in which brute says things about libertarianism

Should you squeeze the toothpaste tube in the middle or from the end?
Jean
Posts: 451
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Jean » Sat Jul 14, 2018 6:27 am

If issued some panzerfaust type anti tank weapons, i would feel confident facing tanks with my neighbours. I have 420 days of training behind me, and while it could have been better, i still learned a few things. I would add we have bunkers all over the place.
We only miss combat experience, but no one listened when i suggested we go raid france and germany to get cheese sausage and training

Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 352
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Mister Imperceptible » Sat Jul 14, 2018 8:20 am

Jean wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 6:27 am
no one listened when i suggested we go raid france and germany to get cheese sausage and training
Preemptive action is often necessitated.

User avatar
Hobbes
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:35 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Hobbes » Sat Jul 14, 2018 1:44 pm

I hadn't quite meant that a militia would only face enemy troops and tanks, Jean. Judging by what happened to Russian tanks in Grozny in the first Chechen war, simply sending tanks and a few troops into a militia troop defended city in effect suicides the tanks (and few troops).
Rather, I was comparing a militia (without state-given arms) facing a combined-arms modern military. In that case, the city here would be heavily bombarded with artillery\airstrikes first, then troops backed by armor (including tanks, APCs, and the like) would invade the city. The result is the defending militia gets wrecked, along with the city (see Grozny during the Second Chechen war).

To my knowledge, the only cases where a local militia-like force successfully repulsed an invasion from a organized military occurred via a guerrilla-warfare like attrition strategy. Additionally, in all cases, the defending militia (and country) paid an extremely heavy price to make this happen. So it seems like eliminating the standing defense force merely to save money in the short term discounts the potential future costs of such an action greatly.

To be clear here: I'm not arguing for 'defense' spending levels on par with, say, current American levels (those seemed more aimed at maintain the Imperium Americanum). But I would say that maintaining a credible, standing defense force would present a greater deterrence to would-be aggressors than a citizen militia would on its own. Of course, having a standing defense force in addition to a considerable militia would seem like having the best of both worlds here.

Of course: perhaps I am overthinking this? If only Jean and company had been allowed to raid European countries for provisions, they would have created a Dune-like fremen militia force? Perhaps the first course of action should be raiding Belgium for chocolate :D
Gotta start off small, right?

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3322
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by BRUTE » Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:23 pm

Hobbes wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 12:51 am
You're not seriously suggesting a gaggle of your neighbors with whatever arms they can afford is gonna go toe to toe with any modern military, are you? Or defend territory as well as a modern army?
even a huge standing army had no chance against Hitler in France - so for the same outcome, paying for the army was a waste of money.

"going toe to toe with a modern military" is only important if the goal is aggression or pride.

User avatar
Hobbes
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:35 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Hobbes » Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:34 pm

BRUTE wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:23 pm
Hobbes wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 12:51 am
You're not seriously suggesting a gaggle of your neighbors with whatever arms they can afford is gonna go toe to toe with any modern military, are you? Or defend territory as well as a modern army?
"going toe to toe with a modern military" is only important if the goal is aggression or pride.
Not quite. A large standing army could also allow time for the citizen militia to mobilize (the proverbial speed bump). It also allows you the option of a coordinated first strike.
It also provides a sizable deterrent all on its own.

Actually, I could keep going for awhile here. I'm still not seeing why you are saying a standing army has no apparent utility.

Also: I'm not arguing that a standing defense force is the perfect solution for the defense of a nation. Some standing forces are stronger than others. I don't dispute this. But what I am saying is that standing forces provide a range of defensive benefits to the nations that have em.

One other point: If the French army had been successful against Hitler (hypothetically), then the standing army would have prevented much of the devastation that befell France during WWII (especially if they prevented Hitler from crossing the border). Seeing as they are always more of less ready for battle, whereas a militia would need a time-consuming mustering phase, I don't see as you can argue a militia has this same feature.

Jean
Posts: 451
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Jean » Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:59 pm

I don't understand the dichotomy beetween militia and standing army. Hitler's army was a militia. We have tanks and jet fighters even as a militia. Jet pilots serves several years in a row, but tanks pilot train three week a year like any other militia man. There is always someone on duty you can use in a few hours, and all the rest can be mustered quickly because they train regularly and we have a logistic that allows it. I don't see the advantages a standing army has over a militia. Military training has diminishing returns too.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3322
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by BRUTE » Sat Jul 14, 2018 7:11 pm

Hobbes wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:34 pm
A large standing army [..] also allows you the option of a coordinated first strike.
aka aggression.
Hobbes wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:34 pm
I'm still not seeing why you are saying a standing army has no apparent utility.

Also: I'm not arguing that a standing defense force is the perfect solution for the defense of a nation. Some standing forces are stronger than others. I don't dispute this. But what I am saying is that standing forces provide a range of defensive benefits to the nations that have em.
brute isn't saying a standing army has zero utility, just that the costs outweigh the benefits in pretty much all cases brute has ever seen or heard of.

but Jean is a much better proponent of militia-based defense than brute is, so brute will just let Jean's arguments stand.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 10039
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by jacob » Sat Jul 14, 2018 7:31 pm

Lets get practical, eh, because we already have examples ...

If you wanna see an unorganized militia defense with more access to weapons than what you can get under the US constitution (automatics and rpgs or panzerfausts) against a superior organized force, look at Iraq (2003-now) or Afghanistan (2001-now) or Syria (2011-now). If you wanna see organized militia defense against the same..... look at ISIS (see Syria) ...

Neither will stand up up even the smallest kinds of actual organized MODERN(*) militaries once they commence concerted bombing/droning runs. They [the militias and the organized militaries that fight them] do, however, make living extremely difficult on the ground: Both for the army that proposes to occupy and those civilians who didn't have the foresight or wherewith to leave yet. This includes killing tanks or low-flying planes. But there's more to life or living than killing tanks and helicopters. See refugee crisis.

It will, however, drag on for decades ... thus turning into a political problem. That's not a fun way to live :-P

(*) Not front loading muskets that fire 3 rounds a minute on a good day.

This is not just fancy theory. It happened in the US too, 150 years ago. Which role would you play if it happened to you? Hope it goes away? ...

Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 352
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Mister Imperceptible » Sat Jul 14, 2018 8:10 pm

Let’s make sure it remains a political problem at home.

There are no statistics for deterrence.

Jean
Posts: 451
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Jean » Sun Jul 15, 2018 2:14 am

And we just explained why terror bombing happens, because it is the cheap answer to mass bombing and drone raids.

Jean
Posts: 451
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am

Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism

Post by Jean » Sun Jul 15, 2018 2:34 am

But when someone starts to bomb your city, it's just a matter of how much money you put in city bombing devices do detter potential aggressors. The kim understood this.
I just realised that to not bombing people should be a high libertarian priority, and that trump bombed really few people when compared to other potus of the last 80years. Which made my bombing is unfair anger go away.

Post Reply