[532] in libertarians
More Guns, Nukes, & Liberty
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joseph C. Baxter)
Fri Dec 23 22:19:33 1994
Date: 23 Dec 94 22:15:58 EST
From: "Joseph C. Baxter" <74352.3634@compuserve.com>
To: "Travis J. I. Corcoran" <icd.terdyne.com@compuserve.com>
Cc: Libertarian List <libertarians@MIT.EDU>
In last week's episode, our hero, the Avenging Individualist was.....
<> If, perhaps when, the next revolution comes we won't see the Army,
<> Navy, Air Force, & Marines siding uniformly (tee, hee, bad pun)
<> with the government. There will be many, if not a majority, of us
<> who would take up a revolution.
>I agree with this, which is one of the things that makes me think it
>could be won ( or better yet - avoided, if it is made clear to the
>government that this is the case). To play devil's advocate, however,
>we don't know the what the quality of the people in the military will
>be 30 years from now...after Vietnam drug use in the military was
>high, retention was low, and average recruits were of lower quality
>than they had been. Several old ROTC friends who are now active have
>told me about good people leaving the military because of disagreement
>with various policies (either excessive paperwork, ass covering, the
>new homosexual policy (I'm not defending their disagreement, just
>pointing it out), etc.). One could posit this trend continuing, with
>the result that the military in the future would be composed not of
>intelligent and well trained patriots, but with undereducated,
>beuracratic toadies who are eager to please and get their tickets punched.
Two things: a) I think that you are correct about an educated "citizen-soldier"
being the a good, if not the best, deterrent to government officials seizing
power. I have sworn under oath to uphold the Constitution and to defend it
against all enemies foreign and *domestic*, and I am not required to follow an
unlawful order. I may be gravely mistaken but I believe that the officers and
enlisted folks that I serve with will know when one branch of government or the
other has simply gone too far. Of course, that is also predicated on having
folks like you and I to keep them up to speed on the sort of crap that goes on.
b) Yes, the military does go through quality cycles. They are usually prompted
by social welfare democrats, or peaceniks, or utopians who believe that the last
war, or the current peace treaty, or some other promise from dictator A or
despot B is sincere in their promises of good will. This has time and again
resulted in people who have no clue what a military needs to remain viable
dictating where cuts are to be made. Our military could function quite
adequately with about a quarter of what we have now. However, that would mean
all our allies defending themselves (that's about one *million* people there
plus the infrastructure that goes with it), getting smart and lean with our
support regimes (about 75% of the Navy is in a support role -- the tail wags the
dog), and finally having the politicians accept that despots and dictators
overseas can not be made extinct by sending in the Marines every time one group
decides to slaughter another. (This is all, of course, party line stuff.) But,
in any case, should the day come where the military is as you describe, the good
folks will be on the outside with the rest of us.
<> Though at such a juncture we would probably see it not as
<> "revolution" but as defense of the union against an internal
<> agressor.
>I imagine that we will see the military split up by units if it ever
>comes to that. The question is what portion of the military will be
>on each side.
The worst possible scenario would be to have the Dr. Strangelove types
controlling the nukes. Another reason why we need to get rid of these damned
things as quickly as possible.
<> If you accept that civilians won't have to man the barricades alone
>Perhaps not "alone", but that doesn't mean that they won't have to man
>80% of the barricades.
Very true. However, it is would be that 20% that would be critical to leading
the other 80% to victory. They would be the weapons, tactics, strategy experts.
<> should also accept that the Individualist Revolutionary Army would have
access
<> to every sort of weapon known... including FAEs and D-3 ICBMs, their
delivery
<> vehicles, supply, and maintenance elements. What is most important is that
we
<> would have the people on our side, like myself, who can employ those weapons
in
<> the best (which is to say most lethal and destructive) manner possible.
>If 20% of the military comes over, 20% sits out, and 60% fights for
the oppresive government, then every extra round of civilian ammo will
help.
Yep. And, we ought to be fighting to keep the nastiest, dirtiest, most lethal
small arms ammo legal and available.
<> All this does nothing to lessen my belief in and support of our right and
the
<> necessity to bear arms.
>Good.
<> It does, however, lead me to feel a bit more confident that no
<> tyrant could come to power in this country without having first
<> defeated a formidable foe: the American. I am satisfied that there
<> would be little left for him to rule.
<WWI was an unwinnable war for every party involved (see the discussion
<of was as a "lose-lose proposition" on ne.general), but that didn't
<stop it from being fought. People can make stupid, irrational, or
<uninformed choices.
I think that a re-examination of the circumstances surrounding WWI would show it
to be a unique and probably unrepeatable episode in history. A) It was a war
fought with 19th century tactics and 20th century weapons -- take away the
vastly increased rate of fire from arty and small arms and I suspect there would
never have been the slaughter of trench warfare; troops would have advanced as
they always had with far fewer casualties. B) Those 19th century tactics of
frontal assault have been replaced with maneuver warfare ("fire and movement" as
Patton called it). Hit the enemy when he thinks you won't and from where he
thinks you're not. C) Air power and armor have also changed things
significantly. D) Guerilla warfare remains a viable form of warfare for the
underdog. Stupid, irrational, or uniformed choices today spell certain and
quick death.
<> Which brings us to the other issue of contention: If we need to overthrow a
<> government, what person could possibly *ever* justify the use of nukes?
<> I propose that nukes be recognized as things beyond the scope of the 2nd.
<Every form of warfare involves killing innocents, even today's modern
<smart weapons. A nuke is no different.
In WWII the circular-probable-error for medium-level bombing was five miles. If
we wanted to take out a German ball-bearing plant we had to send in hundreds of
planes dropping thousands of bombs to have no better than a "pretty good" chance
of liquidating the target. That wide CPE meant that entire cities and their
populations might be destroyed in that effort. In WWII that was acceptable
because there was no other viable means of doing it. People screeched during
the Persia Gulf Simulacrum War when *one* bomb took out *a* bomb shelter and
killed a passel of Iraqis hiding therein -- never mind that the Iraqi Army was
hiding civilians in a military installation or that the bomb went exactly where
it was aimed. No, no, no, Travis, I cannot and will not accept that a nuke is
no different from any other weapon. The effects and after-effects of nukes
ought to make them absolutely off the list.
<I don't see a role for city-killers in a civil war, but I could posit
<the use of tactical nukes easilly enough. Compare the civilian
<casulaties from nuking an Army battalion in Minnesota to the civilian
<casualties from that same army battalion marching unopposed into
<several cities and performing search-and-destroy missions against gun
<owners, "collaboraters", revolutionaries, owners of laser printers,
<etc...
There is no such thing as a free lunch. A tactical nuke would seem to be the
quick fix in the scenario above, but what the hell do you do when that fallout
cloud starts dropping alpha- and beta-emitters on your head? Do you live in
MOPP gear for the rest of your days in Duluth? No, you'd have to abandon it for
a long time or risk having some fascinating things happen to your genes. Rule
Number One of the field is: Never shit where you eat. Using nukes, even little
ones is tantamount to crapping on the dinner table.
<That having been said, I'm hardly sure that civilians should have
<weapons this huge. I'm not arguing that the 2nd covers them. This is
<one weapon that, if it came to Revolution, I'd count on the defecting
<military units to bring with them.
The only use we could possibly have for them is as a deterrent to their use by
the toadies. A couple of rebel boomers under the ice cap would suit me fine. I
think that there are too many other entertaining items in the U.S. arsenal to
focus on nukes. Cruise missiles, smart bombs, FAEs, directed-energy weapons,
plus all the other more pedestrian stuff should be a plenty. Besides, nukes are
no fun.
Joe Baxter
