile Dares and the towering Entellus is described at length in the Roman national epic Aeneid (1st century BC). In 500 A.D., boxing was banned altogether by Holy Roman Emperor Theodoric the Great as being offensive to the creator as it disfigured the face which was the image of God. However, this edict had little effect outside the major cities of the Eastern Empire, therefore, boxing continued to evolve as both a sport and a method of self defence throughout Europe but particularly in Italy and especially in the British Isles.

Boxing resurfaces in strength in England during the early 18th century as “Bare-Knuckle Boxing” sometimes also referred to as” prize-fighting”. The first documented account of a bare-knuckle fight in England appeared back in 1681 in a newspaper called ” the London Protestant Mercury” with the first English champion being James Figg in 1719. As a well as being the first boxing champion of England, James Figg was also a very adept cudgel-fighter and swordsman and was to play a pivotal role in the boxing renaissance. When he opened his school in London in 1719 Figg made a reasonable living out of teaching young gentleman the art of self-defence by applying the precepts of modern fencing-footwork, speed, and the straight lunge-to fist-fighting.

This is interesting in that, as we remember, Boxing was originally used in order to augment and enhance training with weapons in ancient Greece, whereas now, Boxers learned to throw straight punches, the basis of modern boxing, from fencers. To some extent, it could even be said that boxing replaced duelling with swords and pistols, allowing men of all social classes to defend themselves and their honour without necessarily having to severely maim or kill each other. Despite this connection with fencing, boxing encounters during this early modern era were largely unstructured and highly uncivilized. Boxers fought bare-knuckle (without gloves), and wrestling, choking, throwing, gouging, and purring (stomping on one’s opponent with spiked boots) were commonplace, so that, in some respects at least, it bore much more of a resemblance to the ancient Greek Pankration or Japanese Jiu-Jitsu than to the sport we all now know and accept as being boxing.

Denmark will never be the first supplier of boots on the ground, nor does it intend to. But troop deployment is merely one element in military strategies, and there are many others where the northern kingdom has a strong role to play, which it has been playing on the international scene over the past decades, and it intends to develop it further.

Denmark has drawn advantage in the shift in the nature of warfare and international relations, which has occurred over the last century. Until WW2, countries were free to choose whether to enter conflicts, or not, as they saw fit. In this type of warfare, even if nations found allies, each country was supposed to be self-sufficient, and Denmark’s forces were quickly spread thin. The creation of the Warsaw pact and North Atlantic alliance quickly outdated this way of waging war, and countries articulated into alliances, with mutually valuable cooperation. For instance, Portugal, despite its modest armed forces, was able to partake to the alliance from its very beginning as it provided the valuable Azores airstrips to the allied boats and ships. In this era, Denmark’s is much more in a position to play its full part in a military operation, with its command of logistics and its technology.

A country like Denmark will always seek scalable industries and value areas, so as to circumvent the lack of population volume. It can therefore focus on technological research, the products of which will then benefit the rest of NATO allies it sells to, while importing from the alliance in return. Denmark spearheads the military radar market, with several companies offering an entire range of muzzle calculators, tactical radars, and electronic warfare management systems. In a Memorandum of Understanding issued in October of 2014, Boeing and Terma (a Danish specialized defence firm) agreed to cooperate in technological contributions, namely on the Chinook CH-47 helicopter. Likewise, Weibel will probably be fitting its muzzle and tactical radars onto the modern French CAESAR self-propelled howitzer, through yet another technological agreement with one of their NATO allies. Denmark is currently considering a purchase of this state-of-the-art howitzer, closely observed during its successful operational deployment in Afghanistan and Mali. Anyway, the Weibel radar would not be the first cooperation between France and Denmark: TenCate Advanced Armour Danmark A/S is already a supplier of armoured solutions for the French VBCI, also harshly strained in the same inhospitable regions. Finally, Denmark is a contributor to the Joint Strike Fighter program, which it might purchase as of June of 2015. According to Global Security, Denmark counts approximately 25 defence-oriented companies, all of which specialized in niche markets.

The rising importance of military intelligence has also increased the role and influence of Denmark in international operations. In November of 2014, Danish forces travelled to Lithuania to take part in a military intelligence exercise, so as to uphold NATO’s capacity to monitor the delicate situation in the Ukraine. Lithuania also harbours rotating US troops and Hungarian troops (both part of NATO). Given the hostile stance of Russia towards NATO’s expansion towards the east, Denmark’s presence on the edge of Russia is an indicator that it is a trusted partner within the Alliance. On the long run, Denmark has permanent troops operating in three NATO operations (KFOR, Standing NRF Maritime Force 1 and an air force deployment in Jordan, alongside US troops involved in Iraqi strikes).

So as to render its military capacity more adapted to modern requirements, Denmark has launched an efficiency program inducing both large cuts in military spending and reorganizing units. Conscription, which is still in Force in Denmark, will further be reduced in its volume: only 5000 of the 35 000 men in age of being drafted are actually called upon by the Armed Forces, that number will shortly be reduced to 4200. And every year until 2017, the Danish Ministry of Defence will need to reduce its spending by nearly half a billion dollars. So as not to reduce its military capacity accordingly, units will be regrouped into larger and fewer regiments and bases. Their equipment will be replaced, so as to increase their firepower and deployment capacity, despite the shrinking size, with acquisitions for example of land equipment amongst others. Two important land programs are currently under consideration.

The stakes are high for Denmark, as it intends to take its full part in future allied operations. Given the nature of the strategic future of operations, the strain will be high on equipment and vehicles. In the next few years at least, the main security threats will be asymmetric. The situation in Nigeria is increasingly hitting newspaper headlines, as security and territory control deteriorates. The Islamic State has proven trickier to tackle than expected, and operations against it will no doubt need to be maintained over a long stretch of time. In both these cases, the enemy is small and nimble, which means that fighting it will require heavy projections. Aging equipment is difficult to project, as it demands far more maintenance. Even the American Air Force chief of staff, confronted with the same problem, raised a flag in September of 2014 regarding the difficulty of maintaining old equipment, especially in operations: “”There are too many things happening because our fleets are too old.” In a different strategic setting, it is likely that Western forces will need to stack up troops in the Ukraine, so as to balance powers with Russia. In this specific case, reliability will not so much be the problem, as the projection will be easier, but it will take equipment as modern and sophisticated as possible to counter Russia’s mighty forces. In both cases, if Denmark wants to be a part of the game (which it does), it will need to have its forces in pristine order.

With a strategy which aims at filling the specific diplomatic, strategic, and economic areas where it is competitive, Denmark has established its position as an equal partner with surrounding European neighbours. It provides also high-end technology to its NATO-allies, and gives them passage rights on (or under) its strategic Greenland territory, while providing them with military intelligence. With its active and high-grade diplomacy, it has tied strong links with powerful western countries, and has drawn the most from its international prerogatives, namely its seven-time European presidency since 1973. With its soon-to-be deep-reformed armed forces and new military equipment, it will probably increase its international influence even more.