Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site oliven.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!pesnta!qumix!qubix!ios!oliveb!oliven!danw
From: danw@oliven.UUCP (danw)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: libertarian army
Message-ID: <725@oliven.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Nov-84 19:52:17 EST
Article-I.D.: oliven.725
Posted: Mon Nov 26 19:52:17 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Nov-84 02:24:49 EST
Organization: National Cobalt Testing Range
Lines: 151

[]
	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