In order not to kill civilians in war and uphold NAP, you have to resort to guerilla warfare. But is it really possible to fight guerilla against rockets, airplanes and other modern machinery? How are you supposed to go fight against people who send rockets at you thousands of kilometers away? Is it even realistic to uphold NAP during a war? Are there good articles or books about it?
Thanks.
Not exactly what you're looking for, but it does explain how a free nation might defend itself without violating the non-aggression principal. http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_3/20_3_2.pdf
Wow, very nice article. But I doubt such method of resistance would be used in most cases. It is useful in some cases though.
After much though on the issue I have come to one conclusion on the whether guerilla is the answer to the problem of defense in a free society: clearly not!
Guerrilla is useless for a free society. The reason is simple. In a normal war, the frontline is the line where the division of labor ends. If we forget about the operetta wars of the civilized ages, it becomes clear that no trade can flow through a front line for long, whether formal embargos are in place or not.
The principle of guerilla is to turn the whole country into a frontline, thus the division of labor through and through must end! The first principle of guerrilla is that it can only be waged in a world of self-sufficient farmers. The same goes for civil war, which is just a war where both sides employ guerilla tactics.
The Israelis in 1948 where a nation of farmers and could fight guerrilla style. The Albanians in Kosovo 10 years ago where a nation of farmers and could go guerilla. Vietnam was a nation of farmers. Afghanistan has always been a nation of self-sufficient farmers and herders. There just isn’t one example where a successful and intense guerilla action has been fought by a stratified society.
Thus it becomes clear, that should a free society be invaded, it’s only recourse would be to destroy it own prosperity by engaging in guerrilla. It is not puzzling then, that many a people in history have chosen subjugation, rather that the eradication of their cities (and thus of their culture) by going guerrilla. Until 1945 there just wasn’t any way for a stratified society to defend itself save for regular armies and geographic features.
It's always possible (and generally easier) to win by using guerilla warfare although it may require a lot of resources (for example, developing and making rockets that can destroy the latest "rocket proof" armor)
I've always thought that this country's military, if it is to exist, should not be allowed off U.S. soil. There never would've been any wars involving the U.S. if the Constitution had placed that war powers limitation on the government.
So Merlin, if not guerilla, what then? Are you saying you can't defend yourself without breaking the NAP?
Behold, the greatest invention in the history of mankind! Ja marrsha të ligat, ia marrsha!
Yep, I’m saying that before 1945 might made right, and no small state (let alone a hypothetical free society) could defend against the legions of the Empires. The free spots that survived did so because nature had shielded them (Venice, Switzerland, England, the US, Japan) Centralization was the norm, and it’s no accident that in 1945 the world was divided into the smallest number of states ever. Nukes now allow even city-states to defend against the US, so from now on it’s a downhill struggle. Freedom will come in the form of progression decentralization, its just a matter of when. But all this is only due to nukes allowing for cheap defense. I really cannot read history in any other way.
In order not to kill civilians in war and uphold NAP, you have to resort to guerilla warfare.
Non sequitur. Try again.
But all this is only due to nukes allowing for cheap defense.
They're actually not cheap at all, it's a popular misconception. Nothing the military industrial complex produces is cheap. It is very difficult and expensive to build a nuclear weapon small enough to fit onto a missile, and then you have to keep them maintained in working order. You also need to maintain an effective delivery system, such as a fleet of nuclear submarines or those mobile land-based launchers the Russians have moving around constantly.
You can fling radioactive material at someone easily enough, but an actual nuclear explosion is quite the trick. A faction would need an extensive and advanced homegrown nuclear industry in order to have the materials and expertise on hand to build and maintain nuclear weapons, even if they were cribbing all the notes from an opponent, like most nuclear powers.
Defence systems against ballistic missiles are also a concern these days. If it's possible to destroy a satellite in orbit - and it is documented to be - then ballistic missiles are vulnerable too. In order to compensate for this, you would need a LOT of nuclear devices, just so there's the realistic threat of a few making it through.
If it is possible to manipulate the Earth's ionosphere the way I have read that it is, then it is possible to destroy incoming ballistic missiles, or satellites or meteroids, fairly reliably. (And God only knows what else you can do...)
If foreign forces are not occupying your country why would they bomb it? But it is possible to fight against this. Look at the IRAs numerous bombing campaigns in England while fighting the Brits in Ireland as well. These bombing campaigns were the main catalyst for peace talks. The bombings of places like Canary Wharf and Manchester caused hundreds of millions pounds worth of damage. And that was just two bombs.
'' The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.'' Stephen Hawking
Eugene:Wow, very nice article. But I doubt such method of resistance would be used in most cases. It is useful in some cases though.
Indeed, it is an interesting article, and I also agree that non-violent resistance would be effective in all cases. Many times the enemy would prefer not to rule over the other side - it simply wants to take what the other side has. Slaughtering the other side en masse would make this easier, if in fact it could be done.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
James: But all this is only due to nukes allowing for cheap defense. They're actually not cheap at all, it's a popular misconception. Nothing the military industrial complex produces is cheap. It is very difficult and expensive to build a nuclear weapon small enough to fit onto a missile, and then you have to keep them maintained in working order. You also need to maintain an effective delivery system, such as a fleet of nuclear submarines or those mobile land-based launchers the Russians have moving around constantly. You can fling radioactive material at someone easily enough, but an actual nuclear explosion is quite the trick. A faction would need an extensive and advanced homegrown nuclear industry in order to have the materials and expertise on hand to build and maintain nuclear weapons, even if they were cribbing all the notes from an opponent, like most nuclear powers. Defence systems against ballistic missiles are also a concern these days. If it's possible to destroy a satellite in orbit - and it is documented to be - then ballistic missiles are vulnerable too. In order to compensate for this, you would need a LOT of nuclear devices, just so there's the realistic threat of a few making it through. If it is possible to manipulate the Earth's ionosphere the way I have read that it is, then it is possible to destroy incoming ballistic missiles, or satellites or meteroids, fairly reliably. (And God only knows what else you can do...)
All of this is true, so I must qualify my position (nte that all these are martin van Creveld’s ideas, certainly not mine):
1) a nuclear deterrence force is cheap on a relative scale. For example, the expense that France would have needed to scare the Soviets away from attacking her would have been immense in conventional terms (not even the horribly expensive Maginot line, the next best thing, did the trick against the Germans). In relation to that, the expense of France’s actual Force de Frappe is puny and works 100% of the time. Also nukes are cheaper in manpower terms: in conventional wars, you just could not survive without the draft, while nukes allowed Europe to do away with this barbarous relic.
2) nukes are getting cheaper all the time. Just remember what it cost the US to build its first bombs, and then imagine how today even countries like Iran (which could never build even a decent tank!) can build a bomb in years if they are allowed to. Absolutely everything else has gotten dearer (often by leaps and bounds) since WW2, while nukes got way, way cheaper. Back than a good fighter plane cost around 50,000 bucks, while a decent fighter these days will not fly for less than 100,000,000 dollars. The expense of a good army today is prohibitive.
3) who said that every country has to build its bombs from the ground up? Sure, that has been the way until now, but as more and more countries break the nuclear monopoly, nukes will be commoditized too, as the market for all other military gadgets was. Thus Saudi Arabia, which could never build any decent fighter, can today simply buy exquisitely advanced EF-2000s form the UK. I do not see why nukes could not follow the same pattern.
4) there is no known defense against nukes. True, ballistic missiles can be shot down (but will you take the chance of even one missile slipping through?) and perhaps even cruise missiles can be. But you just cannot defend against the 1001 delivery ways which a bomb the size of a small car allow you. Will you seal off every port and airport? Will you take no cargo from abroad? The very thought of defending one’s self against a determined nuclear opponent is folly.
Vladimir Ulyanov: If foreign forces are not occupying your country why would they bomb it? But it is possible to fight against this. Look at the IRAs numerous bombing campaigns in England while fighting the Brits in Ireland as well. These bombing campaigns were the main catalyst for peace talks. The bombings of places like Canary Wharf and Manchester caused hundreds of millions pounds worth of damage. And that was just two bombs.
The IRA failed miserably. Has Ireland been united today (IRAs goal), or is the North (thankfully) still in the UK and no ethnic cleansing has been carried up there (again among IRAs goals, as far as I know)? In which sense can one say that the IRA won?
Well the Provisional IRA was originally popularised in the late 1960s and early 1970s because they were defending Nationalist areas from Loyalist attack. Their main priority was not actually to unite Ireland but to gain civil right for Catholics - voting, working, legal,etc. It achieved most these things in 1973 and almost had a large area returned to the Republic of Ireland in 1972. After these things were achieved the Ira lost most of its support. And to say that the IRA wanted to commit ethnic cleansing is far removed from the truth. If you knew anything about the IRA you would know the one of its co-founders and chiefs of staff was English and it had many protestant members. Historically most Republican leaders have been protestant, i.e. Charles Parnell, Theobald Wolfetone, Robert Emmet, etc.This is crap that is bashed around in the media constantly that Republicans are sectarian Catholics. The IRA committed some very terrible crimes and I in no way support them. However, it gave warnings to avoid civilian casualties for the vast majority of its bombings. Yes there were alot of members who were nothing but uneducated thugs, but in general these were not members who rose to senior positions. As a result incidents where the IRA purposely targeted civilians was small in number. This can be contrasted to the Loyalist paramilitaries and British security forces who coluded and conspired to murder civilians. For example kidnapping, torturing and murdering children, pregnant women, and pensioners. It is a fact that British forces interned and tortured hundreds of people for no reason other than being Catholic. And why are you thankfull that the North is still part of the UK. This is against the democratic will of the people and it has caused alot of alienation. Would you not advocate anarchism in which case the conflict would be finished because people wouldn't fear being dominated over by another group?
First of all, I’m sorry if I offended you. I really know very little eon the conflict in Northern Ireland, and I can understand that propaganda can succeed in painting some groups as bloodthirsty terrorists (what has been done to the Albanian KLA, so I really get this). My ideas wasn’t to blame the IRA, but to discuss whether the tactic they used (terrorism) can be a viable solution for defense in a free society.
Now, if the IRA’s main goal was to gain civil rights for Catholics in the north, than I think that it would be unwise to ascribe this achievements to bombs in the UK. England is, all told, the only truly liberal society around, and sooner or later they will abolish blatant discrimination. So, pinning down this ‘victory’ on the tactic used of a terror campaign would be misleading I’d say.
And in general, terrorism is to be treated separately form guerilla and civil war because you attack the enemy, not defend yourself. Now, in theory it would be quite possible for a defense agency in a free society to retaliate by massive terror attacks in the metropolis of the attacking nation: say, if France attacked anarchist Monaco, the Ranieri Defense Inc. could retaliate by having a termobaric bomb go off in a major French city every day. In time, this would paralize the division of labor in French cities and could induce the French army to leave Monaco alone. There are three isuues here.
1) This requires a massive breach of the NAP. The French citizens you’re killing, or even the property being destroyed, is that of innocents.
2) I just do not think that Ranieri Defense Inc. could manage that. Would the secret services be so stupid as to allow bomb to be planted daily in French cities? Wouldn’t spies find out Ranieri’s operatives and whack before long? The fact that no truly intensive terror campaign has even been carried out by a non-state actor would seem to suggest that it cannot be done. Even the PLA action in the ’70 (the most intensive terror campaign I know off) killed only a fraction of the Israelis that died on road accidents, and the division of labor never stopped in Israel.
3) Who says that the French won’t retaliate by putting Monaco through hell? This German method worked pretty well in all but farmer countries during WW2. I see no reason to suspect that the public execution of 50 people in Monaco wouldn’t break Ranieri’s will to fight. After all, the point is to free Moanco, not destroy it.
But I concede that, should nukes be unavailable, terror in the home cities of the aggressor would be by far the best shot a free society would have. I just do not think it would be enough, and perhaps it could turn out even worse than guerilla.
Well the Provisional IRA was originally popularised in the late 1960s and early 1970s because they were defending Nationalist areas from Loyalist attack. Their main priority was not actually to unite Ireland but to gain civil right for Catholics - voting, working, legal,etc.
You could say that for OIRA, but not for PIRA.
Well the IRAs campaign in the 70s is largely responsible for gaining civil rights. Origianally people did try protest using peacefull means, however, they were beaten off the street by the police, then they were shot off the street, and then British security forces began to give information on protesters to Protestant militias and paramilitaries who attacked and murder these people. The IRA became much stronger after the protest in the late sixties when Loyalists began to invade Nationalist areas and burned them out of their houses. The situation bacame so bad that refugee camps had to be set up at the border with the Republic. IRA units from the South then moved into the areas being seiged to protect them. If this were not o happen there would not be a Nationalist community in Northern Ireland to protest. And it was the IRA who put the most pressure on the British; certainly not the protesters. It was in 1972 when the most progress was made for equal rights. This was also the bloodiest year of the Troubles.
And please, tell me how the UK is the most liberal society around?
The ''terrorists'' in Northern Ireland managed to defend there areas by attacking the enemy. They used to patrol the ''no go'' areas and attack the British if they seen them. The IRA were labelled terrorists but they used guerilla tactics. They bombed army barracks and placed snipers both in urban and rural settings. They managed to prevent the Brits from travveling by ground in large parts of Northern Ireland. But there activity in Britain made the British public much less willing to remain in Ireland. And the IRA managed to paralise most of Britain by calling in real and hoax warnings for bombs attacks. They even managed to nearly kill two British priministers. In my opinion this was quite a good tacticc. Then in the 90s they started to let off massive bomb which one British bomb expert described as being like small nuclear bombs. This was largely the reason the Brits started peace talks in the 90s.
1) I'm not sure if there is really such thing as a ciilian. Any person who lives in a country is paying taxes and therefore providing funds for the army.
2) I don't think the number of dead should be a calculation of success in one of these wars. My father is from a small town of just a few thousand people. Yet during the troubles the IRA detonated 300 bombs in five years without even killing 30 people. On Bloody Friday the IRA detonated 22 bombs in Belfast killing just 9 people and these deaths were because the police did not act on warnings given. In Manchester the IRA detonated a 3,300 pound bomb and didn't even kill anyone. The fact that the IRA were able to have launch so many attacks in Britain I imagine professionals would be able to aswell. Plus I imagine ordinary people would also join in on the war in a free society.
3) Nothing but people are very often irrational when it comes to liberty. You can be sure that the Republic of Ireland would have done better under Englands rule, or Iran under the US's, but people still want to be free.
Sorry yes but most members of the Provos were originally members of the OIRA or suppoters of it. I meant to say simply the IRA.
That’s very interesting and will look more into the situation. Anyway, terrorism+guerilla just doesn’t feel like a good enough replacement for nukes to me. Perhaps it works in the UK or other countries where public opinion is easily bored, but I cannot imagine terrorism eliciting any other response but state terrorism if used against less scrupulous adversaries. I can easily imagigne, for an example close to me, the Serbian army preferring to dynamite every last village in Kosovo rather than bow to a few bombs or snipings in Belgrade.
Well you can look at it this way: the worst thing a conventional army could come up against is a guerilla army. The US had no problem destroying the Serbian air force or taking out the Iraqi army. But when up against guerillas like in Afghanistan or Iraq (after it fell) or Vietnam they had great dificulty. Look the the US gained independence through guerilla tactics.
I don't know a whole lot about the war in the Caucuses but would ending government and democracy not go a long way in ending the conflict. For sure people there of different ethnicities would probably dislike eachother even after this but without national boundries or one group being dominated over by another through democracy it is my opinion that people would be alot less violent and angry.
* Blakans
*Balkans
Malachi:Not to say that such things [i.e. mass slaughter or even genocide to acquire land and/or resources] do not happen, but they tend to be unprofitable over the long term. Nobody cheers for goliath.
I beg to differ. Some people do cheer for Goliath - those who expect to personally profit from it. But not cheering Goliath is hardly the same as retaliating (or trying to) against it.
Very interesting exposition of the IRA, Volodya. Thanks for providing it. I'd like to respond to your points though.
Vladimir Ulyanov:1) I'm not sure if there is really such thing as a ciilian. Any person who lives in a country is paying taxes and therefore providing funds for the army.
Please keep in mind that taxes are theft, either fully or partially. The latter would apply when a person is willing to give the government money for certain purposes but not others.
Vladimir Ulyanov:2) I don't think the number of dead should be a calculation of success in one of these wars. My father is from a small town of just a few thousand people. Yet during the troubles the IRA detonated 300 bombs in five years without even killing 30 people. On Bloody Friday the IRA detonated 22 bombs in Belfast killing just 9 people and these deaths were because the police did not act on warnings given. In Manchester the IRA detonated a 3,300 pound bomb and didn't even kill anyone. The fact that the IRA were able to have launch so many attacks in Britain I imagine professionals would be able to aswell. Plus I imagine ordinary people would also join in on the war in a free society.
On the other hand, the police allowing people to be killed by IRA bombs can help galvanize public opposition to the IRA. In my opinion, this is a sick sort of calculation to be made, but I imagine there are people out there who nevertheless make it. I also think this sort of behavior emerges when there are conflicting goals (e.g. "protect lives" vs. "stay in power"), especially when one or more goals are nevertheless seen as being ancillary to one or more others (e.g. "how can we protect lives if we're not in power").
Vladimir Ulyanov:3) Nothing but people are very often irrational when it comes to liberty. You can be sure that the Republic of Ireland would have done better under Englands rule, or Iran under the US's, but people still want to be free.
I fail to see how that's irrational at all. Those people simply prefer greater liberty over greater material prosperity.
Sorry I probably didn't phrase it as well as I should have. What I meant was: by killing civilians you are reducing the resources available to an army, and because of this civilians could be described, somewhat, as legitimate targets.
This is correct. It widely believed that the police and army purposely allowed people to be killed on Bloody Friday in order to launch operation motorman.
I agree with you here too. After all, value is subjective.
The bombings of places like Canary Wharf and Manchester caused hundreds of millions pounds worth of damage. And that was just two bombs.
That wasn't as bad as some of the things they did prior to that, or as some of the things the British were doing, but it was nonetheless not properly libertarian. It meant going after a civilian target and was therefore terrorism, albeit a sort of 'velvet terrorism' aiming to cause material damage alone, but to avoid injuring people.
What I meant was: by killing civilians you are reducing the resources available to an army, and because of this civilians could be described, somewhat, as legitimate targets.
No they couldn't. People aren't cows.
I believe the warnings were inadequate. (Albeit it is true loyalists on the other hand did not bother with warnings, adequate or inadequate.)
In any case Eugene is amog the people on this forum the least knowledgeble about libertarianism, so perhaps you should ake pause before accepting his notion of guerilla as synonymous with libertarian defense as your starting point. Actually as guerilla makes not even the attempt to defend territory it can not defend lives and property it falls far short of the ideal approach to defense for libertarians (or indeed anyone). It is the resort of the weak, not the be-all of libertarian defense. We would hope a free society would be cohesive enough and technologically advanced enough it could wage a conventional war and prevent an enemy from occupying our territory in the first place, rather than hope to regain control of it once that had been lost.
No; it wasn't libertarian whatsoever. The IRA was and is made up of socialists. I was not trying to claim that the IRA was or is libertarian, or even that guerilla warfare was the best form of defense in a free society, I was merely claiming that it is possible to defend yourself using guerilla tactics - and it is especially good if you lack resources.
And I would avoid calling any group or anyone a terrorist as it lacks a concrete definition, and it is just as easy to call the US, British, or Israeli army a terrorist organisation.
We're going to have to disagree on this. Although I wouldn't agree with this tactic, and it would not be a great tactic to defeat a nation militarily, by targeting ''civilians'' you are reducing the amount of funds available for a government to redistribute to the army. Since they are supplying the military with funds, either willingly or not, they are ligitimate targets in my opinion.
Well I remember reading something by Rothbard about ancient Irish law and anarchism, and it was his opinion, and mine, that the reason England/Britain had such a hard time in Ireland was because there was no government(s) whom they could force to quell the people. He contrasted this with India - a much larger area, both in terms of population and geographically - where the Brits found it relatively easy because they used maharajahs and the likes to quell their people. Although guerilla warfare can only take place after an invasion, I believe this is better than trying to fight against a superior military in the conventional manner, because this would lead to the complete annihilation of your army. This is something that the IRA realised during operation motorman when the Brits sent 25,000 troops in Belfast and Derry backed with air support, expecting a fierce battle, yet they encountered absolutely no resistance. If the IRA tried to fight them in this way they would have been wiped out. This is a fact that the Old IRA also realised in the war of independence after the 1916 Easter Rising.
the police denied ever recieving warnings at all, and it wasn't untill a newspaper discovered several organisation recieved warnings and passed them on to the police that they admitted that they did recieve warnings.
I wasn't aware of this aspect of the story.
And by inadequate do you unspecific or that enough time was not given to clear the areas?
There wasn't enough time, I don't know if they were inadequate in some other way as well.
Although guerilla warfare can only take place after an invasion, I believe this is better than trying to fight against a superior military in the conventional manner, because this would lead to the complete annihilation of your army.
Yes, but with the caveat that there is no reason to believe a free society is never able to fight off aggression in a conventional manner and do it within the confines of NAP.
Marko, how do you imagine a free society would fight in a conventional way without violating NAP? Can you elaborate?
Does anyone else see the irony in discussing how war can be compatible with the non-aggression principal?
no.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
Autolykos:Indeed, it is an interesting article, and I also agree that non-violent resistance would be effective in all cases. Many times the enemy would prefer not to rule over the other side - it simply wants to take what the other side has. Slaughtering the other side en masse would make this easier, if in fact it could be done.
article: why has there been so little consideration of nonviolent resistance among libertarians
Because nonviolence doesn't actually work in all contexts. Saying things like this are completely ridiculous:
only mass slaughter will assure the violent opponent an ultimate victory, but even then “the victor is defeated, cheated of his prize, since nobody can rule over dead” people
How do you like that. Just nonviolently protest. And if the enemy decides to murder you, then laugh as they do it because they cannot rule over dead people. Really.
Let me tell you who in history nonviolent resistance has ever worked against: moral peoples. Peoples who believe they are good people, and usually people who have religious convictions.
Who does nonviolence NOT work against: the atheists and those who've abandoned the notion of ethics and morals. Nonviolence does not stop communists or nazis or any other of their stripe, whose outright goal is to murder you.
Warfare in a free society would need warriors drawn from the citizen classes. Much like the US is essentially uninvadeable because we have way too many guns, and millions of hunters and former military that are effectively snipers.
It is for you to elaborate. I have no idea what you see as a problem that makes this impossible.
It works "against" people who are capable of feeling shame. Which means it wouldn't have worked for Jews against the Nazis or for freedom minded people against tax collectors. Good luck trying to shame the democratic state and its supporters into not locking you up for being a tax resistor.
Birthday Pony:Does anyone else see the irony in discussing how war can be compatible with the non-aggression principal [sic]?
No. A person aggressing against you could be said to be waging war against you. If you defend yourself, then you could be said to be waging against war in him in return. From the point of view of the non-aggression principle, the two sides aren't on an equal moral footing. Defending oneself and/or others from aggression is perfectly acceptable under the non-aggression principle.
Anemone:Because nonviolence doesn't actually work in all contexts. Saying things like this are completely ridiculous: [snipped quote]
Sorry, Anemone - apparently there's a typo in my post that you quoted. What I meant to say was that I also agree that non-violent resistance would not be effective in all cases. That's why I went on to talk about the notion of simply slaughtering others who have things that one wants. I will correct the typo in my original post. EDIT: Apparently the time period for editing that post has elapsed.
Anemone:How do you like that. Just nonviolently protest. And if the enemy decides to murder you, then laugh as they do it because they cannot rule over dead people. Really.
Strictly speaking, if one's desire is to rule over people, he can't satisfy that desire if they're dead. If his desire is to simply take what other people have, whether those people are dead makes no difference to him at best. But there's a good chance that them being dead could actually make it easier for him to take what they had.
Anemone:Let me tell you who in history nonviolent resistance has ever worked against: moral peoples. Peoples who believe they are good people, and usually people who have religious convictions. Who does nonviolence NOT work against: the atheists and those who've abandoned the notion of ethics and morals. Nonviolence does not stop communists or nazis or any other of their stripe, whose outright goal is to murder you.
Most nazis and communists believed they were good people. Most nazis, at least, also had religious convictions. I think your point would be better served by simply saying that non-violence may well not provide an effective defense against people who simply want to hurt you.
I fail to see how atheism necessarily means abandoning the notion of ethics and morals. I'm an atheist and I definitely subscribe to a moral code, based on self-ownership and the non-aggression principle.
Anemone:Warfare in a free society would need warriors drawn from the citizen classes. Much like the US is essentially uninvadeable because we have way too many guns, and millions of hunters and former military that are effectively snipers.
By the same token, however, I don't think a free-market society would need a standing army.
I agree. I thought you might have been trying to say that the warnings gave unspecific locations for the bombs. I have heard people who were involved in the bombings both agree and disagree with this position. Some claimed that there was no way that the security services never could have dealt with that many incidents incidents in such a short period of time. Other claim that the security services were capable of sealing off large areas of the city during rioting and other incidents in a matter of minutes, and they cannot believe that they were not capable of it that time.
I agree, but in the event that they couldn't, guerilla warfare is an option.
Marko: Let me tell you who in history nonviolent resistance has ever worked against: moral peoples. Peoples who believe they are good people, and usually people who have religious convictions. It works "against" people who are capable of feeling shame. Which means it wouldn't have worked for Jews against the Nazis or for freedom minded people against tax collectors. Good luck trying to shame the democratic state and its supporters into not locking you up for being a tax resistor.
It would not have worked against the Nazis. They had told the soldiers that jews were not people but animals, and rationalized it that way. Remember the Nazis used the theory of evolution, claiming Jews were "100% ape" and therefore genetic pollution. They thought they were doing the world a favor by weeding out these genes. It was truly evil, a twisted new moral system.
The average soldier actually carrying this stuff out said they felt bad but "had to be strong" to do it. Shame, I don't think would have worked. It took a lot less than what the Jews went through to stop the British in India. The Nazis considered shame a weakness.