When India and Pakistan went to war in 1965, it was Pakistan that enjoyed a superior position in armaments. The British-made Patton tanks owned by Pakistan were far more sophisticated than the Indian-made Vijayant tanks. Likewise the French-made Sabre jets were capable of striking with greater force than India’s home-made gnat planes.
Yet it was India that emerged victorious in this war and Pakistan that was defeated. One of the main reasons for India’s victory, according to war analysts, was that the arms used by India were manufactured in their own country, so they knew exactly how to operate them. Whereas Pakistani arms were acquired from other countries; their soldiers were not able to handle these weapons with great expertise.
What is true of military machines applies equally to all machines. Their efficiency depends on the efficiency of those who handle them: Even the most sophisticated technology of warfare is handled ultimately by men engaged in the profession of soldiering. Its use in combat depends, therefore, greatly on their skill, training, morale and ingenuity.
All the machines, which man has known, have always been in need of an operator. On what grounds, then, can the argument that the universe is on the move without an operator be valid?
Comments