Two articles carried in your newspaper during the past week deal with issues of defence.

Jonathan Katzenellenbogen (May 6) discusses a new SA National Defence Force emphasis on light, mobile forces to tackle bandit-type forces armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades. Ours will be deployed by air and supported, where necessary, by the new Gripen fighters. He says the new strategy asks questions about hefty investment in naval power in the arms deal.

Renfrew Christie (May 8) defends buying patrol corvettes and submarines. His argument is fourfold: we have a lot of water to look after; we are at risk of being attacked; a modern state needs a modern defence force, and especially a modern navy; and to be able to transport our troops elsewhere in Africa we need a navy.

I find Christie's arguments very old fashioned. The nature of warfare has changed so much, even since the Second World War, let alone the South African war, that the lessons we can learn from them are minimal.

To justify such vessels, there has to be a foreign power with the motive and capacity to attack and invade us. I cannot think of one.

Katzenellenbogen's article finally tells us of a feasible possible use for the SANDF. It also tells us much of the arms deal is irrelevant to our needs. It is not too late to reconsider. No doubt it will cost us a lot to pull out of parts of the deal. It will cost us far more to pig-headedly go ahead when the evidence, let alone costs, make it clear that it is a dumb idea.

Geoff Harris Professor of Economics University of Natal.

With acknowledgements to Geoff Harris and Business Day.