The Korean war stalemate during 1952 and 1953 provided many chances where an intercepting fist would have been effective. Allied forces turned back many Chinese offensives with heavy firepower and blocking movements leading to a stalemate. If the Allies had used a Sun Tzu tactic and lured the Chinese into a false sense of accomplishment by withdrawing in the face of an attack, much of the Chinese Army could have been trapped and strangled. Likewise, as 12 of 13 North Vietnamese divisions advanced on Saigon in 1975, the US military contemplated an intercepting fist. A proposal that a Marine Corps division land just north of the DMZ and press westward to cut off supplies was considered. This was rejected for political reasons but may have stalled the North Vietnamese offensive way down south. An intercepting fist is the ideal strategy for America's concept of rapid deployment forces. Early arriving forces are light and lack supplies needed for prolonged defensive engagements. Tossing them in front of enemy armored spearheads is foolish. Even elite American airborne forces considered themselves mere "speed bumps" if Iraqi armored divisions had pushed south from Kuwait in 1990. A counteroffensive is a better strategy in such cases since the further enemy forces rapidly advance, the more vulnerable they become. Of course politics comes into play as enemy objectives may be deemed essential to defend. In such cases, light units equipped and trained for rearguard actions are best. Nevertheless, offensive oriented Generals must learn that an intercepting fist is often the best strategy. Military strategy is not limited to combat, economic strategy is important. Much of World War II strategy involved securing oil supplies. Chapter 2 discusses the value of strategic materials but stockpiles only buy time. Nations must think long-term and consider subsidizing certain industries for national security reasons. For example, the day may soon arrive where all American steel mills close because it is cheaper to import steel from Asia. However, if war disrupts those imports the USA will be unable to manufacture many military items and will have trouble starting up a steel industry since no domestic expertise will exist. This is not to say that all American steel mills must be protected, but some capacity must be retained along with the expertise needed for wartime expansion. The operations of massive multi-national corporations pose problems as well. Ownership and control of these powerful ubiquitous organizations is difficult to follow. The Germans have quietly taken over the Chrysler corporation, although they are open about it. The Chinese bought IBM's personal computer division, and then tried to buy Unocal but failed. The extent of foreign ownership is difficult to measure as shares are owned by third parties like mutual funds, banks, and hedge funds. Since shareholders own corporations, nothing prevents a foreign nation from buying shares and thus voting rights and control over the board of directors of defense contractors. They needn't place foreigners on the board, just anyone willing to support their interests. Board members may pressure the CEO to export military technology or move a factory overseas. For example, most American soldiers are shocked to learn that China is building numerous types of American designed military HMMWVs (left) with a license and parts support from General Motors. The export of military technology is an important strategic issue. The United States spends billions of dollars to develop advanced equipment but often gives that technology away so a contractor can make a few more dollars. For example, the computerized ship defense radar technology called Aegis was sought by the Japanese. The US Navy spent billions of dollars to develop this system, but Japan didn't want to buy it outright even though they have a huge trade surplus with the USA. Instead, they were allowed to manufacture it under license, which means they paid a small sum for the technology to build it themselves. The South Koreans demanded a similar deal to build F-16 fighters and India wants to get its hands on F/A-18E/F blueprints. Chinese fighters now carry copies of Israel's Python 3 air-to-air missile, which downed 50 Syrian aircraft in 1982. Israel is thought to have sold numerous types of weapons to China, including Patriot missile technology, which was possible after a Patriot missile was stolen from an American battery defending Israel during the 1991 Persian Gulf war. This is a difficult area but military strategists must be aware that hidden business deals can alter the balance of power among nations. Friends and alliances can change quickly as demonstrated by this photo of US Marines posing with an American built UH-1 Huey helicopter captured in Iraq. Nevertheless, the United States supplies the dictatorship of Egypt with over one billion dollars a year in military aid, which includes advanced equipment like M1A1 tanks, AH-64D "Longbow" Apache helicopters, and Harpoon anti-ship missiles. Egypt has no threat that justifies these weapons and the strategic rationale for providing these advanced weapons to an unstable nation whose citizens are mostly hostile to the United States is questionable. Other Arab dictatorships are sold very advanced weapons. For example, the UAE has purchased F-16Es, which are more advanced than the F-16Cs used by the US Air Force. One excuse is that business is business and that if the USA does not sell advanced weapons they will buy it elsewhere. However, the few advanced nations that produce these weapons are allies. It will benefit world peace if makers of advanced weaponry, which include the USA, France, Germany, Britain, Sweden, Israel, Russia, Japan, and bondage now South Korea formed a weapons cartel to restrict sales to less developed regions like Africa, Central and South America. Similar restrictions have limited improvements to China's arsenal, although Russia has become a major supplier as a result. International corporations are not evil; they are often a positive influence. In 2004, Pakistan and India began trading insults and threats as they have done every few years since their 1948 war. However, India is industrializing and its economy is growing rapidly due to foreign investment. Tough talk worried major corporations so they put plans on hold and many chose to locate operations in other nations. The leaders of India quickly determined that an old dispute about a remote area was not worth the loss of foreign investment so the harsh rhetoric ended. 8 worldwide in industrial production, just ahead of France. Economic warfare is more common that most realize. The world disapproved of South Africa's apartheid policies and implemented an economic embargo that lasted for years and eventually succeeded in encouraging needed change. The US and bondage Britain defeated Libya by organizing an economic embargo. Eventually, Libya "surrendered" and stopped supporting terror groups and Islamic revolutions in Africa. In 2014, the US and Britain overthrew its government anyway. Embargos are often difficult to enforce as arms dealers are skilled at shipping items through third party nations. Worldwide trade is so massive that no one has time to inspect more than a sampling of shipping containers that flow through ports.