Without one, would some other tyrant just come in and take us over?
Would you let him?
You should read Martin van Creveld’s (of Rise and Decline of the State) The Transformation of War.
The conclusion is that the armies of the 20th century, evolving from the armies of the 19th and 18th centuries, are totally obsolete. They will be remembered only as legend in the 21st and beyond, much like Alexander the Great’s army was a legend for the entire Middle Ages.
Tanks, airplanes, missiles, they are chess pieces in a game of checkers.
Who’s we?
And, as always, your very will for a tyrant not to arise which would be a common concern would lead to a secure defence market.
I’m not a revolutionary war historian: was the Continental Army previously a professional army, or was it mostly made of new, voluntary recruits?
The officers in the continental army had served in the colonial army of Britain, most notably George Washington.
I don’t think that’s relevant however. The revolutionary war was a state vs. state war, and so the rules of war were to capture or defend the state. In a state vs. non-state war, or a non-state vs. non-state war, the rules are completely different.
what would i use?
some guns to take on, lets say some tyrant tanks and jets?
who in a free market would have enough resources to build jets and tanks?
Thanks and jets are only useful for destroying other tanks and jets. That’s why they haven’t seen much action since “the end of major combat operations” in Iraq. (Probably the most insightful thing GWB will ever say.)
fine…tanks then…
yeah…I’m gonna take on tanks and atrillery strikes with my gun…
come on…
I presume general officers, right? What about the junior officers and enlisted soldiers?
That wasn’t really the point behind me using the Revolutionary War as an example. It was merely to point out that large formations of men can be formed voluntarily, and an effective defense against “better trained” militaries can be built. The advent of more accurate guns, and a wider proliferation of these weapons, makes an ad hoc defense even easier to develop. In my platoon, I think I was the only person who did not remember firing a rifle (I had fired a pistol, but I must have been two years old; ironically, I hit 36/40 targets) before training.
I would venture to guess that an anarchic society would form militias, to one extent or another, especially during “times of war”, for the purpose of self-defense.
Edit:
A note on tanks; tanks are not only useful for destroying other tanks. The tank, other than the infantryman, is the only weapon which can take and occupy territory. That’s why the Israeli Army and the U.S. Army insist on using tanks in “hot” areas, where there are a lot of anti-tank weapon threats. That’s why Saddam used tanks to keep his population in line. They are terrifying, very well protected and very dangerous.
Doing this would be very bad strategy on your part. But look at it from the tyrant’s point of view, what are his tanks and artillery strikes going to be used on?
to keep the people in line…and obey tyrant laws.
to keep the people in line and obey tyrant laws.
Ironically enough, this fact is what led to the establishment of sovereign states in the first place. As the war between the lords and other states dragged on and devastated Europe in the mid-17th century, the people started arming themselves for their own defense. The lords had to come to an agreement with each other in order to prevent another Swiss revolution.
Are the Iraqis and Afghans being kept in line and obeying laws because of tanks and artillery?
You don’t seem to have a very clear picture of how war works.
Saddam used the secret police to keep the population in line.
Israeli tanks were completely useless in the war on Hezbollah.
I’m sorry. I thought the question you asked was if he would be able to take us over.
But now you are asking if he would be able to kill us off. Sure he could. For example he could nuke us.
So what?
come on guys…
yes, I;'m saying could he take us over with tanks and artillery and jets…and force us to obey his laws…
if your answer is no…just say no…
Only if we would prefer to be taken over rather than fight to the death if necessary.
So I’ll ask again, would you let him?
Because in recent history there’ve been absolutly no examples of small, poor, and underequipped fighting forces blowing the living f*** out of a much larger and better equipped force…
Also, you stated that there would be no one in a free market who would build these things… Well where does the tyrant get them then?