Zilabus on March 23, 2010, 09:14:45 pm

What makes you think that collecting intelligence is something that can be done only by governments? How do you think entrepreneurs become successful, if not by collecting information?

Furthermore, what government agency can assure 100% loyalty? There's always a fifth column, somebody who thinks that the government policies are wrong, somebody who will do what he can to stop them, often for quite patriotic reasons.

That argument cuts both ways though. There is  often more of a chance of you not betraying the country you where born and raised in, and have been taught to follow your entire life, then there is of you not betraying the place you work.



4- Not enough ammunition:

Do you really believe that people will require bullets after the fighting start ? a whole society of free carry weapon will have a LOT of ammunition among suppliers and people.

This is not a valid argument. Many studies show that the average usage of ammunition for one soldier for one kill is through the roof. I belive I posted one earlier. I own many firearms, and I enjoy shooting. I don't carry upwards of 100,000 rounds, and most estimates put the number or rounds much higher per kill. Most warehouses and manufacturers, likewise, wouldn't be able to keep up if all of their customers immediately needed such a number, esspecially in more common calibers.

 
In an AnCap society, it will be perfectly legal to own full-auto battle rifles - and this practice will be socially encouraged. The typical homeowner will have such a rifle, and a thousand rounds or more, and will train on a monthly basis, earning prizes and recognition in regular competition. A high percentage will be skilled at 300 and 500 yard distances.  They'll have proper scopes and the skills and equipment to properly allow for range and windage. They'll also have much more powerful equipment, including explosive devices which can destroy tanks. The Afghans are able to improvise such equipment even in their much smaller economy; in an AnCap society, you'll find everything you need to destroy a tank at your local hardware store. Practice sessions will be a rite of passage for teen boys and girls.

Being a good shot doesn't neccesarrily translate into being an effective fighter. The biggest issue facing infantry effectivness today is the average persons HUGE psychological aversion to killing another human being, whatever the situation. The best way to overcome this is by having them submit to the authority of a figure above them, and translate the blame upwards, drilling to the point of muscle memory, and to teach a group to function and work as one unit. Totalitarian armies are very effecient at these different methods. A militia is not nearly as well suited. There are multiple different psycologists who support this. "On Killing" is one such compilation of psycological studies of war.  





Personal defense means pistols that you can wear with you to work and the store comfortably. In other words, not likely to be a .45.


I'm not sure what you're getting at there.  A .45 Colt Commander was my carry gun for three decades, until it started to wear out and misfire too often.  The Sig I carry now is also .45 ACP.  (And no, I don't have a CCP, as those are almost impossible to get in New Jersey, which makes me a criminal -- as a wise man said, I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six).


I agree, you can find comfortably carriable guns in many different calibers. Personally, I carry a small Kahr 9mm, but I know people who carry .38's, .45's, .22 pistols, everything.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2010, 09:16:41 pm by Zilabus »
Bring back the funk.

Sean Roach on March 24, 2010, 08:36:56 am
I think I'd rather not be on permanent record about openly defying any regulation, no matter how friendly the forum.
It seems like a long term liability to me, even if I didn't intend to ever breed.

sams on March 24, 2010, 08:52:07 am
Zillabus, I take the points  you made :)

Sure you need a huge amount of ammunition to keep in pace with the fighting.

But so we can be sure we are talking of the something, permit me to set some context:

Set => The Agorian Free State : A huge urban centre with outlying small borough and hamlets. The city and outlying areas are packed with industrial facilities and the city is packed with Banks and gold faults and stuff of the kind.

Invading army list of priorities and intended targets :
- To destroy : Security agency headquarters, ammunition depots and factories.
- To capture : Bank vaults and industries.

So :
1- I concede that such a society can't keep up with a ''standard'' line battle against the invading army, or at least will face scarcity of ammunition has the battle lengthen in term of quantity and calibre.

2- But if we consider a second scenario.
a- Not all people will automaticly  take arms and will prefer to stay out of problem, so the invading army will likely enter the town without a though fight.
b- Sure most people won't have an incentive to purchase SAM umbrella contracts, only those who have assets that put them on the line of targets : weapons manufacturers, security agencies and other valuable assets protected by them such has airport, port facilities.

The invading army objective is to capture the assets, and the initial stage is quite easy since most of the people don't want to die facing them in open battle, so they enter the city.
They start proactive fighting against the securities agencies defending the assets in a close quarter battle (I know they will decisively win in case of carpet bombing or deliberate artillery mowing down).
Like I said most people will likely in self preservation instinct will avoid fighting, but if you smartly engage in guerilla fighting against the attack army such like selective assassination of officers, sabotage thus  ... forcing them to raid homes to apprehend weapons ... and will trigger a backlash and get themselves into a urban warfare nightmare  ;D

I concede also the point that there is a huge psychological problem with killing human beings, which give an edge to trained troops above militia troopers. In this AnCap society, only member of security agency may be the only with killing ''experience''. But this advantage fades away has the fighting continues.

I do understand that against the Israeli Deference Force(IDF) or the US Army an AnCap society is pretty much doomed. But there is hope when you are confronted against a russian army stile force ... remember the Georgian war ... the Georgie got beaten up but their SAM system denied air superiority to the Russian air force.

But doe we agree that people with valuable assets such like Banks with gold vaults and industries will be the one with High tech, heavy equipment and the best trained troops. Therefore the best scenario of victory is that while trying to defeat the security agencies, the attacking due such a number of collateral damage in such a way that they trigger a urban warfare scenario. This will become worse if the attacking army decide to disarm the population.

I'm becoming inclined that will an AnCap society may have problems with lining up a conventional army, it biggest defence is the capacity to produce a urban guerrilla nightmare scenario for any possible attacker

Correct me if I'm wrong ;D

dough560 on March 24, 2010, 09:41:46 am
I wasn't a part of a study,  but trained people to hit and kill what they're shooting at.  Yes, our society has an aversion to killing.  This aversion is instituted by various social forces which teach us to bow down to the government.  These same agencies promote government supremacy and the idea individuals are not capable of controlling their lives.  Many of these agencies even try to prohibit hunting and trapping.  Regardless of the prohibitionist actions, people who hunt are not restrained to the degree of those who do not.  Additionally the more rounds down range, fired at appropriate targets, the easier it is to break the prohibitionist conditioning.  

An armed society has already faced the social responsibility and probable outcome of self defense.  You're talking about people raised and trained with arms.  The result will be superior skill sets similar to those we find in people who go to shooting schools, shoot in competition and/or hunt, instead of attending training camps for basketball, baseball, football, golf, or soccer

Even in our prohibitionist society, people from a competition and/or hunting backgrounds expend fewer rounds than your average soldier for each enemy killed or wounded.  Compared to your regular unit, if you're lucky, one in ten will actually aim at the enemy.  The rest spray and pray.  

There is a major quantitative difference in shooters who expend thousands of rounds a year of aimed fire and a conscript who has enough training to be able to keep his weapon clean and know which end the projectile comes out of.  This difference results in enemy dead.  The motto:  One Round, One Kill; has a very real meaning and real world results.  Priority targets would be Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers, Crew Served Weapons and Equipment. Result:  No Leadership, No Fire Support, No Communications/Food or Equipment.

As for a large invading force being able to immediately wipe out production and infrastructure.  Only in your dreams.

Sams, were talking about an armed society raised in the tradition of personal liberty and responsibility with universal access to high quality arms and equipment.  I suggest you rethink your supposition the general population would sit out an attack due to a supposed perception the invaders won't affect them.  The invaders would not be dealing with our prohibitionist society, but a society where no one bends a knee to anyone.  Any invading force will affect everyone they come in contact with.  Additionally, the invaders would see every armed individual as a threat.  Yes the militias would bear the brunt of the initial attack.  After that, it dealers choice and everyone plays.  The invaders wouldn't be able to tell who the dealer is, since I doubt a central command structure would exist.  It wouldn't be any fun being invaded, but ti would Really, Really SUCK being the invader.

terry_freeman on March 24, 2010, 10:48:40 am
Personal carry - as has been mentioned, some do carry .45 ACP. It's not unheard of for people to actually have more than one weapon; any middle-income person can afford to have a battle rifle, a handgun, a shotgun, and lots of ammo for all three.

Let me pose a hypothetical to those who think socialist states are able to conquer an AnCap society with ease. Would you be willing to invade Switzerland, where just about every adult male has a full-auto battle rifle, and is trained to use it at distances of 300 yards, where there are caches of weapons and ammo - including tanks, fighters, military-grade explosives, etc? Where the official policy is that any message of surrender by the high officials is to be treated as a hoax, and the country is to fight on regardless? Switzerland is the closest model to a modern-day AnCap society that I know of. They have wealth, they have widely-distributed arms, and they have not been invaded for hundreds of years.

Extrapolate - banish taxes. Eliminate the gun-control laws which were imposed by nervous European liberals. Reinvigorate the gun-owning culture. Would you try to conquer such an AnCap society? Why bother? They have a well-known policy of neutrality, you already obtain the benefits of trading with them, which you would lose if you threaten their interests.

Do not underestimate the power of bankers. Trade, commerce, and taxes all depend upon the kindness of bankers. To take a broader look at this problem, mass warfare as practiced by the United Socialist Soviet America would be impossible without faith-based paper currency created out of thin air. When an AnCap society takes hold, the value of that faith-based paper willl decline to zero; the government will no longer be able to pay for fuel, munitions, and other expenses except with actual gold and silver. The military establishment will collapse when people rush to use real money.

We're not far from the end of faith-based paper/digital currency. 

sams on March 24, 2010, 02:04:03 pm
Sams, were talking about an armed society raised in the tradition of personal liberty and responsibility with universal access to high quality arms and equipment.  I suggest you rethink your supposition the general population would sit out an attack due to a supposed perception the invaders won't affect them.  The invaders would not be dealing with our prohibitionist society, but a society where no one bends a knee to anyone.  Any invading force will affect everyone they come in contact with.  Additionally, the invaders would see every armed individual as a threat.  Yes the militias would bear the brunt of the initial attack.  After that, it dealers choice and everyone plays.  The invaders wouldn't be able to tell who the dealer is, since I doubt a central command structure would exist.  It wouldn't be any fun being invaded, but ti would Really, Really SUCK being the invader.

You made my point  ;D

An invader in such situation will try to suppress the obvious threat, who happen to be the guys with biggest assets, such has banks, the security agencies that provide safety to them (in world with hard money and free carry, the dudes guarding the vaults will probably be the thought kids of the block  ;D), weapons factories and depots, infrastructures (bridges, roads, airports and docks).
The problem for the attacker will be that those are exactly the kind of assets which will be protected by the best on the market, including SAM coverage and anti-missile umbrella. this will be especially true for the weapon manufacturer who are at risk each time their weapons cost some else a war.

So the beginning of the invasion will be a selecting air strike against the valuable assets and those who are obviously the best armed : the security agencies. This will likely not a an immediate success, because I'm sure that If people see a pattern, all the independent SAM providers of the territory can can have temporary business cooperation to defeat the attack.

Fase 2 : The General gets pissed off because his air force fail crush the SAM umbrella, this is not new, since even during WWII, the British carpet bombing of German cities bough few concrete results, and the technological tides is increasingly going again aircraft. This is why air strike against a well prepared SAM umbrella can't succed once the enemy is ''aware'' ... the Russian air-force learned it in Georgia.
So our General realize that the only way to do it to rush is troops into the city, so he send in : APC, tanks and infantry to disable SAM's and thus win the battle by gaining air-superiority.

My inicial assumption was that almost every one will avoid fighting because they won't be affected ... but I WAS WRONG ! ;D

Because if the first targets of the air strike are corporations, this means that an attack against them is basically an attack their share holders ... so the proportion of citizens offended by the invasion will higher than I predicted ... somewhere around 40%  ;) Imagine that you wake up in the morning ... the bank were you gold is stored was bombed during the night ... so has the weapon manufacturer were you own stocks and the Exchange markets has plunged since every one know that an enemy force is at the gates and business get an halt (such and AnCap economy would be like a grand scale version of Hong Kong) ... tell me you won't get pissed off  ;D and other thousand of citizens are ALSO pissed off  ;D

So people will try to solve the conflict by the most effective and cheaper course of action, which is not have the whole town getting carpet bombed, instead what will happen will be like selective assassination of the Army command structure, sabotage or supply lines and things of the kind ... and the best part is that if the attacking force decide to enter the city the whole thing become even more easy :D

You can think roadside bomb target convoys, deadly UAV or hitmans selectively destroying the chain of command ... daily sniping of troops on patrols or on guard. while you can't certainly challenge the might of their tanks and artillery , you can make their stay a misery in such a way they will lose their morale if the chain of command and supply collapse

This the main reason Hitler refrained of attack the Swiss, since it would have melt the Wermatch into an unending guerilla nightmare

Jtuxyan on March 24, 2010, 03:33:23 pm
Quote
Your argument about the SAM sight is a crock.  I served with such a unit during the 70's.  Granted location can be important, but not as important as you make out.  The owner of the prime location doesn't want to let you use his property?  So what.  Go to pan B.  It's commonly done.  A militia group such as you are describing would have site access, contingency and fire plans worked out long in advance.

My argument, not his -- and the SAM site served as an example, you can easily pick any structure. A repair yard, an oil well, a supply depot, a radar post, a listening station, whatever.

Quote
An armored advance?  During the early 80's during the test program of the Fast Attack Vehicle (FAV), an MP Battalion at Fort Lewis, WA, wiped out an Armored Brigade using a mix of M19 Grenade Launchers, M2 .50 machine-guns, M249 Squad Automatic Weapons and Tow Missile Launchers.  When I said wiped out, I mean to the last vehicle.  Opposing force kill ratio was in the neighborhood of 90%.  That's why the only place you see a FAV is in the movies.  A $20,000 dune buggy with a few thousand in hardware with some motivated operators, ruined the big boys day and their $1,000,000 tanks and armored personnel carriers.

Which is why the military has since abandoned tanks and-

Wait no. That didn't happen. Because one test under highly specific circumstances does not eliminate the tactical value of tanks overall, nor does it prove that they're in any way "out of date". Furthermore, if what you're saying is correct, there's no reason the attackers couldn't just use the same loadout, plus having access to a larger air force, better vehicles since they don't have to worry about profitability, etc.

Quote
Your fantasy about ammunition procurement and consequently transportation, has previously been dealt with.  You didn't like the answer.

Because your answer was wrong.

Quote
Ammunition expenditure in battle.  You have people receiving marksmanship training, trained to the lowest common denominator.  It is normal for a soldier to receive 42 rounds of ammunition for zero and qualification on a 1,000 inch (25 yard) range every three months with the M16.  If he is lucky, one time a year he will shoot reactive targets located between 50 and 300 meters.  Only the marine corps does known distance qualification out to 500 meters.  The more people shoot.  The more ammunition they expend and the more they train in range estimation, the higher their hit ratio.  Improved sighting systems (developed for civilian competition) have increased the hit/kill ratio.  The more they train, the higher their confidence and the higher the likely hood of aimed fire on target instead of spray and pray.  Result, less wasted ammunition.

Compare 168 rounds of ammunition for M16 zero, training and qualification for the average soldier for a year.  A civilian who  may shoot that much or more during a practice session.   Additionally factor in the civilian rifle probably will be built for a heavier caliber, capable of hitting harder and out ranging the military rifle or carbine. People who participate in cowboy, three gun, IPSC, IDPA, NRA ..... can be expected to fire thousands of rounds a year.   It is reasonable to expect the libertarian militia members to participate is similar activities, plus individual and unit training.
 
People who have been there, done that, might talk to you depending on your attitude.  If they do, they'll tell you last thing they want to tangle with is a small, well armed, equipped and motivated team.

So let me get this straight. Your plan to deal with an ammo shortage would be to drill your troops more so they shoot less, on the theory that if all your soldiers are crack shots, they'll naturally use less ammo.

That's your plan.

Have an entire army of snipers and pray to the higher powers they don't run out of ammo in the field.

I'm committing a slight Ad Hominim fallacy here, but I'll go ahead and say it: You're an idiot.

Quote
-army: A almost unlimited supply of cash from the tax payers (the pentagon just override the cost of almost any weapon they develop), so they are not submitted to the pressure of a business, they still love tanks, artillery and fighter jets 
-Private: We have a limited amount of cash and we need to make the most of it   so will not see tanks or aircraft carrier, but instead highly powerful and effective weapon will be preferred to dumber ones

Your right! Aircraft carriers are stupid! I hate being able to project air power across the globe for the establishment of no-fly zones or the deployment of nuclear weapons! And you know what's even worse? Those damn precision strikes with their ability to destroy key buildings or bunkers to disable enemy military production.

And don't even get my started on the Predator Drone program! Cowardly government -- investing in robots that are highly effective at killing insurgents without ever placing human lives at risk. REAL MEN would deflect the bullets with the massive piles of cash they didn't spend on such wasteful, statist systems.

 ::)

Quote
In an AnCap society, it will be perfectly legal to own full-auto battle rifles - and this practice will be socially encouraged. The typical homeowner will have such a rifle, and a thousand rounds or more, and will train on a monthly basis, earning prizes and recognition in regular competition. A high percentage will be skilled at 300 and 500 yard distances.  They'll have proper scopes and the skills and equipment to properly allow for range and windage. They'll also have much more powerful equipment, including explosive devices which can destroy tanks. The Afghans are able to improvise such equipment even in their much smaller economy; in an AnCap society, you'll find everything you need to destroy a tank at your local hardware store. Practice sessions will be a rite of passage for teen boys and girls.

That society sounds profoundly scary, and even if it was perfectly safe I would hate to live in it.

Quote
Meanwhile, badly-trained conscripts in the hypothetical invading army will be trained to shoot and pray at distances of 100 yards. They will, however, be highly skilled marchers who look splendid in parades.

You're aware that the army of the USA, right now, the best trained and equipped army on the planet, is a "Statist" army, yes? The kind of army your opponent would very likely be able to raise?

Quote
As for the cost of gas agents, consider an artillery shell version to be a few hundred dollars.  This covers roughly a few hundred yards square at most.  Multiply by the size of a country, even say Lichenstien, and this is a large cost.

Now add in the cost of the equipment required to place the gas on the ground.  Now multiply this cost by maintanance, replacement of lost equipment, and manpower costs for operation of the equipment.  possibly multiply the  amount of gas due to air movements, terrain irregularities, and other factors.

You don't have to gas every square inch of the country, genius. You gas the major population centers and towns, mine the roads, destroy the food supply so people have to forriage, etc. You also don't have to do it with shells, since once any major opposition is removed, you can drive your trucks upwind of the target and open larger gas cannisters before insurgents can get to your position.

Quote
Invading army list of priorities and intended targets :
- To destroy : Security agency headquarters, ammunition depots and factories.
- To capture : Bank vaults and industries.

So :
1- I concede that such a society can't keep up with a ''standard'' line battle against the invading army, or at least will face scarcity of ammunition has the battle lengthen in term of quantity and calibre.

Yes, yes. A popular insurgency in a well armed populace can drive away an attacker. I'm not now and have never disputed that point. But let me translate what you said into the mindset of someone who would actually attack such a nation, knowing how well armed it is:

Invading army list of priorities and intended targets :
- To destroy : The entire local population.
- To capture : The natural resources they'll leave behind.

So :
1- I concede that such a society can't keep up with a ''standard'' line battle against the invading army, and therefore will most likely be gassed, suffering millions of casualties and never fully recovering, if they ever do drive away the attacker.

Quote
Correct me if I'm wrong

You're wrong. That was me, correcting you.


sams on March 24, 2010, 03:59:35 pm
@Jtuxyan:

Which is why the military has since abandoned tanks and- Wait no. That didn't happen. Because one test under highly specific circumstances does not eliminate the tactical value of tanks overall, nor does it prove that they're in any way "out of date".

Tank are best for the purpose for which their were built : armoured assault and manoeuvre warfare ... but their are of no use to hold a city when gas is getting rarer because your supply line are being sabotaged and the personnel is getting killed by ... bounty killers  ;D

That's your plan.

Have an entire army of snipers and pray to the higher powers they don't run out of ammo in the field.


Actually I believe its that you snipe the soldiers and officers one after another in an insurgency scenario  ;D doesn't take 1 million bullets to cause a paranoia frenzy against an invading army ... remenber the soviet snipers of Stalingrade  ;D

Your right! Aircraft carriers are stupid! I hate being able to project air power across the globe for the establishment of no-fly zones or the deployment of nuclear weapons! And you know what's even worse? Those damn precision strikes with their ability to destroy key buildings or bunkers to disable enemy military production.

And don't even get my started on the Predator Drone program! Cowardly government -- investing in robots that are highly effective at killing insurgents without ever placing human lives at risk. REAL MEN would deflect the bullets with the massive piles of cash they didn't spend on such wasteful, statist systems.


The US army, which is the most competent army around, use the same material for more than 20 years, overrun the projected cost of almost every program, fail to keep up with new technology or develop newer.

At the pace that private R&D goes in other industry, I'm pretty sure that a completely private weapon industry serving private customers would provide a much better deal for the money. You will see much more powerful weapons for defence instead of the cult of ''white elefants'' of many armies lol
Even the US army tend to store weapon they won't like us  ;D
You also have to remember that the bulk of the financial burden is on the attacker, all those aircraft carrier and tanks are most of the time useless and thus many armies tends to break at financial side just like the Soviet  ;D

You said in the other thread that no army lost ''when it had his leadership decapitated'' ... and you were wrong  ;D
Most armies indeed loose because they have no officers of qualities and NCO's ... which explain why Israel pretty much kicked Arab armies since 1948 and why the Afghan and Iraqi army trained by the US is pretty much ineffective. The lack of quality officers is also what plagues the current Russian army

So indeed Oficers are pretty more precious than you think, so killing 50% of them in preferably bloody campaign of targeted assasination can pretty much not only curb the chain of command but greatly demoralize

You're aware that the army of the USA, right now, the best trained and equipped army on the planet, is a "Statist" army, yes? The kind of army your opponent would very likely be able to raise?

but remember that the US army and the IDF are pretty much the exception, not the rule, most other armies, even the Russian one, is pretty much incompetent at some level  ;D

So yes it would be difficult to win if you face the IDF or the US army ... but any other force (french, russian, Sirian or else) is pretty much easier

So again, the US army and the IDF are exceptions, not the rule. which mean that an AnCap society can pretty much win when attacked, you are just trying to refuse to concede the point but considering ONLY the extreme scenario of being attacked by a maniacally psychopath

Zilabus on March 24, 2010, 04:31:49 pm
Make no mistake. Invading forces will likely know where to strike to disable common means of air and naval defense. You say banks, security agencies, and other industry headquarters will likely be the ones holding the best means of defense, because they have the most to spend and the most to lose. A very valid point. Because the largest companies are usually publicly traded, information on their spending will be avalable to anyone with interest in it and funds. This means the enemy force will likely be aware of the location of many of the bigger ant-air, anti-rocket, and anti-naval outposts. One key to modern defensive warfare is having such outposts, but keeping them hidden or inaccesable to the enemy. As you said, their first attacks will likely be on these, the biggest threats. And as prepared as they are for attack, they likely aren't prepared enough for a sudden strike that knows exactly what fortifications they've purchased and the number of people they are employing. If an invading force can overwhelm these places early with a ground invasion, there will no longer be a need for large scale street-to-street, door-to-door fighting in every location of importance. Domination by air and sea will make defeat of any organized forces relatively non-damaging.


There is no garuntee that a libertarian society will be so full of shooting enthusiasts. Given the choice today, many people avoid the ownage and use of firearms alltogether. Unless people are forced to compete and practice with firearms regularly (Which isn't something that would happen in Libertarian living) you can't so generally state that everyone will be some kind of great marksmen. You also cannot rule out pacifists, people who have a fear of firearms (Which is a suprisingly large amount) and supporters of the invading states cause. An entire population of well trained gunman with a large supply of ammunition and firearms isn't likely when people are given the choice to do whatever they want, pro or anti-firearms.

Even if the entire population is locked and loaded gunmen, they will be decentralized and unorganized, which is a double edged sword. There will be no central leader that you can excecute, granted. There will also be a lack of cohesien, or the ability to respond to an enemy properly. An invading army could sweep north through the state, taking it city by city. Would the Militia in a city 100 miles north have any reliable information on the invader who just wiped out it's southern neighbor? Sure, you would know they where attacked, and maybe even know how, but you would have no accurate idea of how many, how strong, and what. The militia fighters in the southern city would likely have no idea of how to contact other Militias, and if they even still existed. They would have nobody above them to report to to inform their allies of what they are facing. Their would be no coheision, which leaves the bulk of the invading army taking on scattered and misinformed rebel pockets. We have a big problem with information control and the act of getting proper information to our troops now, in the most ideal of situations. In a less then ideal situation, the big problem would become cataclysmic.

Even well trained rebels have little hope of defeating a much larger and supirior force they know almost nothing about, and have no support against. The job of the invading force becomes simple. Find and exterminate groups of weakened enemy.

Think also of friendly fire. A large problem in todays military. Flannel wearing marksmen Joe could easily kill large numbers of allies by mistake. A city invasion is extremely chaotic, add a lack of a comand structure and you could have rebels firing morters into their own allies defensive fortifications. Finally, think of Guerillas in many other simmiliar situations, like the South after the Civil war. It is often that they will harm their own people to help their efforts. Stealing food and supplies, hunkering down on your property and endangering you and your family, accidentally attacking innocents, occasionally even turning into little more then glorified bandits. In these situations, it isn't difficult for the populous to turn on those figting against the invading empire.

In the end though, all of this still assumes that the invading army is realatively human and follows currently set geneva conventions. If they don't (Which is the case with the majority of totalitarian forces) ANcap society would be in even worse of a position.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2010, 04:39:32 pm by Zilabus »
Bring back the funk.

sams on March 24, 2010, 05:26:23 pm
Because the largest companies are usually publicly traded, information on their spending will be avalable to anyone with interest in it and funds. This means the enemy force will likely be aware of the location of many of the bigger ant-air, anti-rocket, and anti-naval outposts. One key to modern defensive warfare is having such outposts, but keeping them hidden or inaccesable to the enemy.

This is a fair point, will I have some objections :

1- Many companies are able to conserve some sense of secrecy around some sensible aspects of their business and don't exactly provide readily and crystal transparent at his point, especially in term of safety. But shit happen and incompetence isn't a capital sin yet  ;D

2- At the current technology level it is a little bit difficult to hide facility with observation satellite ... so any reasonable modern defence with any chance of success may keep with the fact that the enemy have at least satellite imagery of it

If an invading force can overwhelm these places early with a ground invasion, there will no longer be a need for large scale street-to-street, door-to-door fighting in every location of importance.

This is a question of tactic not strategy and it is a completely open question. This depends on how does the attack is performed and how does the defence is performed.
No plan ... both of attack and defence ... survive contact with the enemy.

There is no garuntee that a libertarian society will be so full of shooting enthusiasts. Given the choice today, many people avoid the ownage and use of firearms alltogether. Unless people are forced to compete and practice with firearms regularly (Which isn't something that would happen in Libertarian living) you can't so generally state that everyone will be some kind of great marksmen. You also cannot rule out pacifists, people who have a fear of firearms (Which is a suprisingly large amount) and supporters of the invading states cause. An entire population of well trained gunman with a large supply of ammunition and firearms isn't likely when people are given the choice to do whatever they want, pro or anti-firearms.

Yes it is true that there is no guaranty that a libertarian society will be full of gun nuts. But with the current avaible experience, especially in country with at least softer like the US, which have around 200 millions handguns and likely more assault rifles and other fire-arms. It is not a guaranty, but by extrapolating from the current US situation, we can consider that a libertarian society will likely have a strong minority of gun nuts .. lets say some 30% which  is quite enough to cause troubles

Even if the entire population is locked and loaded gunmen, they will be decentralized and unorganized, which is a double edged sword. There will be no central leader that you can excecute, granted. There will also be a lack of cohesien, or the ability to respond to an enemy properly. An invading army could sweep north through the state, taking it city by city. Would the Militia in a city 100 miles north have any reliable information on the invader who just wiped out it's southern neighbour? Sure, you would know they where attacked, and maybe even know how, but you would have no accurate idea of how many, how strong, and what. The militia fighters in the southern city would likely have no idea of how to contact other Militias, and if they even still existed. They would have nobody above them to report to to inform their allies of what they are facing. Their would be no cohesion, which leaves the bulk of the invading army taking on scattered and misinformed rebel pockets. We have a big problem with information control and the act of getting proper information to our troops now, in the most ideal of situations. In a less then ideal situation, the big problem would become cataclysmic.

Point taken ;) will this is problem when running a manoeuvring campaign in which you need to move around force around the theatre of operations to deny the enemy strategic position and so on, it is an advantage if you are fighting a guerilla campaign. When there is not central command, but just independent cells working day and night to make the occupier live a misery, the guerilla is like to win at the war of attrition

You see most of the manoeuvring part of the Iraq and Afghanistan war were quite short ... but the trouble started when they actually tried to occupy the territory and face an insurgency campaign. In both case the mightiest army on earth only saved it honour by trying associate native at their efforts. When you fail to gain support of a significant part of the local population, you end up beaten like in Vietnam. But again, I'm not saying that it guaranty instant victory from an AnCap society :P

Think also of friendly fire. A large problem in todays military. Flannel wearing marksmen Joe could easily kill large numbers of allies by mistake. A city invasion is extremely chaotic, add a lack of a comand structure and you could have rebels firing morters into their own allies defensive fortifications. Finally, think of Guerillas in many other simmiliar situations, like the South after the Civil war. It is often that they will harm their own people to help their efforts. Stealing food and supplies, hunkering down on your property and endangering you and your family, accidentally attacking innocents, occasionally even turning into little more then glorified bandits. In these situations, it isn't difficult for the populous to turn on those figting against the invading empire.

Good point, but it just means that it depend on how you apply the guerilla strategy and doesn't mean that the strategy itself is wrong. This an operation question, it depends on how the guerilla is conducted.

In the end though, all of this still assumes that the invading army is realatively human and follows currently set geneva conventions. If they don't (Which is the case with the majority of totalitarian forces) ANcap society would be in even worse of a position.

Yes, of course it will be worse to face the return of Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler... or some of the heads of the Bananas republics of the world. But the good news is that those are generally the ones with the worst army ... but even so it is daunting challenge

Jtuxyan on March 24, 2010, 05:45:42 pm
Quote
Tank are best for the purpose for which their were built : armoured assault and manoeuvre warfare ... but their are of no use to hold a city when gas is getting rarer because your supply line are being sabotaged and the personnel is getting killed by ... bounty killers 

For the last time, holding a city is not up for discussion here. Holding a city is an aspect of occupation, and I have already said that occupying a resisting populace is impossible. To exterminate a city, you only have to hold ground within reasonable striking distance of it, something at which tanks and all armored heavy units excel.

Quote
Actually I believe its that you snipe the soldiers and officers one after another in an insurgency scenario   doesn't take 1 million bullets to cause a paranoia frenzy against an invading army ... remenber the soviet snipers of Stalingrade 

Where the Nazi's still didn't use gas. Are you being thick, or not getting that Occupation=/= Destruction?

Quote
he US army, which is the most competent army around, use the same material for more than 20 years, overrun the projected cost of almost every program, fail to keep up with new technology or develop newer.

At the pace that private R&D goes in other industry, I'm pretty sure that a completely private weapon industry serving private customers would provide a much better deal for the money. You will see much more powerful weapons for defence instead of the cult of ''white elefants'' of many armies lol
Even the US army tend to store weapon they won't like us 
You also have to remember that the bulk of the financial burden is on the attacker, all those aircraft carrier and tanks are most of the time useless and thus many armies tends to break at financial side just like the Soviet 

Because the US right now is going broke due to the expenses of keeping up it's standing army. Oh wait, no. We're managing despite waging two, expensive occupation wars. Try again. Furthermore, another state can just buy their weapons from this uber-market you're supposing, or steal the plans and make their own AKA China's intellectual property laws, so either way, all sides have the same arms technology.

Quote
but remember that the US army and the IDF are pretty much the exception, not the rule, most other armies, even the Russian one, is pretty much incompetent at some level 

I dispute this claim. Prove it.

Quote
his is a question of tactic not strategy and it is a completely open question. This depends on how does the attack is performed and how does the defence is performed.
No plan ... both of attack and defence ... survive contact with the enemy.

"Everyone in the area without a gas mask dies." is a surprisingly robust plan.

Quote
es, of course it will be worse to face the return of Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler... or some of the heads of the Bananas republics of the world. But the good news is that those are generally the ones with the worst army ... but even so it is daunting challenge

So you concede the necessity of a standing army capable of repelling an initial invasion.

sams on March 24, 2010, 06:13:20 pm
For the last time, holding a city is not up for discussion here. Holding a city is an aspect of occupation, and I have already said that occupying a resisting populace is impossible. To exterminate a city, you only have to hold ground within reasonable striking distance of it, something at which tanks and all armored heavy units excel.
[/quote]

Stay cool, so at least you finally accept a point. so lets move on .. wait ... I know that razing a city is the best thing artillery and tanks can do.


Quote
Where the Nazi's still didn't use gas. Are you being thick, or not getting that Occupation=/= Destruction?

The point is that you don't need huge amounts of ammunition to strike fear on an occupier army, I gave the example of Stalingrade, because there Soviet snipers terrorized Nazi soldiers by killing them one at a time when they where resting or weren't expecting it ... or ''hunt them''


Quote
Because the US right now is going broke due to the expenses of keeping up it's standing army. Oh wait, no. We're managing despite waging two, expensive occupation wars. Try again. Furthermore, another state can just buy their weapons from this uber-market you're supposing, or steal the plans and make their own AKA China's intellectual property laws, so either way, all sides have the same arms technology.

The US have huge financial problems, you should know about it.

The fact that all sides will have the same weapon is not an disadvantage, this just mean that the fate rest on how operations are conducted.

I dispute this claim. Prove it.

You dispute the claim that most armies are incompetent  :o lol

Tell me how many armies can execute total air superiority, tactical and strategical superiority and maintain decent supply lines .... 50 ? 100 ? You pretty much have Israel IDF and US army ... what else ?

Especially when you move in the territory of Banana dictator armies, the drop in quality is even more drastic, even when they have a lot of cash from oil to spend on weaponry

What make the US and Israel stand out of the crowd is also that they have good NCO's and good structure of command ... while some of the most problematic armies, especially the Arab ones don't have it because their supreme leader want supreme control.

Most countries army are not ''professional'', they are basically dudes with guns who obey the orders of some egocentric leader, there is not delegation of task and no decent chain of command. A captain in the front line who cant make tactical decision is worthless and most of the armies in the world are in this  shap

A good example is how Libya got beaten up in northern Chad, in what could have been a cake walk. Kadafi army was deafeted by some untrained rebels roaming around in Toyotas  ;D

Sacre bleu ... even Russia, which on paper could have raped Georgia, was unable to achieve complete air superiority against a country ... without combat air-planes

I challenge you give me a list with 10 competent armies  ;D

So you concede the necessity of a standing army capable of repelling an initial invasion.

I never said that it was impossible to live without a standing army in the first place

My point is that it is also neither impossible to live without it ... or at least with a standing army the kind Switzeland have ... you know one who actually DEFEND the country instead of policing the world  ::)

But in any case, unless outright genocidal massacre, there a chance to win in a AnCap context
« Last Edit: March 24, 2010, 06:16:06 pm by sams »

Jtuxyan on March 24, 2010, 07:53:18 pm
Quote
Stay cool, so at least you finally accept a point. so lets move on .. wait ... I know that razing a city is the best thing artillery and tanks can do.

So since razing the city is the goal, you admit I'm right.

Quote
The point is that you don't need huge amounts of ammunition to strike fear on an occupier army,

Occupation is not the goal.

Quote
The fact that all sides will have the same weapon is not an disadvantage,

You claimed it as an advantage for the defenders, you  have admitted this is not the case, point conceded.

Quote
You dispute the claim that most armies are incompetent   lol

Explain to me what's wrong with Britain's armies.

Quote
But in any case, unless outright genocidal massacre, there a chance to win in a AnCap context

Thus, AnCap is not sufficient on it's own without a standing army, thank you for conceding.

Sean Roach on March 24, 2010, 10:23:37 pm
I believe we have at least 3 beliefs here.
I'm a minarchist, and a micro-stater, (I want the states to have states rights reaffirmed, states WERE nations, much as England, France, Germany, etc ARE nations.)  I believe that yes, we really do need the means to call up an army, but a standing army is expensive, and government work is inefficient, since it doesn't seek to squeeze every drop of stated benefit from each nickel.  (Now, if the benefit is a job with good benefits, where you don't have to strive to stay competitive, and can be assured of a good retirement, possibly even jobs for friends of the government officials, perhaps it achieves it's desired goals.)
Technically speaking, that leaves me a statist.

There are those who are anarchists, and those who are anarcho-capitalists.  They believe the free market can solve every problem.  Perhaps they are right.  Certainly, at a certain scale, and under certain conditions, it could become difficult to distinguish a corporations actions with those of a state.  Being a "citizen" of Coca-Cola could be possible.  Either believe you can protect your home with volunteer labor, because it's your home, so you will volunteer the labor.  Either believe that market forces would encourage a certain degree of ...selection... regarding tendencies to protest the tank treadmarks in the flowerbed.  Certainly they are at least correct to the point where the experiment has been allowed to run.  In a commercial setting or residential setting, everyone benefits from one parties decision to improve their own property.  If you keep your lawn mowed, there are fewer rats to infest your neighbors house, but you don't consider charging your neighbor for keeping the rat population down.  If your neighbor lets his grow "two inches higher than the dog" in the backyard, you don't have any real recourse to Force him to keep his property trimmed so YOU don't have a rat problem, though if it's important enough to you, you might volunteer to do the mowing, or pay to have it done.

Then there is you, who want a military with all the protection from prosecution, competition, and bargaining such a military enjoys today.  All based on the possibility an aggressive outside force, (let's refrain from saying government, perhaps Pepsi decides to eliminate Coke, root and branch) who intends to eradicate your group, rather than subjugate your group.  
I'd have to argue such a system does not work optimally.  When any group has an "I Win" button, they don't improve themselves adequately.  Any chink where corruption can enter, corruption will enter.  Power does make corruption easy, hence "power corrupts", but it's also true that the corrupt seek power.
Any loophole in the definition of "for the needs of national defense" will be exercised, be it evicting "undesirables", (Muslims? Japanese?  Germans?  Poor people?), setting up a country club for the officers, (my own post above,) demanding unfair concessions, perhaps making a habit of impressing everyone unless they give the recruitment officer a (monetary) reason to exempt them, or perhaps making a habit of impressing the most productive for whatever pet project the commander, or commander in chief, has come up with, (sounds like slave labor to me.)

I leave you with two quotes and a statement, non-original, but I can't quickly find a reference.
"A small leak can sink a great ship." and "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ", both Benjamin Franklin.
the rights of the group extend from the rights of the individual, nothing that is forbidden to the individual should be permitted to the group.

P.S.  And I still suspect you both of being ringers.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2010, 10:35:23 pm by Sean Roach »

terry_freeman on March 25, 2010, 12:17:23 am
Once again, why all the scenarios where the bad guys have the cool weaponry? You haven't really thought about the economic implications of AnCap. The faith-based paper engine which drives the military-industrial complex of the bad guys collapses when government have to pay with real gold "on the barrel", every time.

 

anything