If our society emerged into anarchism, what would happen to all of our nukes and bombs, etc.?
Also, what about militaries invading us?
Thanks!
The bombs would likely rot. They would first likely come into private hands but then who wants to live next to someone with a nuke or even a ten thousand pound bomb in the living room? The possession of unfocussable weapons while not aggressive in and of itself would likely give enough people pause in associating with the owners that they would get sold off and disappear over time. You’d have to question the motives and character of people who want to hold weapons that can’t be focussed solely on aggressors but by nature would take out an entire city. People like the government.
As for the militaries, for one we wouldn’t be pissing people off en masse anymore with ridiculous foreign policy, so not many aggressors left. Second, considering how much heat America is packing now and how much more we likely would in a more libertairan to anarchist state, all I can say to any invading army is, “Best of luck.” And to anyone who doubts that I always like to point out to them how much trouble a few thousand armed and resourceful middle easterners are giving the US military, supposedly the greatest in the world, In Afganistan and Iraq. Based on that, I don’t think a few million armed Americans would be easier to deal with for any other army.
I couldn’t agree any less. Nuclear weapons are the best answer to a ‘national’ Anarchist defense. No upkeep and highly effective. All you need is a bomber which wouldn’t be that hard to put together between the wealthy Anarchs. The Anarchist territory wouldn’t have to waste its time considering guerilla warfare scenarios. Just the possession of a cache of nuclear weapons would help deter the initiation of invasion in the first place.
Consider that guerilla warfare does require an agrarian society, an autarkic minimalist people. The anarchs would be no such people do to the totality of free trade in that territory. It’s likely that lots of necessary survival items would be imported, making guerilla war incredibly costly and less feasible than in Vietnam for example.
Consider a wealthy man gets hold of the nukes and uses them and a standing army as leway to build an empire around himself, i.e starting a state again.
What about that?
No upkeep
Really?
The thought of individuals having access to nuclear weapons is very scary and impractical…
Hmm. Perhaps Libertarianism is the way to go. There are simple some areas of Anarchism that are just too farfetched to have a decent answer to…
I don’t understand why “individuals” having nuclear weapons is more scary that “groups”. Groups have always been much more scary (and much more dangerous) than individuals in my experience.
And “impractical”? Could you explain that?
I didn’t realize “areas” of a philosophy needed to have an “answer”.
My suggestion is to put them in huge “Take a bomb, leave a bomb” boxes around the country.
Yet people don’t have any objection to nuclear weapons for individuals in costumes working for a state with little to no responsibility for their actions. Go figure.
Anarchism is no nirvana. Nuclear wepons are practical only as a scare and awe tactic - it is pointless to be a parasite without a host…
Can you explain what you mean by this?
Can you please provide a proof for this?
Personally, I think the bombs would be dismantled. The uranium, plutonium, etc. within them would be more valued for use in nuclear reactors.
Why would other militaries invade us?
I don’t necessarily disagree, but I do think it would also deter people from wanting anything to do with the individuals who owned the weapons. I think the tendency in an anarchist society would be toward smaller scale focussed weapons with people who owned large scale destructive devices garnering a lot of suspicion for themselves. You’re also wrong about the maintenance issue, nukes require maintenance.
Why does the US military invade everywhere else? My presumption was he meant miitaries still under state control, and the invade for the simple reason that they consider it easier to take than to trade.
So, which countries today do you think would be likely to try and invade?
My understanding is that, currently, most other military forces (aside from US allies) aren’t really invading anywhere. Do you think that’s because of the “Pax Americana”, or something else?
Certainly groups use of nukes has proven to be very frightening. I don’t think hardly anyone would “use” the mini-nukes or full-nukes, but certainly some people are chemically imbalanced and WOULD.
The deaths of this nuke would obviously outweigh that of a crazed gunman. It simply isn’t logical to just let everyone have access to mini-nukes or chemical bombs, etc. Not saying government possession is any better, but I see a lot of attacks via individuals.
Just look at the news, a new gunman seems to popout every other day. Imagine that but with a nuke.
Answers certainly make it a more viable philosophy as far as I’m concerned.
I don’t think militaries would readily invade us if we were freely trading, because that would be incentive not to invade, obviously.
I don’t know of any circumstances. Who knows, perhaps another Hitler arises in Canada and decides to start and axis.
We would have armed civilians, sure, but I don’t think 1940-1945 Europe would have done well with no militia against Hitler.
So…what’s the difference?
…okaaay…and? The deaths of a small bomb made from everyday kitchen supplies could obviously outweigh that of a crazed gunman. What’s your point?
I honestly fail to see what logic has to do with it. If anything, I would say it’s illogical to aggress upon people who have not aggressed on anyone else. (Which is what you are recommending.)
If there’s no difference, why does it matter? And besides…can you please tell me where all these individiuals are going to get the resources and technical knowledge to even handle radioactive material, let alone build a working nuclear bomb?
That has got to be one of the most naive and (forgive me) dumb things I’ve ever heard. That’s actually worse than: "We can’t have jet planes flying around in the sky. Just look at the news, hundreds, maybe thousands of car accidents every single day. Imagine that but with a transportation device the size (and explosiveness) of a couple dozen cars, that could crash anywhere…not just on the road.
Answers to what? I thought answers were supposed to be responses to questions. Again, I didn’t realize “areas” of a philosophy needed to have an “answer”. That doesn’t even make sense.