danw@oliven.UUCP (danw) (11/27/84)
[] Please note among Libertarians there is not complete agreement on every point of human interaction , child rights and funding the army are two notable points of contention. Therefore the following should be viewed for what it is - the submission of one libertarian. Given1: we attacked Japan with atomic weapons knowing that they did not have the ability to hit back. Given2: no one has nuclear weapons trained on New Zealand. A proper National defense policy must incorporate BOTH of the ideas mentioned above. This is easier to say than to do as the ideas appear to be mutually exclusive positions. If Japan had a nuclear capability ( or even the good posability of) possessing a bomb . Our actions would all most certainly been different. For example the Nazies had large stockpiles of VN nerve gas (and V1 and V2 rockets to deliver it with ). They did not use nerve gas out of fear that we would retaliate. It is an inescapable fact that deterrance can work. Now as to the second point, the liberals are also correct. New Zealand threatens no one and is therefore not itself threatened. (Most libertarian militarists feel Switzerland is a better model, as they are both non threatening and able to defend themselves) ------------------------- Given3: we have no credible (conventional) military force with which to threaten the USSR. And the Russians have no conventional forces with which to threaten the continental USA. Given4: People will only fight a war when there is some thing that scares them worse that the horror of war. What makes the USSR that scared of us? The USA and the USSR are separated by both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Our multi zillion dollar aircraft carrier battle groups not withstanding, the fact remains, we are simply not capable of mounting a Normandy D-Day style invasion of the USSR. The Russians know this. They have even fewer ships and are also NO threat to the continental USA. Why then are we pointing nuclear weapons at each other? Because of our (plural) foreign policy. The USA has set itself up as the policeman of the world. It is this proselytizing on our part that threatens the russian system so deeply that they are able to contemplate war as an alternative to ideological defeat. We are only recently beginning to realize what a terrible price we have to pay as a result of this chauvinism. (If we can change our ways in time perhaps we can escape paying the ultimate price.) At some point we must ask why must we pay such a terrible price to defend Europe (these are wealthy nations well able to pay much more than they do, it is THEIR homeland not ours ). Libertarian foreign policy is clear an unequivocal. A libertarian free state MUST be neutral. The Swiss ,living in the heart of warelike europe, have not fought a war in modern times. Militant libertarians advocate a Swiss style military: Small, defensive ,and non interventionist. ------------------------- A semiofficial Libertarian view of: > NATO: No. Europeans if they disire defense can pay for it. > A 300 ship navy: No. Why do we need to project a military presence to the far corners of the world? It is costly and forces others to train nuclear weapons on our cities. > B1: No. For the same reason we don't need a large number of nuclear powered air craft carriers. Our defense department is unaccustomed to thinking defensively, it will be a new experience for them. > MX : No. I hate to give the liberals credit, but on this one they are right, this IS a first strike weapon. We MUST learn to think defensively, not offensively, no one will believe in our neutral position if we produce offensive weapons. > Trident subs: ? Probably not, 1 they are VERY expensive (keep in mind we are talking voluntary contributions here) and 2 they probably require a surface navy to protect them. America stops 3 miles off shore. Any less exacting philosophy will in time surely lead to foreign entanglements. > National guard: Yes. Provided it is not an arm of the government as it is now. To provide a Swiss style credible deterrance, a good portion of the population must be willing to join the home guard, and to keep their weapons in working order. No sane general will tangle with an all volunteer, well trained, well equipped, motivated home guard. A home guard defending their home is a formatable army. This is not theory, it is historical fact. A man defending his home has nowhere to retreat to, an army of such men will fight to the last man, inflicting terrible casualties on the enemy. The Swiss have done so repeatedly, foreign armies have learned to stay out of Switzerland. The most recent example of this was the third rich. The conquered Europe but went to great lengths to avoid a war with Switzerland. We can do worse than copy them. > Midget Man missile. Probably. This is a small, single warhead weapon. It is relatively inexpensive. It does not make a good first strike weapon. A good basing mode for the weapon has been preposed, put it in tunnels inside a mountains in the far western united states. (In a time of crisis a new tunnel is cut to the surface.) A potential enemy must blow up several mountain ranges to even begin to have a chance of destroying the buried weapons. (There is some question as to whether this is possible without setting off a nuclear winter.) This is not a first strike system. It takes as much as three days to dig the missiles out. Digging all of the missiles out at once (for a first strike) would be inadvisable as this much activity would stand a good chance of being detected by a reconnaissance satellite. Nor is this a weapon to respond quickly, in anger. Many men are required to dig the necessary multi thousand foot tunnels to the surface. (We would all sleep better at night if Minuteman missiles were as difficult to launch.) Just as in WW2 Japan could have deterred us with a single bomb , and a submarine to get it to San Diego, this proposed system could deter Soviet aggression. We would be able to destroy 10 or 20 major russian cities, killing tens of millions of people. All this without being a day to day threat to their homeland. Most important from a Libertarian standpoint it is possible with the voluntary contributions of 260 million people to pay for the 10 to 20 necessary missiles and old mine shafts. Most likely (Russian) response to this action: In the short run, none. In time, economics would force them to do the same. Missiles die of old age, the propellant ages, and the explosives in the warhead degrade with time, lube oil in the gyros oxidizes, metal fittings and electrical connections corrode, etc. etc. Replacing aging missiles is VERY expensive, and if there is no pressing need, excuses will always be found to spend the money on some thing productive. It is even possible that our present threatening actions , act as a cohesive force to cement differing soviet factions together, (present a united front to the common enemy as it were) ------------------------- This has run on for longer than i had anticipated, but i hope it is some help to people who wish to live in the modern world,without being forced to surrender their wealth and freedoms to governments, that falsely claim that only they can protect us from nuclear holocaust. Governments start wars people do not. danw
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/29/84)
> Why then are we pointing nuclear weapons at each other? > > Because of our (plural) foreign policy. The USA has > set itself up as the policeman of the world. It is this > proselytizing on our part that threatens the russian system > so deeply that they are able to contemplate war as an alternative > to ideological defeat. We are only recently beginning to realize > what a terrible price we have to pay as a result of this chauvinism. > (If we can change our ways in time perhaps we can escape paying > the ultimate price.) > At some point we must ask why must we pay such a terrible price > to defend Europe (these are wealthy nations well able to pay > much more than they do, it is THEIR homeland not ours ). > Libertarian foreign policy is clear an unequivocal. > A libertarian free state MUST be neutral. The Swiss ,living > in the heart of warelike europe, have not fought a war in > modern times. Militant libertarians advocate a Swiss style > military: Small, defensive ,and non interventionist. Switzerland is not in danger of invasion for the reasons you give, and also a few others: first, there is nobody who would gain much from invading Switzerland, and second, anybody invading Switzerland would certainly enrage other countries, even though Switzerland is officially neutral. There is a big reason who the US CANNOT AFFORD to be neutral -- the USSR is not neutral, and there is no reason why they should become neutral in the future. It is in their interests to be an agressive power, if only because totalitarian countries generally deal with domestic failures by seeking foreign policy successes. We cannot afford to let the USSR become too powerful, because their avowed goals include world domination, and that includes us. > > A 300 ship navy: No. Why do we need to project a > military presence to the far corners of the world? It is > costly and forces others to train nuclear weapons on our cities. Forces?? What kind of rationalization is this? We need to project our military precence in places like the Middle East because we have some very vital interests to protect there, like friendly oil-producing countries. If Saudi Arabia, say, fell to the Soviets it would be a mortal blow to US industry. Only the USSR has missles pointed at our cities, and preventing them from taking over half of the world is hardly forcing them to do this. > (keep in mind we are talking voluntary contributions here) I think that the idea of "armies paid for by charity" has been sufficiently ridiculed already that I don't have to say anything about this. > No sane general will tangle with an all volunteer, > well trained, well equipped, motivated home guard. No, they'll just nuke them. > Most likely (Russian) response to this action: In the short > run, none. In time, economics would force them to do the same. > Missiles die of old age, the propellant ages, and the explosives in > the warhead degrade with time, lube oil in the gyros oxidizes, > metal fittings and electrical connections corrode, etc. etc. > Replacing aging missiles is VERY expensive, and if there is no > pressing need, excuses will always be found to spend the > money on some thing productive. They may get rid of some of them, but keep enough to make sure that they feel secure in taking over the rest of Europe and Asia. > It is even possible that our present threatening actions , act > as a cohesive force to cement differing soviet factions together, > (present a united front to the common enemy as it were) Here we have this idea that the Soviets are the good guys and we're the bad guys again. If we ever lose a war against the Soviets or against any other countries in the world, it will be because of people like you who are continually doubting whether the US even deserves to survive in the world. > This has run on for longer than i had anticipated, but > i hope it is some help to people who wish to live in the > modern world,without being forced to surrender their wealth > and freedoms to governments, that falsely claim that only they > can protect us from nuclear holocaust. > Governments start wars people do not. Maybe without governments there would be no nuclear holocaust, but there would also be no hope of defending a country against agression. Armies cannot be supported by charity -- it takes so much money to run a modern army that people just wouldn't be willing to spend it if they thought that Jones next door might not be giving and letting everybody else pay his way. Also, a non-agressive foreign policy would be suicide -- it would be abandoning the rest of the world to the Soviets, and as soon as they have taken it all, we would have very little chance in a war against them. A few nukes tossed at a few major cities and we'd have had it. (I'm not about to trust private army companies to build their own nukes either, because there are plenty of people out there who could think of much better uses for nukes than deterrents against the Soviets.) If I were you I'd stick to expounding libertarianism as a social and economic philosophy -- when you get into foreign affair you only expose the whole system to ridicule. Wayne