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 4 years, 3 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 143 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #10330
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    Gentry wrote:

    Because all those things you suggested can be a business. There is no business plan for killing people on a seastead.

    While I don’t subscribe to the libertarian ideal, why couldn’t a professional full-time defense force be a business? [/quote]

    &International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries?

    Armed forces and millita are under the jurisdiction of Military law. Every one else is under the jurisdiction of Civilian law.

    Militia: compulsory Armed force that solders own their own equipment.
    Army: Selected by goverment and fights with goverment proporty.

    Tench wrote:
    The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American …the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them. Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

    Militia Act of 1792
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled. That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

    οὐκ ἐμοῦ, ἀλλá½° τοῦ λόγου ἀκούσαντας ὁμολογεῖν σο­φόν ἐστιν ἓν πάντα εἶναί

    #10344
    Avatar of Clinkerbuilt
    Clinkerbuilt
    Participant

    …What a subject for a first post!

    Hi everyone – and yes, this is me wading into this soiree as a newbie-member — feel free to flame away: I have plenty of fire-retardent gear handy.

    First, “Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum”…or, to put it another way, “Power grows from the barrel of a gun”. Neglecting the military dimension plants you firmly in the camp of the starry-eyed daydreamer who will ever accomplish anything — or, who will have it taken away at the first swing.

    Please — I implore you — check what I write…Do NOT simply assume that I am right or wrong!

    If you seriously intend to go the sovereign route, you can forget the militia concept immediately, if you have any sense. Why? Because militia armies go to war in droves, to die droves. A militia army that lasts any length of time is either an army facing no threats, or an army that has a rock-solid core of professionals at its heart…Switzerland being the former, Israel being the latter.

    Look at the history of only the United States: in every single war, once the mass militia/volunteer force went into battle, they took horrific and disproportionate casualties in every single fight, until the troops got a lot more experience, and got far more professional, right up to Korea. What happened after that? A far larger force, maintained – epensively – that was able to maintain an “institutional memory” that kept that professionalism alive. As long as that standard was kept up, the troops did well; once the standards (both in recruitment and continuous training) declined, the body count rose when the shooting started.

    So, why are casualties so low, relatively speaking, after 8+ years of fighting in multiple theaters? Because the US Army and Marine Corps finally stumbled on a way to get “almost veterans”, who were ready out of the gate in a way not seen before in the American military. This was the result of training programs that were as close to real combat as you could get without actually using live ammunition….Of course, it’salso insanely expensive, but that’s your choice: a cheap militia that will get mowed dow like wheat before the scythe, or an expensive force that can hold its own.

    Someone earlier mentioned that “any moron” can point a gun and shoot it — you”re absolutely correct: witness Liberia, from the early 90′s to the earl 00′s, and Sierra Leone in the early 90′s. Any real, truly “professional” military could have ended either conflict in less than a year, if stripped of political shackles…as was proved when Executive Outcomes went into Sierra Leone. That it all fell apart later is entirely the fault of the United Nations, who couldn’t maintain a peace won with c.300 professional soldiers costing less than US$100million total after deploying 17,000+ blue-hats at over a Billion(US)/year…which is why you should NEVER rely onthe UN.

    As far as international/UN treaties about mercenaries and/or the “laws of war”, you really need to understand that those treaties apply to “formal militaries” — when you wade through the minutiae of the legalese in the texts, you will find that the “little guys” are virtually guaranteed to be treated as bandits, at best. Those scraps of toilet paper are there to protect the under-200 “formally-recognized ntions”, NOT you. Let me give you an example. For those reading this who own firearms, go look at your ammunition. If what you think you might have to fight with can be classiied as “hunting ammunition”, you have just lost your rights under the Geneva Convention, since most hunting ammo qualifies as hollow- or soft-point ammo — which is specifically banned to military forces.

    As to cost, the US military looks like it spends a lot…or does it?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_defense_spending_1910_to_2007.png

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_defense_spending_by_GDP_percentage_1910_to_2007.png

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Active_duty_end_strength_graph.png

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Defense_Spending_-_%25_to_Outlays.png

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

    Your government is going to make money — if you’re smart — and laying in enough to cover a professional military force, while expensive, is not prohibitively so.

    A bunch of barely-trained people with some small arms is not enough to deter any serious criminal gang that is intending to operate in the region your seastead happens to be in, let alone the actual military forces they may come into contact with. Switzerland gets away with a mostly-militia system because there are no truly valuable resources there to exploit, and it is extrememly hard to get into the country, in a military sense. Israel maintains a significant chunck of its population under arms at any given time, which severely eats into itsbudget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Israel#Budget), which is, however, understandable, considering their current position.

    In short, if you want to play in the big leagues, you’d’ better be prepared to shell out the coin to buy the bats.

    That’s it for now…I have to get up in 5 hours….

    #10346
    Avatar of wohl1917
    wohl1917
    Participant

    First, Welcome aboard. Second, go back and read the posts on this thread. ‘Fighting’ as in waging war against any first, second or even third world military establishment is unrealistic and only the ‘morons’ would seriously suggest otherwise. Like the Swiss Military establishment, a Seastead Militia would be a deterant to crime and casual harrasment which Nation States sometimes engage in. As for ‘serious criminal gang‘ I think you’re wrong. Strait-up criminals are lazy cowards. That’s why they’re criminals. Rank and File Freedom Fighters and/or Terrorists are’nt much better than a ‘bunch of barely-trained people with some small arms’ so your average seastead militia would be more than a match for most of them!

    < http://ocr.wikia.com/wiki/Oceanic_Citizens_Republic_Wiki>

    Avatar of Clinkerbuilt
    Clinkerbuilt
    Participant

    wohl1917 ,

    No worries! It’s important, sometimes, to get back on track.

    If your greatest threat is only gangs of the drive-by variety, yes, you can probably get away with a glorified militia/heavily-armed police force.

    But that doesn’t mean that you can ignore the other side of it. In all honesty, once you get outside of Europe, the Americas and a few places in Asia and Africa, there simply isn’t a great deal of credible military threat to anyone with any kind of organization. Ex-colonial powers are a threat, of course, but that only comes into play if you are trying to attack someone.

    As to “criminal gangs”, I am thinking in terms of Somali pirates operating far out into the Indian Ocean from motherships. They might be “gangs”, but they are still a credible threat that requires more than a simple ‘police-type’ response.

    #10349
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    First, “Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum”…or, to put it another way, “Power grows from the barrel of a gun”.

    Not power. Peace.

    Si vis pacem, para bellum. = If you want peace, prepare for war.

    Being armed (preparing for war) is prudent, but you will not gain power over others this way, because they will do the same. Everybody having defensive arms leads to peace because aggression becomes dangerous and expensive.

    #10360
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    Clinkerbuilt wrote:
    Look at the history of only the United States: in every single war, once the mass militia/volunteer force went into battle, they took horrific and disproportionate casualties in every single fight, until the troops got a lot more experience, and got far more professional, right up to Korea.

    From the first year of the American Revolution

    Troops | Killed | Wounded = Total | as % of Troops

    Lexington/Concord
    3,763 | 49 | 41 = 90 | 02.39170874302418
    1,800 | 73 | 174 = 247 | 13.72222222222222

    Bunker (Breed’s) Hill
    2,000 | 140 | 271 = 411 | 20.55
    2,400 | 226 | 826 = 1052 | 43.83333333333333

    Great Bridge
    1,000 | 0 | 1 = 1 | 00.1
    600 | | = 62 | 10.33333333333333

    Quebec
    800 | | = 60 | 07.5
    1,800 | 5 | 13 = 18 | 01.

    A military reserve force is perfectly capable of being porfessional soilders.

    #10361
    Avatar of Gentry
    Gentry
    Participant

    Well the US army and it’s often employment of reserves hasn’t exactly got a history of consistently dazzling performances. On the contrary.

    But remember that’s just one example.

    You then get militias such as Hezbollah, which are incredibly effective and successful fighting forces, capable of directly engaging forces conventionally far greater than it’s self.

    But I keep reiterating my personal opinion. We don’t need a military establishment. It’s a political, legal and social nightmare that we would be better off without. And I tire of all these hypothetical doomsday theories that people throw about just to try and justify having one.

    We need some form of a Security/police/coastguard/fire fighting outfit, without the emphasis on killing hypothetical boogiemen.

    #10362
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    Gentry wrote:

    We don’t need a military establishment. We need some form of a Security/police/coastguard/fire fighting outfit, without the emphasis on killing hypothetical boogiemen.

    The Coastguard IS A military establishment.

    As for Security/police They are involed with arm conflict? If they are then de facto they are arm forces.

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #10365
    Avatar of wohl1917
    wohl1917
    Participant

    expect that Seasteads are going to have firefights to start with! By virtue of the fact that that most seasteads will be out beyond the EEZ, beyond where most of the people who would mess with us are going to bother to go, we can by means of a deterant force ‘deter’ force against us!

    < http://ocr.wikia.com/wiki/Oceanic_Citizens_Republic_Wiki>

    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    It is unreasonable to compare the sort of firefights a seastead militia might become involved in with the revolutionary war, they had single shot muskets, swords and inaccurate cannons, they also were a more honourable people with higher moral and ethical standards.

    Today. victims do not even see their killers, Where is the honour in kidnap and murder if the ransom is not paid. Where is the morality in murdering captives and casualties of war rather than look after them as might be expected from a professional fighting force.

    If we stand up to any nationalities armed forces we will be slaugtered in our sleep, if a criminal gang tries to extort protection money from us, how will we defend the seastead from a small bomb planted on it or a mortar. missile or torpedo, if we want any hope of defending ourselves, there can be no half measures, we must be ready to engage those threats we think we can handle and surrender to those we cannot.

    A seastead will be the most vulnerable community in the history of civilisation.

    #10371
    Avatar of Gentry
    Gentry
    Participant

    Altaica wrote:

    Gentry wrote:

    We don’t need a military establishment. We need some form of a Security/police/coastguard/fire fighting outfit, without the emphasis on killing hypothetical boogiemen.

    The Coastguard IS A military establishment.

    As for Security/police They are involed with arm conflict? If they are then de facto they are arm forces.

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    [/quote]

    There is little more asinine than the argument of semantics.

    #10379
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    Gentry wrote:

    There is little more asinine than the argument of semantics.

    Never heard of ALFRED KORZYBSKI I take it?

    esgs.free.fr/uk/art/sands.htm

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #10381
    Avatar of Gentry
    Gentry
    Participant

    haha more asininity.

    General semantics is not related to semantics.

    #10388
    Avatar of elspru
    elspru
    Participant

    Gentry wrote:

    Well the US army and it’s often employment of reserves hasn’t exactly got a history of consistently dazzling performances. On the contrary.

    But remember that’s just one example.

    IT is however the way of many a monopoly,

    or large “run-away” organizations.

    American military terrorizes much of the planet,

    while keeping blinds on their own people.

    You then get militias such as Hezbollah, which are incredibly effective and successful fighting forces, capable of directly engaging forces conventionally far greater than it’s self.

    As any Guerilla Warfarers.

    But I keep reiterating my personal opinion. We don’t need a military establishment. It’s a political, legal and social nightmare that we would be better off without. And I tire of all these hypothetical doomsday theories that people throw about just to try and justify having one.

    I agree that haing a formal singular military will probably be just as all those already in existence.

    We need some form of a Security/police/coastguard/fire fighting outfit, without the emphasis on killing hypothetical boogiemen.

    That seems somewhat of a contradiction to your previous statement.

    On a small scale, such as within an atom-tribe community of under a 128 people can manage themselves.

    Can play games in groups as practice drills for events.

    Teams of up to 7 are socially efficient.

    Resilience is had in having small self-replicating communities.

    Being able to live directly from what mother nature provides,

    converting it into food, tools and products.

    Small groups can hide easier.

    These atom-tribes can form molecules,

    for collective action.

    Having trade relations can be beneficial in creating and maintaining partnerships,

    just as how atoms can share electrons, so they can share a trade route.

    If a military action is required any atom tribe can do it,

    though if they are allied with one that specializes in the specific action can be relied upon.

    With self-replicating fabrication laboratories,

    we’d be able to make robots,

    that we can use as avatars to do iffy work.

    tranquil aware desire choice love express intuit channel

    #10401
    Avatar of Shouri
    Shouri
    Participant

    Nutrients, potable water, breathable gas, electricity, communication, transportation, entertainment (sexual and social interaction included), security (law enforcement, firefighting, military), safety (medicare, sturdy seastead well able to adapt to ocean life), comfort… these are the primary needs of seastead citizens i guess. Since no one would actually move into a seastead permanently unless these conditions are met. To live in a seastead one will need to have expertise in one of these fields or will need to have surplus cash to live there, these two types of people can find the above conditions in land easier than they will find them on/in a seastead. What I am saying is, to create a sustainable living on/in a seastead we need educated people with expertise in certain fields or rich people, and such people won’t simply move in only with the knowledge ‘we can survive out there!’. Let’s say we have a seastead well able to sustain 128 or so people, how many people do we need to operate it? Aquaculture, fishing, aqua/hydro/aeroponics, filteration of seawater via reverse osmosis, internet connection, health services, distrubation of food, lotsa technicians with different exoertise for maintenance(solar panels, wind turbines, sewage reprocess, water distrubation etc etc, list goes on and on).

    In such a seastead will we have enough resources to look after a professional military? perhaps not, even if we have such resources i certainly would like to turn them into wealth instead of sustaining a pro military force.

    When we take the facts into consideration idea of having more than 4-5 professional military/security/firefighting personell is not feasable. Yet people do need security.

    Example.. Some pirates surrounded/cornered our seastead let say they have 3 boats and 3 rpgs, 20 AK-47s ready to fire, how can a 128 men seastead community save themselves from this situation? I think they simply can not, they can repel pirates perhaps but damage to seastead will be high most probably high enough to sink it.

    I know my example is too shallow, but what i want to point out is once enemy is close to our seastead they can sink it at will, and if seastead fires at them instead of giving them what they want, they won’t hesitate to fire.

    Escaping as soon as we detect them won’t be possible perhaps since we aren’t expecting to have high mobility in our seasteads to keep a seastead secure 1st we must know that they are coming 2nd we must handle the enemy accordingly before we enter their attack range. Shortly we need a way to detect and a way to destroy them at long range, this requires precise artilerry, radars&sonars. what we need is to have enough professional military personell to operate such a system and i do think 5 is enough. It is unlikely to have a gunfight onboard since it will probably be to late if we are at their firing range to repel them without harm, and i wouldn’t like to be on a seastead sinking in the middle of no where. Still training citizens in wielding, firing weapons and in martial arts may prove useful in unexpected situations.

    Though this is another problem, since installing an artilerry to a seastead will attract unwanted attention of big gunz. So we can perhaps use a submarine (cost is problematic though) for ‘destroy’ part of our ‘search&destroy’ mission.

    As for firefighting and peacekeeping onboard the seastead, we should just do it as we do on a ship, i dont think it is necessary to spend resource for firefighting and peacekeeping personell…

    Why don’t we build an underwater seastead and get rid of our worries for protection is another question that comes to mind…

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 143 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate