From: Billy Brown (bbrown@conemsco.com)
Date: Mon Mar 22 1999 - 15:49:34 MST
Randall Randall wrote:
> The problem with this statement is that technology seems to be
> moving in direction of more power for the individual. That is, a
> large group of well-tained people is not significantly more capable
> than a single person, when sufficiently high technology is had by
> both sides. One hidden person with a fiber-guided missile is
> approximately equal to a tank with three crew.
This is an important issue, since the answer determines a lot about what we
can expect to happen in the event of rebellion, oppression, and other
unpleasant circumstances. It is also pretty important to the question of
whether PPAs are even possible, and whether they are prone to becoming
governments.
Let us start with the historical perspective, before we start worrying about
the effects of future technology:
In ancient times few people could afford weapons. However, the difference
in fighting power between an armed an unarmed man was not insurmountable.
Ten men with improvised weapons can generally beat one man with a sword and
armor. This problem, coupled with the limited supply of arms, meant that an
angry mob could actually be intimidating to a government.
With the invention of gunpowder, this began to change. Now a group of
well-trained soldiers could easily defeat a much larger mob of civilians.
Armed civilians were still a threat, but only to a limited degree - they
might be able to afford guns, but cannons were to expensive for all but the
richest citizens.
With industrialization the trend really picked up steam. More and better
technology was applied to warfare, resulting in a proliferation of
expensive, specialized equipment. An military force equipped with heavy
weapons, tanks, artillery and aircraft can easily defeat any imaginable
unarmed mob. Armed civilians, who are limited to relatively inexpensive
weapons, are at a severe disadvantage. It is true that man-portable weapons
can sometimes defeat more expensive hardware (as in the case of a man with
an anti-tank rocket), but these weapons are themselves rather expensive
(think thousands to tens of thousands of dollars).
At the same time, the complexity of military operations has increased
enormously. Where once it was possible for a militia to grab their weapons
and march straight to the battlefield, it now takes months of training to
form a group of reservists into an effective unit. Civilians, even armed
ones, would likely need a year or two of preparation to learn the
intricacies of modern logistics, fire support, air operations, etc.
Today it is virtually impossible to defeat a modern army in conventional
warfare unless you have one yourself. Getting a modern army requires much
larger investments than any private effort is likely to be capable of - the
minimum size would seem to call for several hundred thousand full-time
personnel and an investment of hundreds of billions of dollars. If you have
two different forces that both fall below that scale, the bigger one will
have a dramatic advantage in combat.
Guerilla warfare has been shown to be fairly effective so long as the
insurgents have access to safe havens and outside funding. However, where
both of these conditions are not met they generally fail. Lack of safe
havens means they have nowhere to train recruits, stockpile supplies, and
plan strategy. Lack of outside funding means they rapidly run out of money,
and will never be able to afford the weapons they need to win a battle. It
is also worth mentioning that most insurgents in the 20th century have been
fighting third-world governments which themselves were too poor to afford a
modern military.
In the future, we should reasonably expect these trends to continue. There
are far more things a military might want to buy than they are ever likely
to be able to afford. The near future will see the introduction of
autonomous recon drones, robotic weapons, cheap precision munitions,
automated surveillance systems, and many other expensive, specialized sorts
of hardware. An organization that can afford to buy such equipment, and
that trains enough to learn to use it effectively, will have a decisive
advantage over anyone who does not do likewise. In the industrial age,
warfare of any kind favors the deepest pockets.
Billy Brown, MCSE+I
bbrown@conemsco.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:22 MST