Defense

[New Tolerance]

Ok, how you think the defense of a society should be organized? (Just the old fashion army? or something else?)

I especially looking foward to anarchists answering this question. (both left-winged and right-winged)

[dark fairy]

If shit were the way shit should be we wouldn't need defences not unless we're defending ourselves from godzilla :P j\k but not humm that's a toughie ... damn let me get back to you on that

[Guest1]

No standing army.

Cell-based volunteer militias with no hierarchy, completely democratic, that only activate when threats arise. That's the way to run it. Completely guerrilla based, bottom up defense that involves the people and cannot be used or subverted in the interests of a few.

[Robert Edward Lee]

My view:

Small, professional volunteer army (navy and airforce) with (largely) career officers. Supported by a part-time territorial force (effectively a militia) to be called-up in emergencies.

Retired soldiers to be given the option of serving as training officers for part-time forces.

Those rankers commissioned to be moved to units where they do not know the enlisted men, to ensure that discipline is not affected.

As for the actual country itself, a network of fortifications that provides the depth to absorb an attack, allowing reinforcements to arrive at the most vulnerable points (similar to the British GCHQ line of WWII)

Finally, empty - but maintained - fortifications in highland (or otherwise 'wilderness' locations, such as moors) to provide bases for guerilla forces to operate from if the standing army is defeated. Guerilla forces to be mainly made up of units of the regular or reserve forces that have maintained some cohesion and recruited civilians during their withdrawal.

I expect this would be hilairious to any military mind, but from a layperson's perspective, I think it is sufficient.

[New Tolerance]

It would also help if people add how they are going to finance the defense force (via taxes? or what?), I'm not just talking about personal pay, but how you are going to build and store (in the hands of a few?) their equipment etc etc.

[Robert Edward Lee]

The armed forces would need to be completely publically funded. No private forces can exist and senior officers (say, Colonel and above) will not be allowed to take any active part in national politics, or belong to any political party. This to ensure that political interference with the actual military structure is limited.

I would also go so far as to say that should the Secretary of State for Defence (or equivilent in other countries) not himself be of a military background, retired members of the armed forces should act as advisors that must be consulted. I do not believe that a 100% civilian government should have total say on how the armed forces are committed on an operational level (the actual decision to go to war must, however, be taken by the elected body of the State)

The territorial forces, will remain solidly under the overall command of the regular forces, but I think that such 'militias' may be allowed to provide their own funds for more, or more advanced equipment. (as, such reserve forces will naturally receive 2nd class equipment n comparison to their regular cousins)

EDIT: Although being prohibted from an active part in national politics, all senior officers will of course still be allowed to vote

[elhumano]

I think that the US defense system is probably the best set up form of protection ever. That doesnt mean that those put in power are the smartest of nor most rational people ever. Bush is stupid. Defense should be for the protection of the people and not for the advancement of another countries controll. Bush wanting to bomb shit because everything is bigger in Texas is not why our defense means were set up. Was it wrong for the other country to start killing Americans yes. But then again what does the American public expect when our countries political leaders do the same everyday to their people. The world isnt as messed up as we would all like to believe but it is on the verg.

[Osman Ghazi]

To defend from what? Another country? Alien forces invading? Cell-based militias and guerillas could defeat any regular army if they have popular support. We wouldn't need more than that, for defense purposes anyway.

[New Tolerance]

Well, I heard that the Iraqi insurgents has a good deal of popular support, but I think there's good chance that they will fail, the coalition is just too powerful.

I'm talking about a full-scale invasion by another country with an army of millions of men. (armed with modern technology may I add)

[GUTB]

Of course, the physcial defense of the revolution would be formed to meet the specific needs of the nation that has revolted. An advanced European nation, for instances, with several advanced capitalist nations as neighbours, would probably want to deploy nuclear forces to their maximum extent and develop a highly advanced anti-air network. of course, the full might of the revolution should be at hand to assist in the revolution in other countries when they occur, which is honestly the best defense one could have.

[sh0cker]

It depends to how big it supose to be..

But anyway, small very well preparied and with well equipment army.

[New Tolerance]

What does the Libertarians has to say about this?

[Y2A]

Libertarians are non-interventionalist. Well, the vast majority of them are.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Some ideas:
- Workers voluntary, not "stable" army
- Guerrilla
- Air defense should be kept against possible air attacks
- Democratically selected leaders, not much power for them, should be changed after a while
- Modern armies disarmed, guns given to Workers Army or to normal citizens if the quantity allows it
- "Big" decisions should be decided by those involved on them, not by military leaders
- Nuclear weapons either "destroyed" or saved in case some aliens attack us or some shit like that (not a probable thing anyway).
- Other things such as tanks, I don't know.
- Military transports collectivized, only used for military things if necessary.
- If the situation asks for it, ammo should be produced, but only then.
- Old fighters and experts should be attracted to teach combat skills to the voluntaries.
- In such a situation as an invasion, i'm sure it will become a key to have good logistics. I think many people will like the idea of being in a stable army to "protect the homeland" so that people could have a "permanent" role on defense.
- Fighters to divide in smaller squads, each picks a leader out of them unless it's not necessary or it's impossible for some reason. Some of those small groups will form biggers ones but with the same division, and maybe they will have different roles, such as defending an area, guerrilla-styled fight, or using different equipment such as being in machine guns, using tanks, doing various tasks, sniping, etc.
- Different "experts" can have tasks as organizing the fighters, trying to predict possible attacks, help training fighters, etc.
- Something I haven't thought about yet is about possible water attacks, I don't know too much about that so I'm ignoring it.
- Old equipment could be used successfully.
- We need to have good knowledge and understanding of the territory and how it can be used to our advantage

I already imagine the objections to this. But trust me, if you did such a revolution, and they are invading the place where you live, I doubt you will suddenly become a coward. Think about it: the invaders will think that people has no defenses, but they will find thousands of AK-47s waiting to shoot them. And it does look chaotic, that's because of two things:
1) War is chaos
2) This will start as an espontaneous organization until there can be some planning about what to do next

[elijahcraig]

^A word from our resident utopian?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I think Robert E Lee has the best idea. Even though a guerrilla force CAN beat an invading army given years of time, all the time before that, that invading army can go whereever they please (taking losses all the way), but nevertheless, could destroy the entire economic structure, and essentially undo years of industrialization. Although having a guerrilla force is nice, it isn't a good idea to place all of one's eggs in one basket, especially when it comes to national security. A guerrilla force is practically useless against an opponent willing to go to any lengths necessary to achieve victory. The guerrilla partisans fighting against Nazis were crushed like bugs once they started indiscriminately killing civilians in areas of partisan activity, despite the fact that they may have had popular support. I'm not saying that a guerrilla force can't be effective against any opponent, I'm just saying that the standing army should be front line of defence, and should they fail, there are the guerrillas to back them up. A revolution, in my opinion, is fought somewhat differently then resisting an invasion. Basically, a guerrilla force is good if you don't mind the entire country being destoryed before the war is over.

[Professor Moneybags]

no hierarchy, completely democratic,

Bad anology; you think the army (or whatever) should be run the same way as society should. It doesn't work like that. The soviet union tried that approach to their military structure, but quickly abandoned it because it wasn't working. Tasks and commands need to be delegated and this can be difficult to do without some sort of heirarchy.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I envision a TAF (Tactical Application Force) for a communist EU:

- Every Citizen aged 16-30 to be trained in geurilla and sabotage tactics for last ditch defense should a full-scale land invasion occur. (Geurillas will have access to armoured cars and APCs)

-A small Procorps (Say 100,000 or more) of professional infantrymen for punch that geurillas can't provide (These will also have access to limited armour)

-A Corps of Transport. These are basically trucks, trains, boats and planes under military control.

- An Armoured Division consisting of AFVs (Armoured Fighting Vehicles) Including Tanks, SP guns, MLRS, Railway guns and modernised WW2 and Soviet Tanks and vehicles.

- A Gaurdian Fleet of battleships, cruisers, destroyers, and scouts for reconaissance and protection of EU coasts. Plus a small 'carrier' fleet for air support of the Gaurdian Fleet.

- A European Air Force consisting of Hercs, chinooks, and Eurofighters to protect them, plus any B-52s we can snatch off American Airbases in Europe before they pull out.

- A Nuclear Emergency Force with Trident-style nuclear subs to contain US and Russian nuclear agression, and ICBMs capable of hitting targets on the ground and in orbit (In case of any agressive American/Chinese/Russian/Indian moves in space, or alien invasion), But not as sophisticated as the american Star Wars program. Electromagnetic pulse weapons may also feature in the NEF's arsenal.

All of this will hopefully involve the minimum of outlay with the maximum of security.

[New Tolerance]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 11:22 PM
Libertarians are non-interventionalist. Well, the vast majority of them are.
So how exactly are they going to deal with the issue of defense?

[Y2A]

They only attack if attacked not for interests or interfere in civil wars. But this is a general statement, and some libertarians may disagree.

[New Tolerance]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 09:55 PM
They only attack if attacked not for interests or interfere in civil wars. But this is a general statement, and some libertarians may disagree.
Ya, but I'm talking about when they get attacked. How do they organize and equip their army? (Do they have an army?) What are they going to do? Hire mercenaries?

[Y2A]

I actually don't know the libertarian militant view. You'd have to ask one of the libertarians that post here. I doubt that they all have the same view on how it would work.

[New Tolerance]

That's the problem, this thread has been around for a while now, none of them has said anything.

I'm starting to get a suspicion that they don't know what they should do when they get attacked.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Nukes

Nukes in Silos

Nukes in Ships

Nukes in Subs

Nukes on Bombers

Nukes on Fighters

Nukes on MLRS Units

Theater Nukes

Tactical Nukes

Strategic Nukes

ICBM's with MIRV's

Sattellite Launched Nukes

Sorry guys, thats the way it is today. Everything else is academic.

[Osman Ghazi]

The guerrilla partisans fighting against Nazis were crushed like bugs once they started indiscriminately killing civilians in areas of partisan activity, despite the fact that they may have had popular support.

Umm... don't know much about Marshall Tito, do you?


Sorry guys, thats the way it is today. Everything else is academic.

Hey, CI. In case you didn't remember, we haven't resorted to nukes in 60 years. Also, they are exactly swell for defense purposes. Coupled with the fact that nuking the shit out of the country you are invading pretty much defeats the purpose of invading them, that would seem to make nukes obsolete except for last-ditch revenge attacks.

[Capitalist Imperial]

We are not talking about an invasion, we are talking about defense.

Nukes used preemptively or against approaching forces are the best and most efficient option. You can take out whole forces with limited nuclear strikes, and leave at least most of the atmosphere in tact.

[Osman Ghazi]

Nukes used preemptively or against approaching forces are the best and most efficient option

Assuming of course that they won't blow the shit out of you with their nukes. Nukes used pre-emptively are completely unjustifiable. The massive loss of life based on suspicions of your neighbours is a wholly unjustifiable concept.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 15 2004, 10:58 PM

Nukes used preemptively or against approaching forces are the best and most efficient option

Assuming of course that they won't blow the shit out of you with their nukes. Nukes used pre-emptively are completely unjustifiable. The massive loss of life based on suspicions of your neighbours is a wholly unjustifiable concept.
By preemption I mean the point at which enemy forces are ammassing for transport to a staging area, when it is clear as to their intentions.

As for enemy nukes, you are correct. I should have added that a missle defense shield system like the one being developed by the U.S. would be an intregal part of nuclear defense strategy. Such a system would use both lasers and static weapons such as anti-missile SAM's and precision rail-guns.

[New Tolerance]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 15 2004, 10:51 PM
We are not talking about an invasion, we are talking about defense.

Nukes used preemptively or against approaching forces are the best and most efficient option. You can take out whole forces with limited nuclear strikes, and leave at least most of the atmosphere in tact.
Nukes eh?

all good things.

The question is how you are going to set up your command structure. Who's going to be in charge of the nukes? A regular army? or just some scienitists who store the nukes in their backyard?

Further more, how do you prevent the people who control the nukes from threatening their own population and making themselves dictators?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sounds ludicrously expensive.

Rail guns? you've been playing too much Quake...

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 11:18 PM
Sounds ludicrously expensive.

Rail guns? you've been playing too much Quake...
rail giuns are being debveloped as we speak

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 15 2004, 10:51 PM
We are not talking about an invasion, we are talking about defense.

Nukes used preemptively or against approaching forces are the best and most efficient option. You can take out whole forces with limited nuclear strikes, and leave at least most of the atmosphere in tact.
now we are asking about a govenmental ideology, a totally different question

[Osman Ghazi]

rail giuns are being debveloped as we speak

You know what else is scary? The U$ has also developed light chemical lasers to be mounted on tanks and used as anti-missile defense. Supposedly it will be in mainstream use in 5-10 years.

[New Tolerance]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Apr 16 2004, 12:13 AM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Apr 16 2004, 12:13 AM)
Capitalist [email protected] 15 2004, 10:51 PM
We are not talking about an invasion, we are talking about defense.

Nukes used preemptively or against approaching forces are the best and most efficient option. You can take out whole forces with limited nuclear strikes, and leave at least most of the atmosphere in tact.
now we are asking about a govenmental ideology, a totally different question [/b]
Did u just quote yourself?

I'm going to assume that you are quoting me.

Yes, it is a different question, and I was trying to say that you are going off topic.

Ideology is what this thread is all about, I'm asking you about the political structure of your defense force, not the specific weapons you are going to use. When I said how you will equip your defense forces, I was talking about where the weapons come from, as in: exg. a nationalized industry, a corporation of some kind, or something else?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Nukes, no matter what, are never acceptable, even if they are used by the oppenent first. I am against nuclear retaliation as well. Nuclear weapons kill indisciminately. The don't take prisoners, they don't allow people to defect, they don't spare the women and children. They hurt the civilians the most. No nukes, EVER.

[TC]

The question of how to defend a society is, no matter what type of society, not a political question, but a military question, and the most effective solution should be employed. If you argue about what the most "marxist" or "democratic" defense force is, you aren't really understanding the question.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 16 2004, 01:27 AM

rail giuns are being debveloped as we speak

You know what else is scary? The U$ has also developed light chemical lasers to be mounted on tanks and used as anti-missile defense. Supposedly it will be in mainstream use in 5-10 years.
Why is laser-based anti-missile defense scary?

It should only be scary for those who try to attack the US with nukes, in which case they will get what they deserve.

[Capitalist Imperial]

I am against nuclear retaliation as well.

Then you simply won't be aroung long if you are going to just allow your adversary to turn you into sand without any kind of respose.

[Osman Ghazi]

Sorry, I should clarify that. It isn't anti-missile in the sense of ICBMs but in the sense of anti-tank missiles. It is scary because military technolgy is coming to a point that no matter the level of popular resistance, the U$ army will still be able to defeat it.

[New Tolerance]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 02:24 AM
The question of how to defend a society is, no matter what type of society, not a political question, but a military question, and the most effective solution should be employed. If you argue about what the most "marxist" or "democratic" defense force is, you aren't really understanding the question.
The problem is how do you effectively setup your defense institutions without turns in your "democractic", "anarchist", or "Libertarian" societies towards authoritarianism. One of the things that threatens a society is its OWN army(topple your own governments, or they might refuse to fight when you get invaded). The question is how do you handle this threat. So far most of the defense forces that I've seen that have worked well with the rest of society seems to be those under centrist democratic governments. I'm wondering if people think it is possible to maintain a good defense institution in some other kind of societies.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 16 2004, 08:08 PM
Sorry, I should clarify that. It isn't anti-missile in the sense of ICBMs but in the sense of anti-tank missiles. It is scary because military technolgy is coming to a point that no matter the level of popular resistance, the U$ army will still be able to defeat it.
That is a good thing. The US military needs tools to put themselves in a better position to deal with insurgents, dissidents, and guerillas without compromising innocent civilians. More sophisticated precision systems will make liberating oppressed nations easier overall, especially with regards to asymetric guerilla engagements.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by New Tolerance+Apr 16 2004, 05:05 PM--> (New Tolerance @ Apr 16 2004, 05:05 PM)
[email protected] 16 2004, 02:24 AM
The question of how to defend a society is, no matter what type of society, not a political question, but a military question, and the most effective solution should be employed. If you argue about what the most "marxist" or "democratic" defense force is, you aren't really understanding the question.
The problem is how do you effectively setup your defense institutions without turns in your "democractic", "anarchist", or "Libertarian" societies towards authoritarianism. One of the things that threatens a society is its OWN army(topple your own governments, or they might refuse to fight when you get invaded). The question is how do you handle this threat. So far most of the defense forces that I've seen that have worked well with the rest of society seems to be those under centrist democratic governments. I'm wondering if people think it is possible to maintain a good defense institution in some other kind of societies. [/b]
The military is there for defence, not to enlighten us with their political opinions.

[cebert]

I favour a strong conscripted army shared by the entire population - required service for men - voluntary for women.- I suppose some professional units will be needed but the vast bulk of the milatary should remain a peoples army. Espionage/counterespionage looks pretty troublesome - I not sure how this should be organised.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 08:46 PM
I favour a strong conscripted army shared by the entire population - required service for men - voluntary for women.- I suppose some professional units will be needed but the vast bulk of the milatary should remain a peoples army. Espionage/counterespionage looks pretty troublesome - I not sure how this should be organised.
I am strongly opposed to any form of sexism in the military. I think arms training should be a part of one's education for all people, and that everyone should be perpetually battle ready. (I.E. no need for basic training or anything else before deployment) Futhermore, I think the draft should be a last resort. Only acceptable during a total war (like WWII).

[DaCuBaN]

Well short of sticking an ion cannon :D in orbit I'm not really sure

1 man, 1 nuke?

Nuclear weapons are only a succesful deterant(sp?) if you're crazy enough to actually use them and 'star wars' only helps if you're under nuclear threat yourself. People give GWB too much stick - he may not be quick on his feet but I really don't think he's stupid

He certainly knows that a good offense is the strongest defense.


The military is there for defence, not to enlighten us with their political opinions.

But they're people, just like everyone else. No matter how much you ask them, nor how nicely you ask them not to they'll give you their opinion just the same (someone say human nature? :rolleyes: )


am strongly opposed to any form of sexism in the military. I think arms training should be a part of one's education for all people, and that everyone should be perpetually battle ready

I couldn't disagree more vehemontly to be honest. The last thing we need is the rest of the world taking a cue from Israel.


Sorry, I should clarify that. It isn't anti-missile in the sense of ICBMs but in the sense of anti-tank missiles. It is scary because military technolgy is coming to a point that no matter the level of popular resistance, the U$ army will still be able to defeat it

again, this returns to nuclear weapons.

[cebert]

I am strongly opposed to any form of sexism in the military. I think arms training should be a part of one's education for all people, and that everyone should be perpetually battle ready. (I.E. no need for basic training or anything else before deployment) Futhermore, I think the draft should be a last resort. Only acceptable during a total war (like WWII).

I dont think it is sexism, maybe sexism in favour of women. Women have the choice and men dont . I dont think you can force service on women unless absolutely necessary... more important, I think neither men nor women will object to this. I had assumed the poster was refering to the milatary under socialism. A socialist government in a capitalist world WILL be in a state of war ( or at least cold war ). It will require a strong milatary with nuclear deterrent.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I am against any type of sexism or racism, regardless of who its in favor of, and I for one, happen to object that men would have to serve in the military and women would not. Women are equals and should be treated as such.

[DaCuBaN]

I am against any type of sexism or racism, regardless of who its in favor of, and I for one, happen to object that men would have to serve in the military and women would not. Women are equals and should be treated as such.


No offense mate, but that's the first point I've seen you post that I actually agreed with :D

Stalin certainly thought so... wasn't it a womans brigade that first marched into Berlin?