Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/23/84; site ucbcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!ucbvax!ucbesvax!ucbcad!faustus
From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: libertarian army
Message-ID: <2827@ucbcad.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Nov-84 00:22:11 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.2827
Posted: Thu Nov 29 00:22:11 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Dec-84 19:35:24 EST
References: <725@oliven.UUCP>
Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group, Berkeley, CA
Lines: 104

> 	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