Daily Anarchist Forum
October 21, 2019, 06:05:38 PM *
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]
  Print  
Author Topic: A question  (Read 7365 times)
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 31, 2014, 07:21:12 PM »

Conversely if an organization exists (possibly included in your NAP contract) that uses the sellof of former government property to maintain the MAD systems of a former Nuclear State you could esentialy hold the world hostage and say "try to invade us statists, just try and find out what happens."

MAD is all but obsolete at this point.  There are automated defensive systems around the world that shoot them down. 
Logged

Montanarchist
Newbie
*
Posts: 18


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: March 31, 2014, 07:58:01 PM »

Conversely if an organization exists (possibly included in your NAP contract) that uses the sellof of former government property to maintain the MAD systems of a former Nuclear State you could esentialy hold the world hostage and say "try to invade us statists, just try and find out what happens."

MAD is all but obsolete at this point.  There are automated defensive systems around the world that shoot them down. 

You are absolutely wrong I'm afraid.


The sheer volume of ICBMs possesed by major nuclear powers far exceeds the capacity of defensive systems to handle. There are only three large scale ABM systems in the world with the majority of other AMB defence being short range interceptors who's performance is so poor that atleast a dozen are needed for them to be considered an effective counter for a single ICBM. Further, the advent of Multi-Warhead ICBMs has further outgunned defensive systems and Cold War tensions prevented the building of truly comprehensive and effective systems.

Even the most favorable estimates of defensive capeability still accept dozens of hits in a US-Vs-Russia Nuclear exchange with successive waves gaining higher hit rates as the supply of ABMs is drained. Nuclear Subs further as to the hit rate with their ability to strike suddenly from anywhere with a short fire to impact time and ability to remain hidden through initial salvos.

Even if a ABM is effective only one system in the world, the new and reletively small system put in by the US in Alaska, uses Kenetic missiles, with the rest being nuclear and still causing EMP and radiation. The US's Kenetic system covers a very limited area and has reletively few missiles. Similarly proposed laser built systems (and those few working ones not already scraped) still leave a mass of radioactive debris falling to earth.

MAD is alive and well.  Who the hell told you otherwise?
Logged

"What is steel, compared to the hand that wields it!"
-The Riddle of Steel

"The more I see of what you call civilization, the more highly I think of what you call savagery!"
-Robert E Howard
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 31, 2014, 09:50:31 PM »

The sheer volume of ICBMs possesed by major nuclear powers ...

You are jumping between theoretical and actual.  I am not going to go in depth on the actual as it is irrelevant to this thread.

The tech to defend is there, and actually has been for decades in various forms.  The political will... not so much. 

If we were making an ancap society, we wouldn't have the arsenal of a big nuclear state.  The funding would be lacking because most people do not like nukes.  We would be the rogue nation they are all hopped up about.  We would be the biggest target in the world.  Whatever we have wouldn't be enough to defeat their existing meager defenses (making MAD obsolete), would be immoral (if you care about that), and amazing propaganda for governments around the world.  Personally I would abandon a nuclear ancap ASAP, and never would financially support it in the first place. 

Logged

Montanarchist
Newbie
*
Posts: 18


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: April 01, 2014, 12:05:09 AM »

The sheer volume of ICBMs possesed by major nuclear powers ...

You are jumping between theoretical and actual.  I am not going to go in depth on the actual as it is irrelevant to this thread.

The tech to defend is there, and actually has been for decades in various forms.  The political will... not so much. 

If we were making an ancap society, we wouldn't have the arsenal of a big nuclear state.  The funding would be lacking because most people do not like nukes.  We would be the rogue nation they are all hopped up about.  We would be the biggest target in the world.  Whatever we have wouldn't be enough to defeat their existing meager defenses (making MAD obsolete), would be immoral (if you care about that), and amazing propaganda for governments around the world.  Personally I would abandon a nuclear ancap ASAP, and never would financially support it in the first place. 



Your making a theoretical leap too by assuming we would have few ICBMs. If it was a uprising of the people a committed group could make sure to capture our nuclear arsenal. There could potentially even be an uprising or mutiny in the final days. We know the location of silos, why couldn't we take them. Then if any nation began an invasion we threaten to turn them lose. It dosnt matter what the world thinks there is no forgien policy. What I'm saying is nukes are the ultimate trump card, the thing that makes world oppinion irrelivant. Should you use nukes? Fuck no casualties of civilians would be massive. there is no way to ever justify using those things, but they don't know we won't. Those people's fear of anarchism may be puffed up by the press but atleast anarchism will exist.

Rather than figuring out how to fight as an anarchist nation just prevent the fights in the first place. All the statists care about is not losing what they have and in a nuclear war everyone loses.
Logged

"What is steel, compared to the hand that wields it!"
-The Riddle of Steel

"The more I see of what you call civilization, the more highly I think of what you call savagery!"
-Robert E Howard
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 01, 2014, 03:37:40 AM »

Your making a theoretical leap too by assuming we would have few ICBMs. If it was a uprising of the people a committed group could make sure to capture our nuclear arsenal. There could potentially even be an uprising or mutiny in the final days. We know the location of silos, why couldn't we take them. Then if any nation began an invasion we threaten to turn them lose. It dosnt matter what the world thinks there is no forgien policy. What I'm saying is nukes are the ultimate trump card, the thing that makes world oppinion irrelivant. Should you use nukes? Fuck no casualties of civilians would be massive. there is no way to ever justify using those things, but they don't know we won't. Those people's fear of anarchism may be puffed up by the press but atleast anarchism will exist.

Rather than figuring out how to fight as an anarchist nation just prevent the fights in the first place. All the statists care about is not losing what they have and in a nuclear war everyone loses.

I never said we wouldn't have access to them.  I am saying almost no one would pay for them, to keep them operational.  It kind of does matter what the world thinks.  Not what the politicians think, but what the individuals think.  If you ever want the threat of the state to go away, you are not going to do it by scaring the world into embracing government nukes to shoot you with.  We should lead by positive example, rather than looking like a xenophobic hostile place.  

Lots of countries survive just fine without nukes, or even a military.  They are only needed if you are being a bully in the world.  You said it yourself that you would never use them.  They are an offensive weapon in every sense of the term.  We would be better served financially and morally with a defensive setup and just tell the world that their nukes represent.  They are just an atrocity waiting to happen.  

Even if you had them, and the will to use them, you can't.  Even if no one returned fire, the ancaps themselves would take you out.  The enemy could still invade.  All that money would have gone down the toilet.  

How is this for a solution?  You get your nukes and threaten the world.  I'll move somewhere that won't get nuked.  New Zealand seems like a cool place. 
« Last Edit: April 01, 2014, 04:21:22 AM by Syock » Logged

Montanarchist
Newbie
*
Posts: 18


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: April 01, 2014, 11:23:35 AM »

It's an intimidation thing. If noone moves to invade then never bring up nukes of our little militia group who now controls them. But if someone comes the threat should atleast be made against his troops not necisarily his city's. as I said you could never use them, they are for intimidating people into leaving you alone. I understand what your saying and yes it makes sense but I think maintaining an existing Ancap system is worth being sneered in the Statist media like we already would be. Eventually the truth about the freedom and economic might of this country would bring people around. Everyone would be stashing their savings there, investing, building factories, ect without a government to tax and slow growth. We only need the nukes untill we reach the point of being economically indespensible to the world. That is why the US andChina can't fight, they are tied to the hip. With Ancapland full of their Swiss bank accounts and factories and investments forgien stateists will be in a similar position to the US now with China. Once that point comes, make a public show of disarming the nukes. They are only a weapon of intimidation to ensure the revolution survives long enough to fully establish an Ancap society without interference.
Logged

"What is steel, compared to the hand that wields it!"
-The Riddle of Steel

"The more I see of what you call civilization, the more highly I think of what you call savagery!"
-Robert E Howard
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 01, 2014, 12:50:12 PM »

It's an intimidation thing.

Oh, I got that from the first time you posted.  I think it is an incredibly dangerous bluff though.  To top it off, you would be diverting resources from an actual defense to try it. 
Logged

Batchain
Full Member
***
Posts: 101


View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 on: April 01, 2014, 01:32:53 PM »


I never said we wouldn't have access to them.  I am saying almost no one would pay for them, to keep them operational.  It kind of does matter what the world thinks.  Not what the politicians think, but what the individuals think.  If you ever want the threat of the state to go away, you are not going to do it by scaring the world into embracing government nukes to shoot you with.  We should lead by positive example, rather than looking like a xenophobic hostile place.  

Lots of countries survive just fine without nukes, or even a military.  They are only needed if you are being a bully in the world.  You said it yourself that you would never use them.  They are an offensive weapon in every sense of the term.  We would be better served financially and morally with a defensive setup and just tell the world that their nukes represent.  They are just an atrocity waiting to happen.  

Even if you had them, and the will to use them, you can't.  Even if no one returned fire, the ancaps themselves would take you out.  The enemy could still invade.  All that money would have gone down the toilet.  

How is this for a solution?  You get your nukes and threaten the world.  I'll move somewhere that won't get nuked.  New Zealand seems like a cool place. 

I very much agree with everything said here.
 
And I wanted to add... when it comes to the intimidation factor, citizens of other countries might not know we aren't willing to use nukes... but I don't think the rulers are that stupid... What's to stop them from false flagging by nuking their own people, and blaming us in order to inspire them to fight us?

In this hypothetical scenario, I'll be putting my money toward any organization that wants to take the nukes, disassemble them, make something productive out of the scrap, and have a massive marketing campaign to the world that says something like, "Peaceful people don't destroy, they create.... come help us make things!  All peaceful people of the world are welcome here!".   
Logged
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: April 01, 2014, 05:33:33 PM »

I can see using nuclear but if we did we'd have to use something like Thorium as fuel.

If you're going to acquire nukes you have to be willing to use them, there can be no idle threats.

Syock is right. If you don't have nukes right now you probably aren't going to get them, trying to will put a huge target on your back.

Governments have teams and agencies dedicated to preventing the proliferation of nukes.
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
kelvinwo
Newbie
*
Posts: 12


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: May 10, 2014, 09:41:50 AM »

Why they can not live there?
Logged

Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #25 on: May 10, 2014, 10:04:46 AM »

Why they can not live there?

Why who can not live where?
Logged

Pages: 1 [2]
  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!