Billy Brown [bbrown@conemsco.com] wrote:
>When name-calling begins, the opportunity for productive discussion has
>ended.
>The evolution of warfare over the last thousand years shows a clear trend of
>increasing advantage to those who have the largest concentration of wealth.
Perhaps. But if so, why do you think that the states will be more wealthy than the anarchists? In my experience smart people, the ones who create that wealth, just hate being told what to do, and I'd expect them to be among the first to abandon states for anarchy.
>The early 21st century may well see the emergence of cheap weapons of mass
>destruction, especially nuclear devices. This trend is a threat to the very
>existence of civilization, and may well demand that we expand into space or
>take other drastic measures in order to survive.
But, but, but, the advantage is with the large group with lots of money! How could relatively poor groups with nuclear weapons be a threat to them? Unless, perhaps, your argument is wrong...
Oh, and I think you meant to save 'government' rather than 'civilization'.
>Instead, it creates a
>demand for ABM systems,
The problem with ABM systems is that so far no-one has ever been able to build one that works worth a damn.
>improved minesweeping
No army can move very fast when it has to sweep every step of the way for nuclear landmines.
>long-duration sealed environment systems,
Won't matter much if you're vapor.
>and universal
>surveillance.
And you'll be surveilling this anarchy how, exactly? You may be able to keep your own people under control that way, but there will always be others outside. Not to mention that the more you try to control your population, the more they're going to resist and the worse your position will become. You'll have to move on to brain implants if you want to keep control.
>Once again, those who have lots of money will be better able
>to deal with such threats than those who do not.
Possibly, but the more money they have to spend to counteract my low-cost threats, the worse their position becomes. If they have to spend a billion dollars to stop each of my half-million dollar missiles, they're doomed. It's not how much money you have, it's what you do with it.
>First, they consistently assume that the side they favor is immune to all
>the problems of organization, logistics and engineering that make real
>warfare (not to mention real manufacturing) expensive.
The great thing about anarchy is that you don't have to worry about organizational problems because you have a very limited organization. You see a nation-state heading towards you, you have a nuke, you launch it. That's all the organization you need.
>They assume that
>anything they want to use can be made cheap and plentiful
A half-million dollar short-range nuclear missile is perfectly plausible. You have any evidence to the contrary?
>Then they assume that the
>other side is still subject to all of the problems and limitations we see in
>the real world.
Uh, because they are? I mean, the US military did invent the terms SNAFU and FUBAR, after all. They're well-known organizational monstrosities.
>Second, they tend to assume that the side they favor has access to the
>technology of the early 21st century, while the side they oppose is limited
>to what was in common use a few years ago.
No... it's just a matter of reality. If they're attacking me, then they're doing it either because they're scared of me or because I have something they want. In the former case they can pattern-bomb me with nukes and I've probably lost. But in the latter case, they can't hurt me too badly, whereas I don't give a damn about the damage to them. I then have the advantage, because I can use mass-destruction weapons and they can't.
>I think there is already far too
>much data on this subject in the public domain, and I'm not going to
>contribute to the problem.
Mark