Without one, would some other tyrant just come in and take us over?
Would you let him?
You should read Martin van Creveld's (of Rise and Decline of the State) The Transformation of War.
The conclusion is that the armies of the 20th century, evolving from the armies of the 19th and 18th centuries, are totally obsolete. They will be remembered only as legend in the 21st and beyond, much like Alexander the Great's army was a legend for the entire Middle Ages.
Tanks, airplanes, missiles, they are chess pieces in a game of checkers.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Who's we?
And, as always, your very will for a tyrant not to arise which would be a common concern would lead to a secure defence market.
limitgov: Without one, would some other tyrant just come in and take us over?
I'm not a revolutionary war historian: was the Continental Army previously a professional army, or was it mostly made of new, voluntary recruits?
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: limitgov: Without one, would some other tyrant just come in and take us over? I'm not a revolutionary war historian: was the Continental Army previously a professional army, or was it mostly made of new, voluntary recruits?
The officers in the continental army had served in the colonial army of Britain, most notably George Washington.
I don't think that's relevant however. The revolutionary war was a state vs. state war, and so the rules of war were to capture or defend the state. In a state vs. non-state war, or a non-state vs. non-state war, the rules are completely different.
Marko: Would you let him?
what would i use?
some guns to take on, lets say some tyrant tanks and jets?
who in a free market would have enough resources to build jets and tanks?
limitgov: some guns to take on, lets say some tyrant tanks and jets?
Thanks and jets are only useful for destroying other tanks and jets. That's why they haven't seen much action since "the end of major combat operations" in Iraq. (Probably the most insightful thing GWB will ever say.)
Stranger: limitgov: some guns to take on, lets say some tyrant tanks and jets? Thanks and jets are only useful for destroying other tanks and jets. That's why they haven't seen much action since "the end of major combat operations" in Iraq. (Probably the most insightful thing GWB will ever say.)
fine...tanks then.....
yeah...I'm gonna take on tanks and atrillery strikes with my gun....
come on....
Stranger: The officers in the continental army had served in the colonial army of Britain, most notably George Washington.
I presume general officers, right? What about the junior officers and enlisted soldiers?
That wasn't really the point behind me using the Revolutionary War as an example. It was merely to point out that large formations of men can be formed voluntarily, and an effective defense against "better trained" militaries can be built. The advent of more accurate guns, and a wider proliferation of these weapons, makes an ad hoc defense even easier to develop. In my platoon, I think I was the only person who did not remember firing a rifle (I had fired a pistol, but I must have been two years old; ironically, I hit 36/40 targets) before training.
I would venture to guess that an anarchic society would form militias, to one extent or another, especially during "times of war", for the purpose of self-defense.
Edit:
A note on tanks; tanks are not only useful for destroying other tanks. The tank, other than the infantryman, is the only weapon which can take and occupy territory. That's why the Israeli Army and the U.S. Army insist on using tanks in "hot" areas, where there are a lot of anti-tank weapon threats. That's why Saddam used tanks to keep his population in line. They are terrifying, very well protected and very dangerous.
limitgov: fine...tanks then..... yeah...I'm gonna take on tanks and atrillery strikes with my gun.... come on....
Doing this would be very bad strategy on your part. But look at it from the tyrant's point of view, what are his tanks and artillery strikes going to be used on?
Stranger: limitgov: fine...tanks then..... yeah...I'm gonna take on tanks and atrillery strikes with my gun.... come on.... Doing this would be very bad strategy on your part. But look at it from the tyrant's point of view, what are his tanks and artillery strikes going to be used on?
to keep the people in line....and obey tyrant laws.
to keep the people in line and obey tyrant laws.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: I would venture to guess that an anarchic society would form militias, to one extent or another, especially during "times of war", for the purpose of self-defense.
Ironically enough, this fact is what led to the establishment of sovereign states in the first place. As the war between the lords and other states dragged on and devastated Europe in the mid-17th century, the people started arming themselves for their own defense. The lords had to come to an agreement with each other in order to prevent another Swiss revolution.
limitgov: to keep the people in line and obey tyrant laws.
Are the Iraqis and Afghans being kept in line and obeying laws because of tanks and artillery?
You don't seem to have a very clear picture of how war works.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:That's why Saddam used tanks to keep his population in line.
Saddam used the secret police to keep the population in line.
Israeli tanks were completely useless in the war on Hezbollah.
limitgov: Marko: Would you let him? what would i use? some guns to take on, lets say some tyrant tanks and jets? who in a free market would have enough resources to build jets and tanks?
I'm sorry. I thought the question you asked was if he would be able to take us over.
But now you are asking if he would be able to kill us off. Sure he could. For example he could nuke us.
So what?
Marko: limitgov: Marko: Would you let him? what would i use? some guns to take on, lets say some tyrant tanks and jets? who in a free market would have enough resources to build jets and tanks? I'm sorry. I thought the question you asked was if he would be able to take us over. But now you are asking if he would be able to kill us off. Sure he could. For example he could nuke us. So what?
come on guys.....
yes, I;'m saying could he take us over with tanks and artillery and jets....and force us to obey his laws....
if your answer is no...just say no....
limitgov: yes, I;'m saying could he take us over with tanks and artillery and jets....and force us to obey his laws....
Only if we would prefer to be taken over rather than fight to the death if necessary.
So I'll ask again, would you let him?
Because in recent history there've been absolutly no examples of small, poor, and underequipped fighting forces blowing the living f*** out of a much larger and better equipped force....
Also, you stated that there would be no one in a free market who would build these things... Well where does the tyrant get them then?
If you want a military, go right ahead. Don't force me to pay for it though, because then YOU would be the tyrant 'coming in' and 'taking me over'.
Are you asking about a voluntary/private military or a statist military?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Stranger: Saddam used the secret police to keep the population in line.
Perhaps, but he used tanks to avoid open insurrections. Tanks are very terrifying machines. Saddam would park T-72s and T-55s in big city squares as a method of manifesting the power of the State as a threat. The Israelis and the United States do the same thing.
This is a common fallacy. Israeli tanks were very, very efficient against Hezb'allah insurgents in Southern Lebanon.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: This is a common fallacy. Israeli tanks were very, very efficient against Hezb'allah insurgents in Southern Lebanon.
Efficient in the sense of killing people and blowing stuff up.
They were absolutely useless in terms of winning the war.
The logical conclusion of a state's total war against an unwieldy population is overwhelming force and concentration camps. That's how the British obliterated the Boer Republics of South Africa. After the conventional war was won by the Redcoats, the Afrikaaner insurgency sprung up to harass the occupiers. In response, the Empire rounded up the civilian populace into camps and scorched the earth.
By the end of hostilities there were more soldiers in SA than civilians and the mountains of gold under the Witwatersrand were in the hands of the British. Their occupation ended, eventually, meaning the entire conflict was a waste in any case. Statism of any flavor inevitably fails.
Marko: limitgov: yes, I;'m saying could he take us over with tanks and artillery and jets....and force us to obey his laws.... Only if we would prefer to be taken over rather than fight to the death if necessary. So I'll ask again, would you let him?
no...I'd fight and die....
so thats it? we all would die?
Nielsio: limitgov: Without one, would some other tyrant just come in and take us over? If you want a military, go right ahead. Don't force me to pay for it though, because then YOU would be the tyrant 'coming in' and 'taking me over'.
I agree with that...but if we go the pure free market, no government way...we'd be taken over....or at least we could be...
Daniel Muffinburg: limitgov: Without one, would some other tyrant just come in and take us over? Are you asking about a voluntary/private military or a statist military?
a statist one, like china....
Hard Rain: The logical conclusion of a state's total war against an unwieldy population is overwhelming force and concentration camps. That's how the British obliterated the Boer Republics of South Africa. After the conventional war was won by the Redcoats, the Afrikaaner insurgency sprung up to harass the occupiers. In response, the Empire rounded up the civilian populace into camps and scorched the earth. By the end of hostilities there were more soldiers in SA than civilians and the mountains of gold under the Witwatersrand were in the hands of the British. Their occupation ended, eventually, meaning the entire conflict was a waste in any case. Statism of any flavor inevitably fails.
well, that doesn;'t sound like fun....going through concentration camps and enemy soldiers everywhere....
the no military thing didn't sound like it worked out for them....
limitgov: Daniel Muffinburg: limitgov: Without one, would some other tyrant just come in and take us over? Are you asking about a voluntary/private military or a statist military? a statist one, like china....
Okay. No, we do not need one. Yes, it is possible that a tyrant would try to take us over. However, in all likelihood, there would develop private defense agencies to help protect people.
limitgov: no...I'd fight and die.... so thats it? we all would die?
Maybe we wouldn't. Depends on how many of us, how many of them. If we are the size of Monaco then yes they could pack every single one of us off to a concentration camp and that is that.
But if there is twenty million of us, well then I pity the fool...
Daniel Muffinburg: limitgov: Daniel Muffinburg: limitgov: Without one, would some other tyrant just come in and take us over? Are you asking about a voluntary/private military or a statist military? a statist one, like china.... Okay. No, we do not need one. Yes, it is possible that a tyrant would try to take us over. However, in all likelihood, there would develop private defense agencies to help protect people.
Private defense agencies?
Wha?
What are those?
Marko: limitgov: no...I'd fight and die.... so thats it? we all would die? Maybe we wouldn't. Depends on how many of us, how many of them. If we are the size of Monaco then yes they could pack every single one of us off to a concentration camp and that is that. But if there is twenty million of us, well then I pity the fool...
what what good are.....nevermind...you know what...screw it.....this debate is going nowhere....
Marko: They were absolutely useless in terms of winning the war.
This is untrue. Whether the 2006 war was won or lost is another matter, but tanks were useful towards the objective of winning it. Tanks, given that they are heavily armored pillboxes (the Israelis lost five tanks permanently; some tanks were hit twenty times by MANPATs and survived), were very useful in the direct artillery role, and for heavy firepower. They are just as useful in Iraq (you can ask an infantryman who has ever received armored support). Whether a militia could afford them is another thing, but if an individual (or a group of four individuals) could afford a tank, and there were enough of them in a militia, then the tank would be very useful.
limitgov: Daniel Muffinburg: limitgov: Daniel Muffinburg: limitgov: Without one, would some other tyrant just come in and take us over? Are you asking about a voluntary/private military or a statist military? a statist one, like china.... Okay. No, we do not need one. Yes, it is possible that a tyrant would try to take us over. However, in all likelihood, there would develop private defense agencies to help protect people. Private defense agencies? Wha? What are those?
Like body guards, the security at malls, posses, Brinks, banks, etc.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: This is untrue. Whether the 2006 war was won or lost is another matter, but tanks were useful towards the objective of winning it. Tanks, given that they are heavily armored pillboxes (the Israelis lost five tanks permanently; some tanks were hit twenty times by MANPATs and survived), were very useful in the direct artillery role, and for heavy firepower. They are just as useful in Iraq (you can ask an infantryman who has ever received armored support). Whether a militia could afford them is another thing, but if an individual (or a group of four individuals) could afford a tank, and there were enough of them in a militia, then the tank would be very useful.
Look mate this is how I see it. You win the war if you accomplish what you set out to accomplish when you launched it. Israel went to war with one objective in mind and that was: to weaken Hezbollah. Now did they succeed in that? No. Did they kill many members of Hezbollah? Yes. Was Hezbollah weaker for it? No. Actually, having given a good account of itself in the fighting Hezbollah actually emerged stronger from the war. Which means Israel lost the war, having made things worse for itself in regard to the objective it intended to accomplish.
Yes tanks were useful for destroying bunkers and helping to push into Lebanon. But did destroying bunkers and taking some ground bring Israel any closer to achieving its overarching objective of weakening Hezbollah? No, not in this type of war fought against a non-state entity.
BTW, do you know about William S. Lind and the rest of the 4GW crowd? I do not agree with everything they say, but they offer some really fine insight into unconventional warfare. Among other things they explain how powerful weaponry is actually a liability in unconventional warfare since the moral level is crucial in such a conflict and the moral level heavily favours the underdog.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Perhaps, but he used tanks to avoid open insurrections. Tanks are very terrifying machines. Saddam would park T-72s and T-55s in big city squares as a method of manifesting the power of the State as a threat. The Israelis and the United States do the same thing.
Well, the Queen of England parks armed guards in feathered hats in front of Buckingham Palace, that doesn't make them a manifestation of power. It just makes a tourist attraction.
Knights used to parade around in their ornate armor and contest in tournaments. That did not make them any less obsolete on the battlefield.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:This is a common fallacy. Israeli tanks were very, very efficient against Hezb'allah insurgents in Southern Lebanon.
Hezbollah is as strong as ever. All the Israeli tanks achieved was parading around the country, destroying state infrastructure that Hezbollah made no claim on.
Tanks could not stop an insurrection, they could stop an attempt at establishing a new state. They are a state vs. state weapon, useless in low-intensity warfare.
Marko: BTW, do you know about William S. Lind and the rest of the 4GW crowd? I do not agree with everything they say, but they offer some really fine insight into unconventional warfare. Among other things they explain how powerful weaponry is actually a liability in unconventional warfare since the moral level is crucial in such a conflict and the moral level heavily favours the underdog.
Another of van Creveld's point in The Transformation of War is that simply engaging an enemy that is weaker than yourself will demoralize your men, because there is no honor in fighting them. This is why colonial armies have been defeated over and over in the late 20th century. (van Creveld also lists all sorts of zany examples of colonial armies attempting to keep morale up, for example the U.S. marines helicoptering cold beer to its troops.)
Marko: Look mate this is how I see it. You win the war if you accomplish what you set to accomplish when you launched it. Israel went to war with one objective in mind and that was: to weaken Hezbollah. Now did they succeed in that? No. Did they kill many members of Hezbollah? Yes. Was Hezbollah weaker for it? No. Actually, having given a good account of itself Hezbollah actually emerged stronger from the war. Which means Israel lost the war, having made things worse for itself in regard to the objective it intended to accomplish.
Look mate this is how I see it. You win the war if you accomplish what you set to accomplish when you launched it. Israel went to war with one objective in mind and that was: to weaken Hezbollah. Now did they succeed in that? No. Did they kill many members of Hezbollah? Yes. Was Hezbollah weaker for it? No. Actually, having given a good account of itself Hezbollah actually emerged stronger from the war. Which means Israel lost the war, having made things worse for itself in regard to the objective it intended to accomplish.
Right, but like I said in the second sentence, this was not what I was arguing. I never claimed that Israel won or lost the war.
This doesn't mean tanks are useless. This just means that Israel had a poor strategy when they invaded Southern Lebanon (or maybe it was even a war which Israel could never win).
I think that conclusion could be agreeable, but heavy ordnance such as tanks are becoming nearly impregnable against existent MANPAT weapons; Israeli Merkavas were surviving even Kornet-E hits. I am not saying they are invincible, as the Israelis had five tanks permanently knocked-out (and, I believe another 35 which had to be repaired to varying degrees), but for the purpose of at least advancing as far north as the Israelis really wanted to, the tank was absolutely necessary. Tanks have been used by all States as a tool to weaken the enemy's morale, and this includes insurgents. If you ask those who are experienced in Iraq, for example, they will note that insurgents tend to opt to attack armor-supported formations less. Israeli Merkavas were also incredibly useful in urban warfare in Lebanon in 1982, when the IDF temporarily occupied Tyre.
Now, whether the tank is the end-all be-all of heavy fire support, this is probably a resounding "no". The Israelis themselves are opting for much cheaper, but heavily armored and heavily armed ad hoc AFVs built from old chassis.
To be honest, I have entertained the idea of writing something on the tank from a "Misesian" point of view; or its role as a manifestation of the State on the ground. I would cover the history of the tank during the Second World War (mainly German tanks, since those were developed with relatively less sense of purpose), the Cold War (Soviet military parades and the "tank gap") and then the tank in dictatorial regimes (and even democratic regimes, like Spain, where the State is glorified through huge military parades with large numbers of tanks).
This would unite my interest in the tank with my interest in Austrian economics and "Austrian" political theory. I don't think it would be wise to go into the tank in an anarchic society, given that nobody really knows what people would subjectively prefer, or what the situation requires. A militia versus a professional military would probably mean that the militia would have a very difficult time using tanks, although armored vehicles are probably not out of the question, given that the professional military will probably have command of the air.
Stranger: Well, the Queen of England parks armed guards in feathered hats in front of Buckingham Palace, that doesn't make them a manifestation of power. It just makes a tourist attraction.
Bad analogy which missed the point.
This does not show a failure in the use of the tank; it shows a failure in Israeli strategy.
Again, this is untrue. Ask anybody with low-intensity warfare experience in the Israeli or American militaries.