Daily Anarchist Forum
May 23, 2019, 02:36:30 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
Author Topic: Viability of purchasing Sovereignty  (Read 38726 times)
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: March 14, 2013, 06:55:30 PM »

Like I keep saying you don't need a defence grid if you have a couple nukes. The threat of nuclear retaliation would be enough of a deterrent that I would be willing to bet no one would mess with AnCapistan.  As far antimissile defence systems go they already exist though they are very expensive, but if we have the money to buy the land to make Ancapistan then we probably have the money to buy the defence system.



Nukes would be far more difficult to get then you assume.  The former soviet block sold them, however, most were sold under government authority.  No government would sell a future Ancapistan any nukes, because Ancapistan would prove that governments are not necessary; no government wants their people realizing that government is not necessary.

If I had $5 bil I could buy a place to create Ancapistan, or I could buy a partial defence shield, but I couldn't buy both.  Assuming because a group of people could buy land to create Ancapistan means that they could buy a missile defence shield also is illogical; maybe they spent too much money of the land and they couldn't purchase the shield.

Also, just because one has land to setup Ancapistan doesn't mean that it would be able to retaliate after an attack; maybe all of Ancapistan got wiped-out, then wither Ancapistan had a nuke or not would be meaningless, because nobody would be around to use it in retaliation.

You have actually not solved -or even hinted at a viable solution to- any problem whatsoever about the defensive needs of a potential Ancapistan.

First of all arms dealers have access to nukes. Second of all you don't tell the guy your buying the nuke from what it's for. If nothing else you forge some papers and make it look like you work for some State that doesn't have nukes. Third of all I seriously doubt that the land is going to cost 5billion dollars we don't need to buy a continent all we need is a little sliver of land no bigger than Iwo Jima. Fourth of all who said the nuke would be in Ancapistan? Why not put  it in the US somewhere? Then leverage the threat of killing a few million Americans to get the US to bully everyone into leaving us alone. And if they don't believe you'll blow it up get another and blow that one up proving that you'll do it. Fifth of all even if you don't want to leverage the US like that if you have a nuke DO NOT put in Ancapistan, because like you pointed out it would be a simple matter to wipe it off the map, you want to be able to retaliate no matter what happens to Ancapistan. Preferably the nuke would be on a sub hiding somewhere, that way NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS to Ancapistan people will die. Think like nuking DC NYC or London... Sixth of all Patriot Missile defence systems cost 2-3 mill a piece. That isn't that much money in this context.

Lastly instead of being a nay sayer to everything I and JUSTIN come up with how about providing something that you think will work so that I can dismantle it and we can close this down by coming to the conclusion that there is no solution.

EDIT: What bothers me isn't that you are pointing out the holes in what I'm saying. What bothers me is that you aren't providing solutions. Apparently this is contained to my micro culture, but where I come from when you see a problem instead of pointing out the problem and walking away you come up with a solution.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2013, 07:27:57 PM by MAM » Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: March 14, 2013, 07:17:54 PM »

Another thing to consider is this: you can have a plan and that's all well and good however "[a] battle plan is only good until you make contact with the enemy" -George S Patton
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: March 14, 2013, 07:24:21 PM »

I actually have some tricky ideas that would allow us to have a lot of these things before ever purchasing the land. So the "quiet" part isn't crucial. It's all about doing things atomically. I won't release those ideas here though. Maybe I'll release them somewhere else under another pseudonym and hope it gets linked here at some point! It's definitely doable, and I'd love to prove you wrong.

Why would you bother with another pseudonym?
Posting under a pseudonym on a forum does not give you much anonymity. There are certain things I will not say in a place like this. I would need to find a way to release the information in a way that would make it 100% impossible to trace back to me. The outline for how a future civilization might establish and defend ancapistan is bland enough that I'm comfortable posting it here... but the details, not so much.

Quote
The outline for how a future civilization might establish and defend ancapistan is bland enough that I'm comfortable posting it here
[/b] However, you haven't provided an actual outline; you've just said that it is possible, which is itself not an outline.  If you are talking about saying somethings which would be needed as being an outline, well that is not an outline either it is just a list.
I) Interesting,
II) because that's what I thought
III) an outline was....
    a) Unless you didn't see enough
    b) indentation. I suppose we could define
    c) an outline as an ordered list of ordered lists
        i) or maybe even an ordered list of ordered lists of ordered lists
        ii) if you hit the third level.
IV) Next time I'll put some
    a) space clusters of size 4 in, that way
    b) I can satisfy your definition.
        i) Is this
        ii) better?

The ways to make it possible (in your eyes) are all impossible (in your eyes), so what's the point? The road to ancapistan isn't going to be paved in front of us. We'll have to be creative and make our own trails. If there is really NO WAY you can see any variation of this idea working, then I find you lacking in the area of creativity. This is one of the least far-fetched ideas out there. Unless you think one day everyone will download Rothbard's work?
Really, there are only 2 ways ancapistan could happen:
1) Everyone does it all at once (the whole world)
2) Some people prove the concept in a world that still has governments

Option #1 isn't going to happen. Option #2 is the only choice. If THAT is impossible to you, then you've run out of options.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: March 14, 2013, 08:10:16 PM »

Like I keep saying you don't need a defence grid if you have a couple nukes. The threat of nuclear retaliation would be enough of a deterrent that I would be willing to bet no one would mess with AnCapistan.  As far antimissile defence systems go they already exist though they are very expensive, but if we have the money to buy the land to make Ancapistan then we probably have the money to buy the defence system.



Nukes would be far more difficult to get then you assume.  The former soviet block sold them, however, most were sold under government authority.  No government would sell a future Ancapistan any nukes, because Ancapistan would prove that governments are not necessary; no government wants their people realizing that government is not necessary.

If I had $5 bil I could buy a place to create Ancapistan, or I could buy a partial defence shield, but I couldn't buy both.  Assuming because a group of people could buy land to create Ancapistan means that they could buy a missile defence shield also is illogical; maybe they spent too much money of the land and they couldn't purchase the shield.

Also, just because one has land to setup Ancapistan doesn't mean that it would be able to retaliate after an attack; maybe all of Ancapistan got wiped-out, then wither Ancapistan had a nuke or not would be meaningless, because nobody would be around to use it in retaliation.

You have actually not solved -or even hinted at a viable solution to- any problem whatsoever about the defensive needs of a potential Ancapistan.

First of all arms dealers have access to nukes. Second of all you don't tell the guy your buying the nuke from what it's for. If nothing else you forge some papers and make it look like you work for some State that doesn't have nukes. Third of all I seriously doubt that the land is going to cost 5billion dollars we don't need to buy a continent all we need is a little sliver of land no bigger than Iwo Jima. Fourth of all who said the nuke would be in Ancapistan? Why not put  it in the US somewhere? Then leverage the threat of killing a few million Americans to get the US to bully everyone into leaving us alone. And if they don't believe you'll blow it up get another and blow that one up proving that you'll do it. Fifth of all even if you don't want to leverage the US like that if you have a nuke DO NOT put in Ancapistan, because like you pointed out it would be a simple matter to wipe it off the map, you want to be able to retaliate no matter what happens to Ancapistan. Preferably the nuke would be on a sub hiding somewhere, that way NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS to Ancapistan people will die. Think like nuking DC NYC or London... Sixth of all Patriot Missile defence systems cost 2-3 mill a piece. That isn't that much money in this context.

Lastly instead of being a nay sayer to everything I and JUSTIN come up with how about providing something that you think will work so that I can dismantle it and we can close this down by coming to the conclusion that there is no solution.

EDIT: What bothers me isn't that you are pointing out the holes in what I'm saying. What bothers me is that you aren't providing solutions. Apparently this is contained to my micro culture, but where I come from when you see a problem instead of pointing out the problem and walking away you come up with a solution.

If arms dealers have nukes, then don't you think Iraq would have had one of those?  Don't you think someone might have used a nuke against the US by now?

Even if arms dealers apparently had nukes, they wouldn't just sell one to anybody.  They would only sell one -if they had it- to someone whom they've done business with for many years; this is not the movies.  Without that connection, then the arms dealer -even if they had a nuke- wouldn't sell it to you; especially considering if their are any still out on the market, then the owners are probably either known or limited to just a few possible people -at any rate they wouldn't just hand a nuke over.

The smaller the land mass which you plan to purchase, the more likely it will be terminated quickly.  Also, it would need to be big enough for several years of heavy growth.  Also, how much do you think decent land would cost anyway?

Even if the Nuke wasn't in Ancapistan, who cares?  Ewww you get to set-off one nuke after you are annihilated.  More people in the US will die the next time the New Madrid Faultline has an earthquake.  Also, if these are old soviet nukes which you think are on the black market, then there is another problem and that is that they are little more than a dirty bomb by now -due to radioactive decay.

So, now you have a landmass or island the size of Iwo Jima, you have a nuke, and a sub.  Can I place an order for a Particle beam weapon affixed to four satellites?

Sorry but Patriot missiles cost -if your right- $2-3 million each, not the defence system; only the missile -there is a difference.  How many patriot missiles do you think you would need?  Don't forget there wouldn't be getting any-more once they are used up.  Oh and you would have a hard time acquiring the Patriot Missiles in the first place, since the US is the only people officially able to sell them, and Israel are the only ones who have sold any unofficially.

Like I said, defence is the one thing I haven't figured out.  Because every government in the world would want Ancapistan ended before the idea spread.  This is a very big problem for a potentially small landmass with limited financial resources.  To figure this problem out, all of the negative variables must be accounted for, or the solution will fail.
Logged
Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: March 14, 2013, 08:40:48 PM »

I actually have some tricky ideas that would allow us to have a lot of these things before ever purchasing the land. So the "quiet" part isn't crucial. It's all about doing things atomically. I won't release those ideas here though. Maybe I'll release them somewhere else under another pseudonym and hope it gets linked here at some point! It's definitely doable, and I'd love to prove you wrong.

Why would you bother with another pseudonym?
Posting under a pseudonym on a forum does not give you much anonymity. There are certain things I will not say in a place like this. I would need to find a way to release the information in a way that would make it 100% impossible to trace back to me. The outline for how a future civilization might establish and defend ancapistan is bland enough that I'm comfortable posting it here... but the details, not so much.

Quote
The outline for how a future civilization might establish and defend ancapistan is bland enough that I'm comfortable posting it here
[/b] However, you haven't provided an actual outline; you've just said that it is possible, which is itself not an outline.  If you are talking about saying somethings which would be needed as being an outline, well that is not an outline either it is just a list.
I) Interesting,
II) because that's what I thought
III) an outline was....
    a) Unless you didn't see enough
    b) indentation. I suppose we could define
    c) an outline as an ordered list of ordered lists
        i) or maybe even an ordered list of ordered lists of ordered lists
        ii) if you hit the third level.
IV) Next time I'll put some
    a) space clusters of size 4 in, that way
    b) I can satisfy your definition.
        i) Is this
        ii) better?

The ways to make it possible (in your eyes) are all impossible (in your eyes), so what's the point? The road to ancapistan isn't going to be paved in front of us. We'll have to be creative and make our own trails. If there is really NO WAY you can see any variation of this idea working, then I find you lacking in the area of creativity. This is one of the least far-fetched ideas out there. Unless you think one day everyone will download Rothbard's work?
Really, there are only 2 ways ancapistan could happen:
1) Everyone does it all at once (the whole world)
2) Some people prove the concept in a world that still has governments

Option #1 isn't going to happen. Option #2 is the only choice. If THAT is impossible to you, then you've run out of options.

By your definition of an outline one could make this: buy land, populate the land, build defences, live happily ever after.  I'm sorry but that is not an outline, and it is only slightly more simpler than what you proposed.

As of right now, you cannot defend a hypothetical Ancapistan from the governments of the world; therefore, it will not work.  Why would any government just sit by while you build Ancapistan?  They won't and you've already admitted it.  So if the governments of the world won't just let Ancapistan happen, then you must be able to defend it from their attack; with the possibility of several Nations attacking Ancapistan.  These other governments would risk everything, because the success of Ancapistan would end their reign anyway; so they would have nothing to lose.  Also, if Ancapistan ends-up killing civilian citizens in its retaliation -such as MAM is suggesting- then you can kiss Ancapistan goodbye, because the governments of the world will decimate Ancapistan and it will be at the behest of their citizens.  So, either you stay completely on defence or Ancapistan would need to have be responsible for little to no collateral damage in its retaliation; which still doesn't mean that one of the aggressing countries would do something and blame it on Ancapistan.

Without an actual defensive ability the whole thing is moot.  Even if Ancapistan bought a nuke; without the ability to manufacture them, nobody would really be that threatened.  Also, as I've stated if you kill innocent civilians then there would be no place on earth to hide, Ancapistan would be obliterated by decree of the citizens of the other countries.

As you've stated option one isn't going to happen: Anarcho-Communists are making better headway then Anarcho-Capitalists, because they are directly effecting massive amounts of people through their Communist Gardening Initiatives in the major cities.  These people positively effected by those agricultural works will only realize that the communist system won't work after it has failed; which means that Anarcho-Capitalism isn't going to even be a thought on most people's minds any-time soon. 

Option two isn't going to work without a viable defensive plan and capability.

There is a third option which is even less realistic then the other two, but it does exist within the realms of possibilities, and that would be to take to space.  While this possibility doesn't have the challenges that the other two options have, it does have its own severe challenges to its viability as an actual possibility.

So, what we have is as follows:

Option (1) wont work, unless we can convince the vast majority of the world of the superiority of a Voluntary society as opposed to the government-style society which they all utilize in one form or another.  Chances of success: Highly unlikely.

Option (2) wont work, unless we can figure out a defensive shield capability to deter the vast nations of the world from attacking Ancapistan.  Possibility of success: Not very good.

Option (3) won't work, unless we can figure out a quicker method of space travel and better shielding from the van Allen Radiation Belt.  Also, would need to develop gravity generating devices, and settlement enclosures; plus other things:  Possibility of success: Less likely then Option (1) or (2).

The only possible solution is Option (2), however, it is not even a possibility without the ability to repel and defend itself from all Governments -possibly even simultaneously.
Logged
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: March 14, 2013, 08:57:49 PM »

The nukes are there I guarantee it. Why? Because the Soviets had thousands of them when they collapsed. Why haven't nukes been deployed against the US? I have no fucking clue I've been asking that question for years. Supposing that the nukes from the cold war era have decayed past their usefulness then why not make one? Again even if every single Soviet and US and British and Chinese and Korean and Indian and Pakistani (you get the picture?) nuclear weapon is somehow magically accounted for, a prospect which I find dubious at best and is likely fucking ridiculous why not make them? The knowledge on how to build these things is not esoteric or arcane. Am I saying that it would be easy? NO! I didn't say that getting a nuke would be easy either. You made yourself look like an ass by assuming that I said it would be easy. Obviously if it was easy everything we're talking about here would already be done.  Furthermore the MIM-104 Patriot Missile Defence SYSTEM costs wait for it ~2-3mil per unit. The AN/MSQ-104 Engagement Control Station (ECS) costs 6mil per unit. The Patriot missile itself costs between 1-6mill per unit. Patriot batteries are hardly the only option for defence vs. missiles they're just the one I picked seeing as my Paps worked those during one of his tours in Iraq and thus I knew the name.

So what more people are going to die in an Earth quake? It's not about the number of people you kill off, it's about having the ability to use them. There is a reason why the US is so determined to keep nations from getting nukes and it's not because the leaders in the nation are good natured people. It's because the more people who have nukes the less power the US has... Ever notice how it's the countries that don't have nukes that get bullied while the ones that do get left alone? It's not a co-ink-i-dink.

Quote
So, now you have a landmass or island the size of Iwo Jima, you have a nuke, and a sub.  Can I place an order for a Particle beam weapon affixed to four satellites?


Because what I'm suggesting is so improbable right? Getting a nuke is beyond possibility to you, and yet you expect all these pieces to magically fall into place at the same time... Reality check all the pieces lining up nice and pretty ain't gonna happen. You have to make due with what you've got.

Quote
Like I said, defence is the one thing I haven't figured out.  Because every government in the world would want Ancapistan ended before the idea spread.  


I think you are giving way to much credit to government. We're talking about an organization that does the same thing over and over again and wonders why it's economy keeps tanking. We're talking about a bureaucracy so cumbersome that it takes years for the simplest tasks to get done. We're talking about an organization that can't even secure it's borders. In other words we're talking about an incompetent organization. A dangerous organization true but it hardly wins medals for intelligence and efficiency. While we recognize that letting our society get a foothold would hail the end of the government age do the governments of the world realize this?

So basically based on your response to JUSTIN we should all give up because the chances of anything resembling freedom ever happening are slim to none. Sorry but if I quit that easy I would have shot myself in the head a long time ago I didn't then I'm not about to do that now.


EDIT: Nukes are powerful and capable of destroying alot of shit. But that is their weakest feature. Their greatest strength is the fear they generate, enough I think to cause the citizens of this country and the world in general to leave us alone.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2013, 09:20:38 PM by MAM » Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: March 14, 2013, 08:59:37 PM »

Quote
As of right now, you cannot defend a hypothetical Ancapistan from the governments of the world; therefore, it will not work.
Now I know you're not reading my posts.
/discussion
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: March 14, 2013, 09:41:23 PM »

There is a reason why one wouldn't want to make a nuke.  As soon as you start buying the equipment to build one -a good one- the US will know.  All of that equipment is monitored.  If you start hiring Nuke specialist, the US will know. If you think they don't have an eye on those with the education to build a proper nuke, then you aren't paying attention.  The raw material alone is monitored; unless you have a Uranium mine hidden somewhere, then the US government will know if you try to buy some.

You seem to think that the US is trying to prevent countries from getting nukes.  The US is trying to prevent countries from acquiring the technology and capability of creating their own nukes; there is a difference. One would be limited to the number of nukes purchased, the other would only have limits based on the amount of raw material it had at its disposal.

Quote
We're talking about an organization that does the same thing over and over again and wonders why it's economy keeps tanking. We're talking about a bureaucracy so cumbersome that it takes years for the simplest tasks to get done. We're talking about an organization that can't even secure it's borders. In other words we're talking about an incompetent organization.
 

You assume that, it wonder's why it's economy keeps tanking, that it is not intentional for things to get done late or not at all, and that it wants to secure it's own borders.  I contend that the US government wants the opposite of what you think it wants.  I contend that the US government wants exactly what it gets, to further drive the situation into a Global Government Solution.

While you may think that I don't want to do anything; the truth is that I won't do anything which is highly likely to fail.  I would want Ancapistan to succeed, and therefore I am compelled to look at all of the obstacles which stands in the way of achieving that goal.

@JSNTS
Quote
Now I know you're not reading my posts.
/discussion
  I've read all of your posts.  You say build defences, and then you said that you have a tricky way of doing it.  Those statements don't actually refute what I stated, which you quoted.
Logged
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: March 14, 2013, 09:51:47 PM »

Quote
While you may think that I don't want to do anything; the truth is that I won't do anything which is highly likely to fail.
We live in a world dominated by governments, statists, and evil. Anything that resembles freedom, or liberty, or anti-totalitarian, is likely to fail, that doesn't mean we should wait. I live my life today, I wait for no one.

Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: March 14, 2013, 10:05:13 PM »

@MAM
Quote
Think like nuking DC NYC or London

You are forgetting, or you didn't know, about the Continuity Of Government and the Continuity Of Operations, none of those cities even matter any-more.  You wouldn't accomplish anything, so what would be the point?  

Also, as you pointed out that a small Patriot missile system would cost starting at -once all of the prices are added- around $12 million and up.  
Quote
Furthermore the MIM-104 Patriot Missile Defence SYSTEM costs wait for it ~2-3mil per unit. The AN/MSQ-104 Engagement Control Station (ECS) costs 6mil per unit. The Patriot missile itself costs between 1-6mill per unit.

How many missiles would that include?  Once those missiles were gone where would you get any-more? The US, UK, FR, AU, CA, RU, CH, JP, and a hole host of others could launch attack after attack and you would be done after the first wave.

You mentioned all of the countries which have Nuke capabilities, however, you still didn't reason as to why they would sell you one or more -given the fact that they haven't sold anybody else any.

Quote
Nukes are powerful and capable of destroying alot of shit. But that is their weakest feature. Their greatest strength is the fear they generate, enough I think to cause the citizens of this country and the world in general to leave us alone.

Only if those nukes are attached to an ICBM and if the country had an ability to produce more of said nukes.  If a country only has a few nukes -with no ability to make any-more- and it only had short-range missile capability then the people here wouldn't fear going to war with them to stop that country from acquiring the capabilities which it was lacking.

Seriously, many people in the US believed Iraq possibly even had nukes at its disposal, and they still approved of the war, because Iraq didn't have a ICBM capable of reaching us.  Americans only fear something if they are possibly directly effected or could be directly effected.  Most Americans, though, if you threatened them would approve of covert military actions against such a country; so I would watch if you want Ancapistan to threaten the US, it will most-likely back-fire.
Logged
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: March 14, 2013, 10:09:22 PM »

Quote
You mentioned all of the countries which have Nuke capabilities, however, you still didn't reason as to why they would sell you one or more -given the fact that they haven't sold anybody else any.

I'm not sure you read my post. I don't think they would sell them to me. I don't think they're competent enough to hold on to them. I have no ethical qualms about stealing from or killing agents of the State.
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: March 15, 2013, 07:10:40 AM »

Quote
You mentioned all of the countries which have Nuke capabilities, however, you still didn't reason as to why they would sell you one or more -given the fact that they haven't sold anybody else any.

I'm not sure you read my post. I don't think they would sell them to me. I don't think they're competent enough to hold on to them. I have no ethical qualms about stealing from or killing agents of the State.

Whether you steal it(them) or buy it(them), the problem is still the same; and that is, you would only have a limited number of nukes -most likely only one.  It is not possible to deter the entire world with one nuke and no capability to make or acquire any more.

The idea of using nukes is a lost cause for the fact that as I pointed out earlier, you are just going to legitimize -within the peoples of the world- the use of force by their government(s) to neutralize Ancapistan before it has the ability to produce its own nukes.
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #42 on: March 15, 2013, 08:11:04 AM »

This thread got pretty long pretty quickly. 

Everyone has made some good points. 

My thoughts:
There are cheaper ways to shoot down stuff than patriot missiles; with off the shelf industrial/commercial products.  Radar is common in aviation and nautical shipping.  Lasers that cut metal like a hot knife through butter are common in automotive industry. 

Stop worrying about how you will deploy a weapon you probably won't have (everyone would have them), and shouldn't be using even if you did have it (MAD).  They are for deterrence only.  The only time they were ever used in war was when the enemy did not have them.  The best we can reasonably expect to do is knock down any that are shot at us. I suspect it is unlikely to happen anyway, considering no one has nuked the middle east through the seemingly never ending wars.  Don't say oil either, because it isn't like every inch of the place is an oil well. 

Considering an ancap country would be such an open society, defense could be quite a tricky issue.  It wouldn't exactly be challenging for a statest to come on over and become a saboteur.  Personally I wouldn't want a nuke around even without such a security risk, because I simply don't like them.  I think there are better ways of doing things. 

I would prefer an island.  As Agrarian Agorist said, most of the troops in the world are ground forces.  The only country that has a ton of force projection power is the USA though.  Everyone else would prefer to set up base nearby and drive in.  An island would deter many threats before they even begin.  So long as we can grow our own food we should be fine.

The water map is deceiving.  Australia for example has a rain forest in the north, and deserts in the south.  The map says they have plenty of water, but the population which mostly is in the dryer regions don't have easy access to the water from the rainforest.  Desalination is always a possibility that people ignore.  There are expensive and cheap ways to go about that.  Either way it is cheaper than buying bottled water in the USA.  The only reason it is even an issue is because states tend to provide near free water, so there is no incentive to create more than the natural rainfall even in shortage areas. 

/Activates flame shield
Logged

Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: March 15, 2013, 09:39:36 AM »

Syock, this might be what you're looking for http://www.landwatch.com/Chile-Land-for-sale/pid/130003071  Do you know anybody with $12 mil?  The thing I don't like about this is that it is an island and the US has the largest Navy in the World.  I wouldn't mind so much if the island was on the western side of Africa but in South America it seems to close to the US.  Also, it is only 16k acres; I don't think that is big enough to actually create a very well balance country.

Also, I'm not sure that I like the laser idea due to the fact that lasers don't just stop.  If the target is missed, will the laser have detrimental effects to the ozone layer, ionosphere, magnetosphere, etc? I don't think I would want to find out in an accident.

I do agree with the idea of nukes, I've never been a fan of them.

I was never a fan of the island idea, but, in the grand scheme of things that is not that important.

Yes, the water map was/is horrible.  I only noticed how bad it really was after I posted it; however, it did give a general idea of where quantities of fresh water are found.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2013, 09:42:22 AM by Agrarian_Agorist » Logged
Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: March 15, 2013, 09:47:49 AM »

Here is more information on the island: http://www.islasanpedrochile.com/

I found a converter which states that 16k acres is 25 square miles?  I don't think that would be enough; what do you guys think?
« Last Edit: March 15, 2013, 09:51:58 AM by Agrarian_Agorist » Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!