This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01BE27C0.A31F63A0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> den Otter writes:
>
> "If you cut off your private army's funds they'll do exactly what every
> other pissed-off private army did before them: they'll come and take
> it by force (perhaps shooting you, torching your home and raping
> your wife, kids and dog if they feel like it). An army that's intended
> to take on PPAs and even nation states shouldn't have much of a
> problem with coercing a couple of civilians."
>
> You're forgetting that this private army (aka militia) would be *us*, or
> our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers.
The problem is that many people can't/won't be professional soldiers, and in a world full of (potential) enemies you really need more than just a bunch of guys with AKs; you need trained personnel that can fly helicopters, fire missiles, operate tanks, knows about demolition, surveillance techniques, counter-intelligence etc, etc. This means
that you have to form a standing army with (probably) mercenaries, as was often done troughout history. People's militias can be a good addition to a professional army, but are not sufficient to defend your territory against a serious attack in this day and age.There is one alternative tactic, of course: stockpile weapons of mass destruction and threaten to use them against anyone who attacks. This *does* severely limit your tactical possibilities, of course...
------=_NextPart_000_01BE27C0.A31F63A0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
----------
> From: Dick.Gray@bull.com
> den Otter writes:
>
> =
"If you cut off your private army's funds they'll do exactly what =
every
> other pissed-off private army did before them: they'll =
come and take
> it by force (perhaps shooting you, torching your =
home and raping
> your wife, kids and dog if they feel like it). =
An army that's intended
> to take on PPAs and even nation states =
shouldn't have much of a
> problem with coercing a couple of =
civilians."
>
> You're forgetting that this private =
army (aka militia) would be *us*, or
> our sons and daughters, =
brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers.
The problem is that =
many people can't/won't be professional soldiers,
and in a world full =
of (potential) enemies you really need more than
just a bunch of guys =
with AKs; you need trained personnel that can
fly helicopters, fire =
missiles, operate tanks, knows about demolition,
surveillance =
techniques, counter-intelligence etc, etc. This means that
you have =
to form a standing army with (probably) mercenaries, as
was often =
done troughout history. People's militias can be a good
addition to =
a professional army, but are not sufficient to defend your
territory =
against a serious attack in this day and age.
There is one =
alternative tactic, of course: stockpile weapons of
mass destruction =
and threaten to use them against anyone who
attacks. This *does* =
severely limit your tactical possibilities, of
course...