1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




Starting your Military

Home Forums Community Dreaming / Crazy Ideas / Speculation Starting your Military

This topic contains 142 replies, has 28 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of elspru elspru 3 years, 9 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 143 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #7776
    Avatar of Jeff-Chan
    Jeff-Chan
    Participant

    See Switzerland.

    Tell us some ways it can be improved. It has professional officers, F16 fighter jets, more than 2 million well-trained people under arms, a stable democracy with a strong defense that hasn’t invaded anyone, etc.

    #7777
    Avatar of horton
    horton
    Participant

    j_smith, I’m going to try to mediate this converstation by telling a little bit about myself. I dabble in a bit of real estate investing every now and then. I used to own land in a city that had a big military contracting connection. I used to be gung ho about mlitary spending because of it, but finally realized that I can’t support something that’s fundamentally wrong even if I profit from it.

    I’m assuming you have some connection to the US military. I’m not trying to diss people who join up. In fact I think a lot of them join for very admirable reasons. They want to do something good for their society. However, if you look at this very closely you can’t but come to the conclusion that the US military is a massive negative on American society and the rest of the world. At some point you’re going to have to raise your conscience up above what you personally benefit from and take an objective look at things.

    I’m a computer programmer and a lot of what I do has been what I would call free market collectivized in the last two decades. Open source and people basically coding up things for free or near free wages have erroded into a lot of programmer’s markets. I could go to the government and demand that my salary be guaranteed by taxing other people. I could claim that computer programming is a complex and valuable skill that nobody’s going to do for free, so it’s only reasonable that we tax the American public to support my position. However, it would be completely insane. I’m not sure the military analogy is any different. After all computer programmers are an as important, if not more, entity in the protection of American interests than military soldiers.

    #7778
    Avatar of Jeff-Chan
    Jeff-Chan
    Participant

    Yes, you can throw keyboards at invaders or blog about it. But seriously defense is important. Invading foreign countries probably isn’t. It’s a difference between defensive force and initiating force.

    America’s military is obviously too large unless it’s meant to police the world. It’s much larger than it needs to be to actually defend the U.S., which by the way it did an incredibly bad job of 8 years ago.

    #7779
    Avatar of horton
    horton
    Participant

    Jeff wrote:

    Yes, you can throw keyboards at invaders or blog about it.

    I’ll guarantee that if every computer programmer stopped working, America would cease to function very quickly, probably in a matter of days. If every American soldier layed down his arms, nobody would notice for a while, and if it kept up for years, we’d have a much better society.

    But in fact I do agree that defense is necessary, however a military budget to the degree that America currently has is obscene. It’s also that American soldiers aren’t defending anything of importance anymore, for instance our borders against illegal immigration. We’re “defending” something in the Middle East. I have my suspicions what it is, but I don’t want to open another can of worms.

    BTW, “the pen is mightier than the sword,” is probably a valid truism. Military invasions are all but useless nowadays. The most imporant wars are in fact fought with keyboards these days.

    #7780
    Avatar of libertariandoc
    libertariandoc
    Participant

    horton wrote:

    “Professional military” is an oxymoron on the scale of “military intelligence.” There’s nothing professional about pointing a gun and shooting. Any moron can do it. US military propaganda has tried to paint it as a science, but it’s obviously not. In Iraq the only thing that’s calming things down is a promiss to withdraw. Same thing will happen in Afghanistan once the US makes the commitment.

    Build whatever military you want. Just don’t ask me to pay for it. As far as threatening me to cough up money for “protection,” we all know what that’s about.

    Read the thread about mlitary, police, & firefighters. It’s amazing that people claiming to be “libertarians” are demanding other people pay for their military obsessions.

    Well, I guess you have never been exposed to the military, been in the military, or even handled many weapons.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I won’t be wronged. I won’t be insulted. I won’t be laid a-hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.

    #7781
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    US military is a massive negative on American society

    I agree 100%. I have no connection to the U.S. military, although I was once only days from going into the U.S. Army as a 2nd Lieutenant. But those days are way behind me, and I have no problem bashing the way the military is badly used. I am not defending the U.S. military, in fact I have all kinds of issues with it.

    My only argument here is that regardless of that, I believe you seriously underestimate what it takes to be a soldier in combat. I have two cousins (well, one is a cousin-in-law) who have seen combat in Iraq. I am very close to them, and I disagree completely with what they are doing and disagree completely with why they joined up. But I can appreciate the skills they have…both of them being professional soldiers.

    This is my only point here. On the seastead it will be necessary to have an armed defense force…of that there is no doubt. My feeling is that the people responsible for the protection of the entire population should be the best at what they do. Just like I want only the best horticulturists running my aeroponic farms, and the best programmers working on my network infrastructure. You cannot throw together a bunch of people with guns and expect them to work like a trained defense force.

    There are many reasons why the Swiss haven’t been attacked in recent history, and the fact that there are a bunch of so-so trained guys with assault rifles at home isn’t very high on the list. Come on…all the peacekeeping missions the Swiss have been involved in they weren’t even allowed to carry guns!! And their Air Force has gone from “Let’s intercept any invading aircraft” to “Hey guys, don’t bother us it’s the weekend”!!!

    I can cite example after example of well-trained forces having their way with larger groups of lesser-trained forces. When the poo-poo hits the spinning blades I want a professional soldier protecting me and not my Uncle Larry with his dusty .30-06.

    #7783
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    America’s military is obviously too large unless it’s meant to police the world.

    The only reason the U.S. military is so large is because defense contractors make BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of dollars. Look at what happened to Donald Rumsfeld. The guy tries to do the sensible thing and cut the miitary down from the huge bloat that had overtaken it. He cancels the Crusader system and works to trim the military down to a lean fighting force capable of rapid interdiction. He ends up resigning in disgrace. Granted there were lots of other things that he seriously fucked up (cough cough IRAQ cough cough). But he cost United Defense something like $12B in contracts.

    The defense industry has some powerful allies. You will continue to see massive aircraft carriers and other extremely expensive and extremely stupid weapon systems…and a extremely bloated U.S. military…as long as lobbyism continues to be a force in Washington. They don’t care how many people die as long as they get paid.

    #7787
    Avatar of Carl-Pålsson
    Carl-Pålsson
    Participant

    xnsdvd wrote:

    It’s an important consideration is it not? How do we avoid the strange military sub-culture that America has? Or those coups that constantly seem to be happening in 3rd world countries? How about the strange incompetence that comes with mandatory drafting like Singapore?(Speaking from experience here…)

    I find myself drawn to a “volunteer army” system. Where everyone spends 1 day a week training after a 2 month basic and 2 month intermediate training course. It seems to solve the problem of military losing touch with the rest of society, as well as things like military gay-bashing and command rape. But I get the feeling it’ll be hell for military commanders who find themselves working for their subordinates in civilian life.

    Ideas? Thoughts?

    For a start-up seastead I would settle for not prohibiting my inhabitants from providing their own defense. And if somewhere down the line there appears security issues that personal weapons or perhaps an ad-hoc militia cannot cope with, then perhaps hiring a security company would be the next step.

    I think grandiose “national defense” schemes will be a waste of money. A seastead is bound to be at the mercy of the guys with attack submarines and missiles for the forseeable future. My advice is to accept this as part of life and spend your money on something more productive. :-)

    #7788
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    somewhere down the line

    The only problem with that is the culture gets comfortable with the way things are, and then changing it later becomes an issue. You might start out with not prohibiting firearms and a militia system. After a few years you say “Okay, we’re big enough now to institute some national defense. Everyone hand in your guns and ammo please.” All you hear are crickets and the sound of many locks being loaded.

    I think these kinds of cultural issues need to be set at the beginning, since they form a national direction or theme. Same goes for a system of justice, the form of the economy, property rights, etc. Other things like the color of the paint you can worry about later.

    attack submarines

    Again, I don’t think anyone here has any illusions about ever being able to defend against that kind of threat. But a national defense is just as important when defending against a large pirate attack…or a Tongan raiding party. 30 or 40 pirates armed with automatic weapons and RPGs is a significant threat to any seastead, and a well-trained, professional defense force would work far better than a rag-tag group of random guys armed with whatever they have lying around.

    #7789
    Avatar of horton
    horton
    Participant

    There seems to be a fetish about mlitary “protection.” Military has nothing to do with defense nowadays. It’s mainly how much a country can instigate aggression and extract from its people and/or 3rd party military donors. Take a look at this. Do you think that Finland is less secure than Israel? I don’t think so.

    http://www.wisegeek.com/what-countries-have-the-highest-military-expenditures.htm

    Iceland doesn’t even have a military. Has anybody tried to invade Iceland recently? Modern militaries are a disgrace to humanity.

    #7792
    Avatar of Carl-Pålsson
    Carl-Pålsson
    Participant

    You might start out with not prohibiting firearms and a militia system. After a few years you say “Okay, we’re big enough now to institute some national defense. Everyone hand in your guns and ammo please.”

    Why would one need to confiscate people’s private weaponry in order to form some sort of professional defense force? That makes no sense.

    I think these kinds of cultural issues need to be set at the beginning, since they form a national direction or theme. Same goes for a system of justice, the form of the economy, property rights, etc. Other things like the color of the paint you can worry about later.

    Seems a bit inflexible I must say, to decide at one point in time how the defense should look for ever and ever in the future. Things change over time. Geopolitics, weapons technology, countries, people, politicians. It seems to me such issued are best dealt with by continous analysis and adaptation.

    If you are concerned about writing some sort of legal framework in order to control and maintain a both benign and effective defense machine I’m not sure this is neccessary. The governments of steasteads will be kept in check and working well more by the constant possibility of their people leaving and starting a new seastead than by some constitution (that nation states don’t seem to follow very well anyway).

    attack submarines

    Again, I don’t think anyone here has any illusions about ever being able to defend against that kind of threat. But a national defense is just as important when defending against a large pirate attack…or a Tongan raiding party. 30 or 40 pirates armed with automatic weapons and RPGs is a significant threat to any seastead, and a well-trained, professional defense force would work far better than a rag-tag group of random guys armed with whatever they have lying around.

    No argument there, other than that most pirates probably will attack a million disarmed merchant or cruise ships before trying for a seastead where the people’s RKBA is respected. I suspect that goes for the Tongan navy as well, assuming the seastead hasn’t brutally invaded Tonga first.

    #7795
    Avatar of libertariandoc
    libertariandoc
    Participant

    horton wrote:

    There seems to be a fetish about mlitary “protection.” Military has nothing to do with defense nowadays. It’s mainly how much a country can instigate aggression and extract from its people and/or 3rd party military donors. Take a look at this. Do you think that Finland is less secure than Israel? I don’t think so.

    http://www.wisegeek.com/what-countries-have-the-highest-military-expenditures.htm

    Iceland doesn’t even have a military. Has anybody tried to invade Iceland recently? Modern militaries are a disgrace to humanity.

    Finland was invaded by both the Nazis, and the Soviets…My wife’s family is Finnish, and still pissed off about it. Study on the Winter War…

    As far as Iceland, actually, yes. The US sent US Naval troops to Iceland in WWII to protect it from invasion by the Nazis. Since the end of WWII Iceland was defended by the US primarily, and NATO. The US Air Force had a major base at Keflavik, and the US Navy still has a section of the SOSUS located there, and naval air operates from there.

    Good deal when you get protected for free. Almost as good a deal as Canada got.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I won’t be wronged. I won’t be insulted. I won’t be laid a-hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.

    #7796
    Avatar of mlitman
    mlitman
    Participant

    horton wrote:

    There’s nothing professional about pointing a gun and shooting. Any moron can do it.

    Any moron can play chess as well. When I was in the third grade, my entire class learned how to play chess, and I’m sure some of my classmates weren’t all that smart. However, chess, like war, is a competitive undertaking. If you want to win, you don’t just need to know how to play/fight, you need to know how to do it better than your opponent.

    #7798
    Avatar of livefreeortry
    livefreeortry
    Participant

    Despite the fact that we’re nowhere close to the position of having to really deal with this topic, I say a seastead ought to have a small standing army and a much larger civilian reserve (regularly trained). For instance, the Israelis seem to be doing well with just this system.

    While a civilian militia is most compatible with a libertarian perspective, history indicates that a trained and prepared army will prevail over a larger but disorganised conscript militia.

    Also, standing armies spend peacetime developing new weapons technologies, tactics, stockpiling resources etc, things that a part-time militia will not do (or at least not as well). Whether or not you approve of the above, the fact remains that these are the ingredients that military success requires.

    #7799
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    From the individual level to the state level. I think X was adressing the subject of defending a future seastead state and how to better form/start the “military” on a seastead whithout turn it into a “complex”, a problem that most of the nations have.

    But is that really going to be a problem? We all now that a seastead wont be able to exist as a sovereign state whithin the 200nm EEZ of any nation. That is a fact. So future seastead states will be 200+ nm offshore and most likely floating ones. Now, who will pick up a fight w/ a seastead state, and for what? And the reverse is equally true,…There is a lot of ocean out there and if a seastead wants to be out of sight for decades that is very easy: the moment you picked up something on the horizon, steer away from it! I dont even think that we can talk about a “Military”,…maybe more like a Militia force in case of a pirate atack and a security team that is watching day and night, and patrols on foot and on boat around the seastead to keep an eye for pirates. Few Ak-47′s, few shot guns, few grenade lunchers, few 50 calibers, and is good to go.

    Sestead states shud be armed neutralities. Armed neutrality, in international politics, is the posture of a state or group of states which makes no alliance with either side in a war, but asserts that it will defend itself against resulting incursions from all parties.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 143 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate