What are the general thoughts on WWII here on Mises.org?
Were the Allies justified in fighting WWII?
What would have happened if the US wouldn't have gotten involved in the European theatre? Should they have?
I have always been interested in this time period, so I was curious what you guys thought on the issue. Any articles or books discussing the war from a Libertarian standpoint are very welcome.
Spideynw: Lord Shore-Twilly: Well what do you think, billiards? I don't know, which is why I asked. Do you think they would be more successfull at killing people? Who cares? Who needs a military when we have nuclear weapons. A military seems like a complete waste if a country has nuclear weapons.
Lord Shore-Twilly: Well what do you think, billiards?
Well what do you think, billiards?
I don't know, which is why I asked. Do you think they would be more successfull at killing people? Who cares? Who needs a military when we have nuclear weapons. A military seems like a complete waste if a country has nuclear weapons.
This is something of an old theory; but I confess that I agree with you to an extent. But I don't think that a nuclear weapons entirely remove the need for a military. Firstly nuclear weapons must be both housed and maintained. Secondly, they necessarily are launched from installations, submarines, in the case of 'Little Boy' dropped from a B29 bomber, etc, etc. So if you take the Trident route you need to have naval bases, submarines and crews.
So you still need some form of military.
Lord Shore-Twilly: This is something of an old theory; but I confess that I agree with you to an extent. But I don't think that a nuclear weapons entirely remove the need for a military. Firstly nuclear weapons must be both housed and maintained. Secondly, they necessarily are launched from installations, submarines, in the case of 'Little Boy' dropped from a B29 bomber, etc, etc. So if you take the Trident route you need to have naval bases, submarines and crews. So you still need some form of military.
They are also rather useless against an invading force.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
JackCuyler:They are also rather useless against an invading force.
Don't think so. In fact, that's one of the few instances where a nuke can be used without any collateral damage. One could nuke an armada, tank column, or inbound aircraft. It's relatively cheap compared to fielding an opposing force.
JackCuyler: Lord Shore-Twilly: This is something of an old theory; but I confess that I agree with you to an extent. But I don't think that a nuclear weapons entirely remove the need for a military. Firstly nuclear weapons must be both housed and maintained. Secondly, they necessarily are launched from installations, submarines, in the case of 'Little Boy' dropped from a B29 bomber, etc, etc. So if you take the Trident route you need to have naval bases, submarines and crews. So you still need some form of military. They are also rather useless against an invading force.
Assuming that another power is actually willing to risk actively invading a nuclear power akin to the US. But I agree that becomes an issue as soon as you start to consider other forms of warfare namely the hit and run tactics popular among various insurgents today.
True, but it would be a pretty small military.
Also, as long as the people are allowed to legally own weapons, I doubt another nation would be very interested in invading.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Which is one of the reasons why the people should be allowed to own weapons.
Regardless, if a nation was invaded that had nuclear weapons and no real standing army, it would be assumed they would bomb the invading country, including innocent civilians. In other words, if the U.S. decided to invade a "nuclear nation", I would leave the U.S. rather than wait to see if I would get nuked.
Juan:But -right- is not the right word.
A point I also made.
Juan:You mean the more might the military have, the 'better' they are at their call
Which is what I said.
Juan:Yes, but that also depends on what you mean by successful war...Public militarism is pretty good at total destruction. I take it that in your mind successful war = maximization of suffering ?
I hate to be the one to bring us all back to reality, but the very fact that you are capable of discussing this topic is a measure of the fact that at no time in all history has a war resulted in 'total' destruction.
Juan: I don't know what pity means ?
I suggest you buy a dictionary.
Juan:Something to do with moralism maybe ?
No.
Juan: Well, I didn't say you are advocating militarism
It was the implication of your post.
Spideynw:Also, as long as the people are allowed to legally own weapons, I doubt another nation would be very interested in invading.
I think it a fair generalisation to state that trained armies typically defeat untrained civillians.
Lord Shore-Twilly: Spideynw:Also, as long as the people are allowed to legally own weapons, I doubt another nation would be very interested in invading. I think it a fair generalisation to state that trained armies typically defeat untrained civillians.
Of course it's an assumption on what you mean by "trained" and "untrained". Of course during the years of the French and Indian War and the American Revolution the colonists were looked down upon by the supposedly highly trained British. The British would call them uncivilized, undisciplined, farmers with pitch-forks, cowards that hid behind trees (and the special forces are rooted in these tactics picked up from the Amerindians by Rogers Rangers) primitive, and more savage than anything. Even those uniformed and trained under George Washington.
Lord Shore-Twilly:I think it a fair generalisation to state that trained armies typically defeat untrained civillians.
Everything else being equal, sure. But right now the US (not the largest military, but the best by force standards) has far less than 1 million people in it. If they were to invade, say, switzerland (where automatic weapons are issued to the males until age 30 and they get minimal militia training), they would have quite a time on their hands. In addition, a free society would have no real military targets to overtake. There are no military bases or capitals to take, no opposing forces they can wipe out in order to force a surrender.
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (Japanese Navy)
Notice he wasn't referring to the military. While this sentiment is no longer true in regards to the US, it would be in an anarchist society.
I would disagree. When was the last time a populace that is allowed to legally own weapons was invaded?
Stephen Forde: JackCuyler:They are also rather useless against an invading force. Don't think so. In fact, that's one of the few instances where a nuke can be used without any collateral damage. One could nuke an armada, tank column, or inbound aircraft. It's relatively cheap compared to fielding an opposing force.
I meant an in-progress invasion. You can't nuke the force invading new York City, for example, without also nuking New York City.
JackCuyler:I meant an in-progress invasion. You can't nuke the force invading new York City, for example, without also nuking New York City.
Which is why one would detonate the bomb on the populace of the invading country. So yes, still very useful.
I would go the other way - it's a fair generalization to say that trained armies typically get their asses handed to them by untrained civilians when the trained armies are invading said civilians' homeland. This has changed dramatically over the last few decades, though, as trained armies have been able to deploy and resupply much more rapidly than throughout the rest of history.
Spideynw: JackCuyler:I meant an in-progress invasion. You can't nuke the force invading new York City, for example, without also nuking New York City. Which is why one would detonate the bomb on the populace of the invading country. So yes, still very useful.
Still useless to repell the actual invasion.