In order not to kill civilians in war and uphold NAP, you have to resort to guerilla warfare. But is it really possible to fight guerilla against rockets, airplanes and other modern machinery? How are you supposed to go fight against people who send rockets at you thousands of kilometers away? Is it even realistic to uphold NAP during a war? Are there good articles or books about it?
Thanks.
Not exactly what you’re looking for, but it does explain how a free nation might defend itself without violating the non-aggression principal. http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_3/20_3_2.pdf
Wow, very nice article. But I doubt such method of resistance would be used in most cases. It is useful in some cases though.
After much though on the issue I have come to one conclusion on the whether guerilla is the answer to the problem of defense in a free society: clearly not!
Guerrilla is useless for a free society. The reason is simple. In a normal war, the frontline is the line where the division of labor ends. If we forget about the operetta wars of the civilized ages, it becomes clear that no trade can flow through a front line for long, whether formal embargos are in place or not.
The principle of guerilla is to turn the whole country into a frontline, thus the division of labor through and through must end! The first principle of guerrilla is that it can only be waged in a world of self-sufficient farmers. The same goes for civil war, which is just a war where both sides employ guerilla tactics.
The Israelis in 1948 where a nation of farmers and could fight guerrilla style. The Albanians in Kosovo 10 years ago where a nation of farmers and could go guerilla. Vietnam was a nation of farmers. Afghanistan has always been a nation of self-sufficient farmers and herders. There just isn’t one example where a successful and intense guerilla action has been fought by a stratified society.
Thus it becomes clear, that should a free society be invaded, it’s only recourse would be to destroy it own prosperity by engaging in guerrilla. It is not puzzling then, that many a people in history have chosen subjugation, rather that the eradication of their cities (and thus of their culture) by going guerrilla. Until 1945 there just wasn’t any way for a stratified society to defend itself save for regular armies and geographic features.
It’s always possible (and generally easier) to win by using guerilla warfare although it may require a lot of resources (for example, developing and making rockets that can destroy the latest “rocket proof” armor)
I’ve always thought that this country’s military, if it is to exist, should not be allowed off U.S. soil. There never would’ve been any wars involving the U.S. if the Constitution had placed that war powers limitation on the government.
So Merlin, if not guerilla, what then? Are you saying you can’t defend yourself without breaking the NAP?
Behold, the greatest invention in the history of mankind! Ja marrsha të ligat, ia marrsha!
Yep, I’m saying that before 1945 might made right, and no small state (let alone a hypothetical free society) could defend against the legions of the Empires. The free spots that survived did so because nature had shielded them (Venice, Switzerland, England, the US, Japan) Centralization was the norm, and it’s no accident that in 1945 the world was divided into the smallest number of states ever. Nukes now allow even city-states to defend against the US, so from now on it’s a downhill struggle. Freedom will come in the form of progression decentralization, its just a matter of when. But all this is only due to nukes allowing for cheap defense. I really cannot read history in any other way.
Non sequitur. Try again.
They’re actually not cheap at all, it’s a popular misconception. Nothing the military industrial complex produces is cheap. It is very difficult and expensive to build a nuclear weapon small enough to fit onto a missile, and then you have to keep them maintained in working order. You also need to maintain an effective delivery system, such as a fleet of nuclear submarines or those mobile land-based launchers the Russians have moving around constantly.
You can fling radioactive material at someone easily enough, but an actual nuclear explosion is quite the trick. A faction would need an extensive and advanced homegrown nuclear industry in order to have the materials and expertise on hand to build and maintain nuclear weapons, even if they were cribbing all the notes from an opponent, like most nuclear powers.
Defence systems against ballistic missiles are also a concern these days. If it’s possible to destroy a satellite in orbit - and it is documented to be - then ballistic missiles are vulnerable too. In order to compensate for this, you would need a LOT of nuclear devices, just so there’s the realistic threat of a few making it through.
If it is possible to manipulate the Earth’s ionosphere the way I have read that it is, then it is possible to destroy incoming ballistic missiles, or satellites or meteroids, fairly reliably. (And God only knows what else you can do…)
If foreign forces are not occupying your country why would they bomb it? But it is possible to fight against this. Look at the IRAs numerous bombing campaigns in England while fighting the Brits in Ireland as well. These bombing campaigns were the main catalyst for peace talks. The bombings of places like Canary Wharf and Manchester caused hundreds of millions pounds worth of damage. And that was just two bombs.
Is this a real question? Have you ever heard of vietnam?
Indeed, it is an interesting article, and I also agree that non-violent resistance would be effective in all cases. Many times the enemy would prefer not to rule over the other side - it simply wants to take what the other side has. Slaughtering the other side en masse would make this easier, if in fact it could be done.
Not to say that such things do not happen, but they tend to be unprofitable over the long term. Nobody cheers for goliath.
All of this is true, so I must qualify my position (nte that all these are martin van Creveld’s ideas, certainly not mine):
a nuclear deterrence force is cheap on a relative scale. For example, the expense that France would have needed to scare the Soviets away from attacking her would have been immense in conventional terms (not even the horribly expensive Maginot line, the next best thing, did the trick against the Germans). In relation to that, the expense of France’s actual Force de Frappe is puny and works 100% of the time. Also nukes are cheaper in manpower terms: in conventional wars, you just could not survive without the draft, while nukes allowed Europe to do away with this barbarous relic.
nukes are getting cheaper all the time. Just remember what it cost the US to build its first bombs, and then imagine how today even countries like Iran (which could never build even a decent tank!) can build a bomb in years if they are allowed to. Absolutely everything else has gotten dearer (often by leaps and bounds) since WW2, while nukes got way, way cheaper. Back than a good fighter plane cost around 50,000 bucks, while a decent fighter these days will not fly for less than 100,000,000 dollars. The expense of a good army today is prohibitive.
who said that every country has to build its bombs from the ground up? Sure, that has been the way until now, but as more and more countries break the nuclear monopoly, nukes will be commoditized too, as the market for all other military gadgets was. Thus Saudi Arabia, which could never build any decent fighter, can today simply buy exquisitely advanced EF-2000s form the UK. I do not see why nukes could not follow the same pattern.
there is no known defense against nukes. True, ballistic missiles can be shot down (but will you take the chance of even one missile slipping through?) and perhaps even cruise missiles can be. But you just cannot defend against the 1001 delivery ways which a bomb the size of a small car allow you. Will you seal off every port and airport? Will you take no cargo from abroad? The very thought of defending one’s self against a determined nuclear opponent is folly.
The IRA failed miserably. Has Ireland been united today (IRAs goal), or is the North (thankfully) still in the UK and no ethnic cleansing has been carried up there (again among IRAs goals, as far as I know)? In which sense can one say that the IRA won?
Well the Provisional IRA was originally popularised in the late 1960s and early 1970s because they were defending Nationalist areas from Loyalist attack. Their main priority was not actually to unite Ireland but to gain civil right for Catholics - voting, working, legal,etc. It achieved most these things in 1973 and almost had a large area returned to the Republic of Ireland in 1972. After these things were achieved the Ira lost most of its support. And to say that the IRA wanted to commit ethnic cleansing is far removed from the truth. If you knew anything about the IRA you would know the one of its co-founders and chiefs of staff was English and it had many protestant members. Historically most Republican leaders have been protestant, i.e. Charles Parnell, Theobald Wolfetone, Robert Emmet, etc.This is crap that is bashed around in the media constantly that Republicans are sectarian Catholics. The IRA committed some very terrible crimes and I in no way support them. However, it gave warnings to avoid civilian casualties for the vast majority of its bombings. Yes there were alot of members who were nothing but uneducated thugs, but in general these were not members who rose to senior positions. As a result incidents where the IRA purposely targeted civilians was small in number. This can be contrasted to the Loyalist paramilitaries and British security forces who coluded and conspired to murder civilians. For example kidnapping, torturing and murdering children, pregnant women, and pensioners. It is a fact that British forces interned and tortured hundreds of people for no reason other than being Catholic. And why are you thankfull that the North is still part of the UK. This is against the democratic will of the people and it has caused alot of alienation. Would you not advocate anarchism in which case the conflict would be finished because people wouldn’t fear being dominated over by another group?
First of all, I’m sorry if I offended you. I really know very little eon the conflict in Northern Ireland, and I can understand that propaganda can succeed in painting some groups as bloodthirsty terrorists (what has been done to the Albanian KLA, so I really get this). My ideas wasn’t to blame the IRA, but to discuss whether the tactic they used (terrorism) can be a viable solution for defense in a free society.
Now, if the IRA’s main goal was to gain civil rights for Catholics in the north, than I think that it would be unwise to ascribe this achievements to bombs in the UK. England is, all told, the only truly liberal society around, and sooner or later they will abolish blatant discrimination. So, pinning down this ‘victory’ on the tactic used of a terror campaign would be misleading I’d say.
And in general, terrorism is to be treated separately form guerilla and civil war because you attack the enemy, not defend yourself. Now, in theory it would be quite possible for a defense agency in a free society to retaliate by massive terror attacks in the metropolis of the attacking nation: say, if France attacked anarchist Monaco, the Ranieri Defense Inc. could retaliate by having a termobaric bomb go off in a major French city every day. In time, this would paralize the division of labor in French cities and could induce the French army to leave Monaco alone. There are three isuues here.
This requires a massive breach of the NAP. The French citizens you’re killing, or even the property being destroyed, is that of innocents.
I just do not think that Ranieri Defense Inc. could manage that. Would the secret services be so stupid as to allow bomb to be planted daily in French cities? Wouldn’t spies find out Ranieri’s operatives and whack before long? The fact that no truly intensive terror campaign has even been carried out by a non-state actor would seem to suggest that it cannot be done. Even the PLA action in the ’70 (the most intensive terror campaign I know off) killed only a fraction of the Israelis that died on road accidents, and the division of labor never stopped in Israel.
Who says that the French won’t retaliate by putting Monaco through hell? This German method worked pretty well in all but farmer countries during WW2. I see no reason to suspect that the public execution of 50 people in Monaco wouldn’t break Ranieri’s will to fight. After all, the point is to free Moanco, not destroy it.
But I concede that, should nukes be unavailable, terror in the home cities of the aggressor would be by far the best shot a free society would have. I just do not think it would be enough, and perhaps it could turn out even worse than guerilla.
You could say that for OIRA, but not for PIRA.
Well the IRAs campaign in the 70s is largely responsible for gaining civil rights. Origianally people did try protest using peacefull means, however, they were beaten off the street by the police, then they were shot off the street, and then British security forces began to give information on protesters to Protestant militias and paramilitaries who attacked and murder these people. The IRA became much stronger after the protest in the late sixties when Loyalists began to invade Nationalist areas and burned them out of their houses. The situation bacame so bad that refugee camps had to be set up at the border with the Republic. IRA units from the South then moved into the areas being seiged to protect them. If this were not o happen there would not be a Nationalist community in Northern Ireland to protest. And it was the IRA who put the most pressure on the British; certainly not the protesters. It was in 1972 when the most progress was made for equal rights. This was also the bloodiest year of the Troubles.
And please, tell me how the UK is the most liberal society around?
The ‘‘terrorists’’ in Northern Ireland managed to defend there areas by attacking the enemy. They used to patrol the ‘‘no go’’ areas and attack the British if they seen them. The IRA were labelled terrorists but they used guerilla tactics. They bombed army barracks and placed snipers both in urban and rural settings. They managed to prevent the Brits from travveling by ground in large parts of Northern Ireland. But there activity in Britain made the British public much less willing to remain in Ireland. And the IRA managed to paralise most of Britain by calling in real and hoax warnings for bombs attacks. They even managed to nearly kill two British priministers. In my opinion this was quite a good tacticc. Then in the 90s they started to let off massive bomb which one British bomb expert described as being like small nuclear bombs. This was largely the reason the Brits started peace talks in the 90s.
I’m not sure if there is really such thing as a ciilian. Any person who lives in a country is paying taxes and therefore providing funds for the army.
I don’t think the number of dead should be a calculation of success in one of these wars. My father is from a small town of just a few thousand people. Yet during the troubles the IRA detonated 300 bombs in five years without even killing 30 people. On Bloody Friday the IRA detonated 22 bombs in Belfast killing just 9 people and these deaths were because the police did not act on warnings given. In Manchester the IRA detonated a 3,300 pound bomb and didn’t even kill anyone. The fact that the IRA were able to have launch so many attacks in Britain I imagine professionals would be able to aswell. Plus I imagine ordinary people would also join in on the war in a free society.
Nothing but people are very often irrational when it comes to liberty. You can be sure that the Republic of Ireland would have done better under Englands rule, or Iran under the US’s, but people still want to be free.
Sorry yes but most members of the Provos were originally members of the OIRA or suppoters of it. I meant to say simply the IRA.
