Anarachism and Contemporary Warfare

[FleasTheLemur]

Alright. Maybe I'm looking in all the wrong places, but how would an anarchist region fight off another nation looking to restore the powers that be? Expecially considering that any one of these nations have vast and well organized military forces with jets, bombers, missiles... How would anarchism deal with modern warfare that was surely going to take place after the revolution.

[LSD]

Why do you assume that anarchist means "regressive"? Anarchist societies would be just as "modern" as capitalist ones, if not more, even in matters of military self-defense.

Undoubtably, an anarcho-communist society threatened by hostile countries would take adequate measures to defend itself. Anarchist does not mean chaotic, it just means free. An Anarchist community would be highly organized, esqpecially in essential industries.

Insofar as preventing foreign invasion, it actually isn't that difficult in contemporary terms. Since any successful anarcho-communist region would have to emerge from a perviously advanced capitalist nation, it is a foregone assumption that such a society has reasonable access to the resources of that previous state, including weapons and military equipment.

If an anarchist community wishes to discourage hostile capitalist adversaries, it can quite easily take a page out of the Cold War playbook and stockpile a couple of thermonuclear ICBMs.

It probably wouldn't even come to that anyways. Remember, capitalist nations are always weary to engage in protracted war. The citizenry of modern imperialist states may not generally recognize the nature of class oppression, but they do tend to resent relentless expeditionary ventures that clearly don't help their interests. It happened with Vietnam, and it's happening with Iraq.

If an Anarchist society demonstrated a willingness and a capacity to effectively resist invasion (and, again, a couple of nukes would go a long way here), the capitalist nations would almost certainly stick to propaganda, espionage, and blockade.

There is a reason, after all, that the US has still not invaded Cuba.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 09:24 PM
Why do you assume that anarchist means "regressive"? Anarchist societies would be just as "modern" as capitalist ones, if not more, even in matters of military self-defense.
Because anarchist and military philosophies are diametrically opposed. Anarchism is the absence of authority structures… guess what the military requires?

The only military organisation that would compatible with anarchism is that of the democratic militia. That is a structure that has historically proven quite ineffective when confronted with a highly disciplined and organised professional force.

[anomaly]

Let us say that, theoretically, a region is anarchist. The question is, will it be able to survive when attacked by a capitalist army (as will surely happen)? This capitalist army, after all, contains that wonderful principle of hierarchy!

But remember, guerrilla warfare has worked rather well in the past. And I do not think such a warfare neccesarily requires any rigid hierarchy. Instead, if we have a largely decentralized military force, in which each small militia uses the guerrilla tactics deemed neccesary for the particular military situation it finds itself in, decided by the group as a whole, the 'army' as whole may prove quite effective.

If the anarchist society has 'advanced' weapons, defense proves easy enough, but even if anarchist society is not so militarily advanced as its capitalist counterparts, will defeat really prove inevitable? Look at the Iraqi resistance right now. No one can say that the resistance is in any way 'organized' in the least, but rather it is extremely decentralized. And, even with its inferior weapons, it is holding its own againt the most powerful military in the world. And that resistance is a small minority of the total Iraqi population. Imagine every citizen of Iraq being part of it; it would be unconquerable. And so will be anarchist society. The mightiest of capitalist armies cannot possibly subdue an entire committed population, no matter how strong the capitalist army is.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Dec 17 2005, 10:13 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Dec 17 2005, 10:13 PM)
[email protected] 17 2005, 09:24 PM
Why do you assume that anarchist means "regressive"? Anarchist societies would be just as "modern" as capitalist ones, if not more, even in matters of military self-defense.
Because anarchist and military philosophies are diametrically opposed. Anarchism is the absence of authority structures… guess what the military requires?

The only military organisation that would compatible with anarchism is that of the democratic militia. That is a structure that has historically proven quite ineffective when confronted with a highly disciplined and organised professional force. [/b]

So your no longer in favour of a Communist society then?

[LSD]

Anarchism is the absence of authority structures… guess what the military requires?

Guns? Bullets? Aircraft?

I'm sorry, but the argument that a military "must" be based on authoritarian lines carries about as much weight as the argument that society "must" be based on private property.

I suppose next you'll be talking about "human nature"! :lol:


The only military organisation that would compatible with anarchism is that of the democratic militia. That is a structure that has historically proven quite ineffective when confronted with a highly disciplined and organised professional force.

Stop living in the 1930s.

An advanced anarchist society would be more than capable of preventing a foreign invasion before it ever became an issue.

Again, the issue is deterence, not a "discipline"; and a nuclear weaspons program doesn't take "professional discipline", it just takes an internet connection and some enriched uranium.

A viable anarchist society can only emerge in an advanced capitalist state, that is a society with advanced technology. Such a society, even if it did not have a history of possessing nuclear arsenals, would be capable of producing significant numbers of intercontinental thermonuclear warheads within months, if not weeks.

Realistically, the chance of a capitalist "invasion" is not significant.

The bigger danger to an successful anticapitalist society would be foreign sabotage and espionage. Interestingly enough, however, the best weapon against such techniques is an active citizenry, something which Anarchism obviously provides but which many "leftst" alternatives, such as, say, Leninism do not.

[ComradeOm]

So your no longer in favour of a Communist society then?
I believe the question was to do with the nature of anarchist militaries. But now that you mention it I don’t expect that communism will be possible until the last major bastions of capitalism are broken.


Guns? Bullets? Aircraft?

I'm sorry, but the argument that a military "must" be based on authoritarian lines carries about as much weight as the argument that society "must" be based on private property.

I suppose next you'll be talking about "human nature"!
It’s a very simple analysis of history. The side with the more professional and trained soldiers usually wins. Are you trying to argue that? The efficiency of today’s armies are not based on the standard of their weaponry but rather that of their training.

To take an example, a US Marine suffers a brutal training regime designed to turn him into a weapon. When a marine receives an order his immediate thought is how to carry it out. Such a reinforcement of command would be unthinkable in a communist or even socialist society. However the result is that man for man the US Marines are among the toughest soldiers on the planet. They would rip through a militia based opponent.


Stop living in the 1930s.

An advanced anarchist society would be more than capable of preventing a foreign invasion before it ever became an issue.

Again, the issue is deterence, not a "discipline"; and a nuclear weaspons program doesn't take "professional discipline", it just takes an internet connection and some enriched uranium.

A viable anarchist society can only emerge in an advanced capitalist state, that is a society with advanced technology. Such a society, even if it did not have a history of possessing nuclear arsenals, would be capable of producing significant numbers of intercontinental thermonuclear warheads within months, if not weeks.

Realistically, the chance of a capitalist "invasion" is not significant.
I disagree with the odds of direct capitalist intervention. I consider it to be quite likely, especially as it becomes more apparent that the revolution is spreading. Look at how many Americans died in the jungles of Vietnam when the threat to American interests was miniscule at best. Or perhaps the bourgeoisie will sit there and watch as regime after regime falls to the communists?

On nukes, I think it does depend on the degree of disruption that follows revolution. No doubt there are many fail safes designed to ensure that such an outcome does not happen. Nukes are unpredictable though, I don’t like even thinking about it. What will the capitalists do when its apparent that all is lost?


The bigger danger to an successful anticapitalist society would be foreign sabotage and espionage. Interestingly enough, however, the best weapon against such techniques is an active citizenry, something which Anarchism obviously provides but which many "leftst" alternatives, such as, say, Leninism do not.
Oh come on. Traditionally espionage has been the one thing Leninist regimes have done right. As much as I dislike Stalinist paranoia I can’t deny that the KGB was, by some distance, the most capable and efficient intelligence agency in the world.

[Amusing Scrotum]

But now that you mention it I don’t expect that communism will be possible until the last major bastions of capitalism are broken.

What all of them? ....so if there is a revolution in America tomorrow, you think it would be impossible for a Communist (or Anarchist) society to emerge if there wasn't a revolution in Britain, France, Germany etc.

[LSD]

It’s a very simple analysis of history.

Perhaps, but it's irrelevent in discussing the future.

Unlike the "socialist" regimes of the past, an anarchis society will not emerge in an underdeveloped colonial country. Accordingly any potential war of capitalist conquest will not be akin to "anti-communist" wars of South East Asia or even the European conflicts you're thinking of, such as the Spanish Civil War.

The war we're talking about will not be one of jungles and raiding parties, it will be one of sattelites and ICBMs; and such a conflict can be managed quite well ahierarchically.


I disagree with the odds of direct capitalist intervention. I consider it to be quite likely, especially as it becomes more apparent that the revolution is spreading. Look at how many Americans died in the jungles of Vietnam when the threat to American interests was miniscule at best.

Yes, but what made Vietnam attackable by the US was that it was attackable by the US.

North Vietnam had no air force to speak of, no significant naval power, vastly inferior technology, and absolutely no ability to project power against the US mainland.

An anarchist society would not be so vulnerable.


Or perhaps the bourgeoisie will sit there and watch as regime after regime falls to the communists?

Of course not, but that doesn't mean that they will commit collective suicide by attacking a first world country.

Instead, they will, again, resort to more covert means such as a sabbotage and political destabilization. If done correctly, such methods can be just as effective as a direct assault, while far less risky.

After all, the US didn't invade Russia, did it?


On nukes, I think it does depend on the degree of disruption that follows revolution. No doubt there are many fail safes designed to ensure that such an outcome does not happen.

"Fail safes"? Against what?

I think you're underestimating just how easy a nuclear bomb is to build. It doesn't require that the military of the country in question have prior nuclear weapons, although it would certainly help, just a sufficiently advanced technological sector and supplies or abilities to garner supplies of fissionable materials.

If there was an anarchist revolution in, say, Spain tomorrow, that community could build itself a working nuclear missiles within three months tops. It could have 10 thermonuclear warheads mounted on intercontinental missiles and pointed at major capitalist cities within six.

There would be nothing that the capitalists could do.


Nukes are unpredictable though, I don’t like even thinking about it.

Too bad, because nuclar weapons aren't going anywhere.

In fact, within the next 50 years, there will probably emerge at least 5 new nuclear powers.

"Conventional" weapons still tilt the scales today, but that is only because major powers don't fight symmetric wars anymore.

An anarchist society would not be Iraq, it would be England or France or Canada or Japan. And whether they liked it or not, the capitalist countries would be unable to attack it.


Oh come on. Traditionally espionage has been the one thing Leninist regimes have done right.

I'm not talking about foreign espionage, I'm talking about preventing domestic infiltration.

Because they would be unable to attack directly, capitalist countries would invest heavily in undermining internal support for any functional anti-capitalist society. Unfortunately, "vanguard" political structures, such as Lenin's, are perfect for this kind of undermining because they are so marginalizing of the citizenry.

Anarchism entails, by definition, an active and involved population. It would very difficult to instill "counterrevolutioanry" sentiments in such a society.

[ComradeOm]

What all of them? ....so if there is a revolution in America tomorrow, you think it would be impossible for a Communist (or Anarchist) society to emerge if there wasn't a revolution in Britain, France, Germany etc.
In a word… yes. A revolution in America would draw the wrath of the EU and vise versa. Its possible that a communist society may evolve when suitably isolated from the world or insulated surrounding socialist nations.

But if you want to stick to your example. What happens if America were to suddenly have a revolution? Its difficult to relate today’s world with that of a century or two in the future but some things are a given. One being that the counterrevolutionaries would receive huge degrees of support from fellow capitalist regimes. Its not hard to see that in the immediate aftermath of the revolution there would be considerable foreign interference, the exertion of both hard and soft power.


Perhaps, but it's irrelevent in discussing the future.
So now history is irrelevant? Better scrap historical materialism then.

Marxists have always looked to the past as a tool in analysing the present and the future. And a look at military trends of the past reveals that the evolution of armies and command structures has been towards more professional soldiers. The reason for this is simple – well trained professional soldiers with a strict hierarchy win wars. This is true of all nations in all eras. This has always been the case and without a radically new, and as yet unconceptualised (sp?), model you will not win.


Unlike the "socialist" regimes of the past, an anarchis society will not emerge in an underdeveloped colonial country. Accordingly any potential war of capitalist conquest will not be akin to "anti-communist" wars of South East Asia or even the European conflicts you're thinking of, such as the Spanish Civil War.

The war we're talking about will not be one of jungles and raiding parties, it will be one of sattelites and ICBMs; and such a conflict can be managed quite well ahierarchically.
Technology is nice but it will be, as always, boots on the ground that decides any conflict.

You seem to be assuming though that a communist society will be able to simply assume the properties and weapons of the capitalist state? I’ve got news for you, the workers don’t control the satellites, they don’t control the intelligence organs and they don’t have the codes for the missiles. You’ll be lucky if you even get three months in which to figure this out.


Of course not, but that doesn't mean that they will commit collective suicide by attacking a first world country.
That depends entirely on how threatened they and their economic interests feel.


After all, the US didn't invade Russia, did it?
Actually it did during the Revolution ;)

But if you’re talking about the Cold War, I suspect that the size and capabilities of the Soviet army and arsenal had something to do with that. Its really an illustration of the advantages of structured force.


"Fail safes"? Against what?
Against revolutionaries taking control of a nations nukes.


I think you're underestimating just how easy a nuclear bomb is to build. It doesn't require that the military of the country in question have prior nuclear weapons, although it would certainly help, just a sufficiently advanced technological sector and supplies or abilities to garner supplies of fissionable materials.

If there was an anarchist revolution in, say, Spain tomorrow, that community could build itself a working nuclear missiles within three months tops. It could have 10 thermonuclear warheads mounted on intercontinental missiles and pointed at major capitalist cities within six.

There would be nothing that the capitalists could do.
That seems awful optimistic to me. Does Spain have the technology or the materials? I honestly don’t know. I am fairly sure that they are nowhere near able to construct an ICBM that would reach the US though. There’s a reason that those programs take years to complete.

But congratulations. You have ten warheads. The US has what, ten thousand active and another ten thousand in storage? Its not exactly mutually assured destruction.


I'm not talking about foreign espionage, I'm talking about preventing domestic infiltration.

Because they would be unable to attack directly, capitalist countries would invest heavily in undermining internal support for any functional anti-capitalist society. Unfortunately, "vanguard" political structures, such as Lenin's, are perfect for this kind of undermining because they are so marginalizing of the citizenry.
Once again you’re flying in the face of historical fact. The Soviet Union was not riddled with informers or spies, despite the best efforts of the Americans. Whether the USSR’s citizens were "marginalised" is irrelevant because the nation could rely on the extremely effective intelligence structures. They proved to be perfectly capable of playing the spy game and playing it well.

The same has generally been true of other Stalinist and Maoist nations. The Stasi even gave a perverse twist to the phrase “active citizenry” with one in every 53 citizens being an informer.


Anarchism entails, by definition, an active and involved population. It would very difficult to instill "counterrevolutioanry" sentiments in such a society.
And Marxism doesn't? What Marxism does do is recognise that the classes will not simply disappear. As such there will always be grounds for counterrevolutionaries in the immediate aftermath of revolution.

[I'd Rather Be Drinking]

This is ridiculous.

First. There are no such thing as anarchist or communist countries. Revolt won't be even, there will be areas that move quicker than others. But the advanced regions will have to spread the revolt everywhere, and very quickly. If they are unable to, they will fail, and you will fall back into capitalism.

Second. Let's assume this time during the revolution where there are revolutionary militias organized that are fighting with professional armies. The militias cannot hope to win on pure military grounds. And the more the conflict is protracted, the more the militias will tend to become armies. The way they would have to spread is by inciting revolt, desertion, mutiny and fragging in the reactionary armies. That doesn't mean there won't be lots of fighting to do, but the decisive factor is not the military one.

Third. Sure capital wants to make the marine a killing machine. Just like it wants to turn workers into surplus-value creating machines. But no marine is JUST a killing machine. Just like no worker is JUST a creater of surplus-value. In the US army during the Vietnam war the soldiers who volunteered for the army disobeyed orders and participated in fraggings slightly more often than those who had been drafted.

[enigma2517]

Centralization just presents a bigger and more precise target for counter revolutionaries.

I wonder what the anarchist response would be if the reactionary US stormed the Spainish parliament? ;)

Both urban and rural guerrilla warfare have many merits. You choose when and how to attack. Combined with a general strike, I don't see any attempts at occupation succeeding. Don't forget, by the time something like this happens, many countries will in fact be struggling with certain disruptive domestic elements at home. Could France organize a sucessful invasion against the UK if it undergoes the whole riot situation again (possibly the riot situation times 5)?

[LSD]

Technology is nice but it will be, as always, boots on the ground that decides any conflict.

You're living in the past. When it comes to major powers fighting major powers, "boots on the ground" no longer count.

It wasn't "boots" that won the cold war and it won't be "boots" that win the next one. In an age of sattelites and microcomputers, the grunt with the M16 doesn't cut it.

When invading and occupying a minor power, of course you need soldiers. But no amount of soldiers can make invading China a win for the US; and no amount of soldiers will allow China to invade the US.

Simply put, times have changed.


So now history is irrelevant?

Of course not. But the examples that you provided are irrlevent in terms of the wars of the future.

There has not been a major symmetrical war in over half a century now. If one were to errupt, it would not be akin to the premodern wars of the last century and certainly not the asymmetric wars of neocolonialism.


You seem to be assuming though that a communist society will be able to simply assume the properties and weapons of the capitalist state?


Not all of them, no. But a successful revolution would be able to control the majority of the productive tools of the society as well as the fixed technical infastructure.

That would be sufficient to construct a decent preventative defense system.


That depends entirely on how threatened they and their economic interests feel.

No it doesn't.

Capitalists will not commit suicide to protect "economic interests". Capitalism is, after all, an ideology of personal bennefit.

If the choice is between letting a revolutionary society exist and personal ruin, they will choose the former.

All that a revolutionary society has to do is ensure that it is capable of retaliatory action and no capitalist country will risk attack.


I am fairly sure that they are nowhere near able to construct an ICBM that would reach the US though.

Then you're wrong.

If the present Spanish government wished to, it could equip itself with such weapons within months.

And, of course, the revolutionary society we're talking about will not emerge tomorrow, it will be decades from now; and based on current rates of technological progress, when that time comes, it won't be inconcievable to construce such weapons within weeks.


There’s a reason that those programs take years to complete.

um... no there isn't and no they don't.

I believe you're referring to the efforts of third and second world countries to develop nuclear programs. Countries like Iran and Iraq and Pakistan. In these cases, it does indeed take years, if not longer. But an anarchist society will not develop in these countries, it will develop in the first world.

In Europe and North America, of course, many countries already have such weapons, and even the ones that don't are technologically capable of equiping themselves with them if they so desire.

Even Japan, a stringently anti-nuclear-weapons country, has determined that, should it require, it would be capable of developing an advanced thermonuclear arseonal in less than a year.

Again, these things are easier to build than you want to accept.


But congratulations. You have ten warheads. The US has what, ten thousand active and another ten thousand in storage? Its not exactly mutually assured destruction.

You don't need mutual destruction, just sufficient destruction.

China has about 400 nukes to the US' 10,000, but it's more than sufficient to discourge any US attack.

All that a revolutionary society needs to do is ensure that it is able to destroy a significant proportion of the industrial and capital-generating sectors of any threatening country. Capitalist will not risk the annihilation of their domestic markets to destroy an ideological enemy.

They will, again, use less direct methods.


But if you’re talking about the Cold War, I suspect that the size and capabilities of the Soviet army and arsenal had something to do with that.

It wasn't the tanks and aircraft that kept the US at bay, it was the missiles. Again, "hierarchy" is not required.


Whether the USSR’s citizens were "marginalised" is irrelevant because the nation could rely on the extremely effective intelligence structures. They proved to be perfectly capable of playing the spy game and playing it well.

Not well enough. I don't know where you've been, but the USSR isn't around any more.

The methods that the "west" used against the Soviet Union are the exact same ones they'd use against any anarchist society. My point is that rhetoric and propaganda would be far less effective against a genuinely revolutionary population than they were against a disenfranchised and discouraged "socialist" one.

[ComradeOm]

You're living in the past. When it comes to major powers fighting major powers, "boots on the ground" no longer count.

It wasn't "boots" that won the cold war and it won't be "boots" that win the next one. In an age of sattelites and microcomputers, the grunt with the M16 doesn't cut it.

When invading and occupying a minor power, of course you need soldiers. But no amount of soldiers can make invading China a win for the US; and no amount of soldiers will allow China to invade the US.

Simply put, times have changed.
There are some constants that always remain in any field of study. A few “natural laws” if you like. One of those that can be seen from the last century of military history is that aircraft or satellites cannot take land. This is true regardless of the nature of the war, regardless of the terrain and regardless of the standing of the belligerents.

Assuming that a shooting war erupts between two nations, of any ideology, any attempt to invade or repulse an invasion depends on the traditional army – the soldiers and armour. Obviously today aircraft and hi-tech toys can drastically increase an army’s effectiveness but without a body of soldiers capable of using them its like sticking electric windows and a CD player on a bicycle.

Nukes and other hi-tech equipment may discourage a war, in which case you’re perfectly correct, but when the shooting starts you have to assume that a major invasion will start. My point is that a militia or committee based army will not be capable of holdings its own against a professional counterpart.


Of course not. But the examples that you provided are irrlevent in terms of the wars of the future.

There has not been a major symmetrical war in over half a century now. If one were to errupt, it would not be akin to the premodern wars of the last century and certainly not the asymmetric wars of neocolonialism.
We have a great deal of history to work with on this issue. Its not too hard to envisage what a modern war between two major powers would look like. The core tactical dynamics have not changed radically since 1945. Among the evidence available is what happens when a modern infantry unit goes up against a militia based equivalent.


No it doesn't.

Capitalists will not commit suicide to protect "economic interests". Capitalism is, after all, an ideology of personal bennefit.

If the choice is between letting a revolutionary society exist and personal ruin, they will choose the former.

All that a revolutionary society has to do is ensure that it is capable of retaliatory action and no capitalist country will risk attack.
The personal benefit of the capitalists are found in their economic interests! When their profits are threatened they will act.

There are some many possible permutations here that its easiest to take a few examples. If revolution were to occur in the US, the nation many argue has the most advanced proletariat, then the entire global capitalist system would be threatened. Other capitalist nations would have two choices – either rebuild the financial network without a cornerstone or intervene in the US at the earliest possible opportunity.

The flipside is a socialist revolution in say Chile or some other relatively unimportant nation. In which case it would most likely take a series of such revolutions throughout the world before the capitalists saw the danger Then you're wrong.


If the present Spanish government wished to, it could equip itself with such weapons within months.

And, of course, the revolutionary society we're talking about will not emerge tomorrow, it will be decades from now; and based on current rates of technological progress, when that time comes, it won't be inconcievable to construce such weapons within weeks. and had no choice but to act.
Do you have a source for this claim? If I’m wrong I’d be interested in reading up on this.

Even with the heightened state of urgency and discounted the immediate chaos I still maintain that it would be impossible to design and manufacture an ICBM in anything less than a year. The design, materials selection, material procurement, huge amounts of testing, development of manufacturing facilities capable of making the damned thing… I don’t see how its possible for any nation that does not already have existing plans.

As far as I’m aware the most impressive engineering design feat in any war was the incredibly short lead time of 178 days needed to go from receiving the order to flying a prototype of the P-51 Mustang. A far simpler design than an ICBM but using far more basic tools.


You don't need mutual destruction, just sufficient destruction.

China has about 400 nukes to the US' 10,000, but it's more than sufficient to discourge any US attack.

All that a revolutionary society needs to do is ensure that it is able to destroy a significant proportion of the industrial and capital-generating sectors of any threatening country. Capitalist will not risk the annihilation of their domestic markets to destroy an ideological enemy.

They will, again, use less direct methods.
As I mention above it depends on the location of the revolution and the economic impact. Losing a foreign supplier or market may be enough to force their hand.

Eventually though the capitalist regimes that remain will face the choice of either acting or being swept away. If an anarchist society has armed itself with nukes then they may not bother with conventional method at all and simply make use of their superior reserves of nukes.


It wasn't the tanks and aircraft that kept the US at bay, it was the missiles. Again, "hierarchy" is not required
It would be foolish in the extreme to assume that MAD did not play a role in the Cold War staying cool. It would also be foolish to assume that the ability of the Soviet Army to drive to the Bay of Biscay also had nothing to do with it.


Not well enough. I don't know where you've been, but the USSR isn't around any more.

The methods that the "west" used against the Soviet Union are the exact same ones they'd use against any anarchist society. My point is that rhetoric and propaganda would be far less effective against a genuinely revolutionary population than they were against a disenfranchised and discouraged "socialist" one.
The Soviet Union collapsed because of the paranoia and idiocy of its leaders in allowing the political superstructure to waver. The CIA or any Western agency had next to nothing to do with it. Even the images of American suburbs with two cars and a microwave only reached a fraction, the uppermost fraction, of Soviet society.

[bezdomni]

So...the way to win a revolution is to be the nut with dynamite attached to themself? People will give in to the power instead of the ideas?

You have to realize that the military itself is mostly the working poor, and many of them would split from the country that they currently serve if they were offered a better situation. If the current military has nobody to operate its vehicles of desctruction, then it becomes more likely for the revolutionary working class to win. There hasn't been in a revolution in history in which there was no polarization in the military of the defending power structure.

The government and command of a government need to be shut down because they serve the interests of only a few against a majority. They do not need to be destroyed by thermonuclear missles. If anything, the missles need to be destroyed by those who built them.

You're forgetting where military power comes from.