Freedomain Radio

Nukes are weapons of mass destruction, so in most cases IMO there is impossible to use them against aggressors themselves and not harm thousands of innocent people at the same time, so I can't see how nukes can be used in self defense. Could someone explain how nukes could be used as proper weapons for the defense of an anarchistic country against aggressive dictators, as Stef suggests in his podcasts? Thank you.

Giedrius:

Nukes are weapons of mass destruction, so in most cases IMO there is impossible to use them against aggressors themselves and not harm thousands of innocent people at the same time, so I can't see how nukes can be used in self defense. Could someone explain how nukes could be used as proper weapons for the defense of an anarchistic country against aggressive dictators, as Stef suggests in his podcasts? Thank you.

I'll let Stef speak for himself, but my interpretation is that they be held as an "ultimate deterrent" against invasion. That is, mutual assured destruction.

Just as they have never been used in any of the dozens of wars since Hiroshima/Nagasaki, they should not be expected to be used in a free society. But as the old saying goes "Don't take a knife to a gunfight", so a free society should not rely on handguns to defend against determined imperialist aggression from a less-free society.

If Iran actually did have a nuclear weapon, neither Israel nor the US would be quite so keen to invade to control the oil (which they soon won't be able to afford to purchase). :)

 

FreeSpirit:

I'll let Stef speak for himself, but my interpretation is that they be held as an "ultimate deterrent" against invasion. That is, mutual assured destruction.

Just as they have never been used in any of the dozens of wars since Hiroshima/Nagasaki, they should not be expected to be used in a free society. But as the old saying goes "Don't take a knife to a gunfight", so a free society should not rely on handguns to defend against determined imperialist aggression from a less-free society.

If Iran actually did have a nuclear weapon, neither Israel nor the US would be quite so keen to invade to control the oil (which they soon won't be able to afford to purchase). :)

 

 

But if all parties knows that nukes won't be used, what's the point of having them? On the other hand if nukes will be used as a weapon of last resort, how death of thousands, if not millions, of innocent people could be justified?

Well that's the thing, if one society throws out it's nukes, you've lost a lot of deterrent. So as long as a nuke is sitting around collecting dust in each society, people can continue on peacefully. It's partly one of the reasons the "Wild" West was so non-violent. A majority of people were armed.

Also I'm sure there would be some way to warn the general populace. If you were the head of the DRO what would you do? Because you know the nuke has to be used but you also know you will loose a ton of revenue if you get a terrible image being somebody who used a weapon that is generally hated in the world.

But then again the DRO would probably just end up dedicating a TON of resources to assasinations to take out the top people who are doing whatever it is that's making using a nuke seem like a logical possiblity.

masonkiller:

Well that's the thing, if one society throws out it's nukes, you've lost a lot of deterrent. So as long as a nuke is sitting around collecting dust in each society, people can continue on peacefully. It's partly one of the reasons the "Wild" West was so non-violent. A majority of people were armed.

Sorry, I don't follow. In the "Wild" West people had guns which could be used against criminals only (not harming innocent people). Nukes are weapons, which in most cases can't be used against criminals only. If you use a nuke, you will kill a lot of innocent people. So if you are planning to use nukes, you should be planning to be charged with murder of millions of innocent people also.

Countries with nukes has never been invaded only because everyone knows, that governments in those countries WILL use nukes if necessary and WILL kill millions of innocent people without much regret.

masonkiller:

Also I'm sure there would be some way to warn the general populace. If you were the head of the DRO what would you do? Because you know the nuke has to be used but you also know you will loose a ton of revenue if you get a terrible image being somebody who used a weapon that is generally hated in the world.

How are you going to warn general populace before firing the nuke and not warn criminals in power also?

I wouldn't know I'm not an expert. That's the great thing about a free society; experts on the subject spend every day figuring out solutions. If I myself were in charge of a DRO I would keep the nukes as deterrent, but rely on assasinations as a last resort. Assasinations work much better anyways, because they just take out people who are trying to do something horribly violent.

I agree Giedrius, nukes are only a deterrent if your willing to use them. As I understand it, Stef was suggesting they would be used the same way Israel would use them. They have the Samson policy stating that if they were ever invaded they would light them all up bringing the whole country back to the ice age. Can't say I'm too fond of the idea myself.

I've often considered how much more prevalent non-lethal and non-violent weapons would be in a free society. Imagine if everybody wore cameras and security agencies had predator drones flying about with more cameras. Say a neighboring country tried to invade. Everything they did would be recorded and submitted to the world wide web in seconds and before you know it no one in the world would trade with them. And why couldn't we replace the deadly weapons with knock-out gas and tranquilizers.  

Using nukes only put the person or persons at high risk for being charged for harming  innocent parties and their properties. A society that stresses self-responsibility heavily most likely would refrain from using nukes and other forms of WMDs and use alternative weapons that would mostly harm target specific individuals since the risk of harming innocent bystanders would be lower.

Ryan:

And why couldn't we replace the deadly weapons with knock-out gas and tranquilizers.  

Mostly because that still kills people

I don't see why you couldn't use nukes against the attacking force itself. There are many kinds of nuclear explosions, some big some small, and all of them are cheaper than a full scale private army. You could nuke supply lines and bases and supply dumps and troop formations and navel fleets. Collateral damage would be very possible, in some situations unavoidable, but to me it still seems more acceptable than laying down and letting yourself be trodden on. Without a doubt any DRO possessing nukes would advertise the fact, and also include clauses in your contract with them detailing under what situations they will be used, including perhaps when enemies have occupied the property of its patrons. But I'm sure you could still fund a decent private army otherwise if this wasn't acceptable.

What would another country gain by attacking a free society? There is no telling who is armed and who is not. They'd have to kill everyone in the free society to ensure that our defense has been dealt with.

Philosoraptor:

What would another country gain by attacking a free society? There is no telling who is armed and who is not. They'd have to kill everyone in the free society to ensure that our defense has been dealt with.

Yes, it's sometimes said that statist societies are more easily conquered, because you only have to eliminate the power of central governing authorities and take control of the state apparatus that the bulk of people depend upon.

But wars aren't really waged in terms of rational self-interest...  They're a psychosocial phenomenon.  They have the effect of channeling a lot of resources to specific politically well-connected interests, and they alter the nature of the domestic political landscape to the advantage of specific political interests.  Governments invent false pretexts for going to war which often become irrelevant once the war has commenced.  The fact that a military can't really be expected to "win" a war in terms of the goals set for it usually has very little bearing on the decisions taken to initiate and undertake a war.  The criteria set up to judge whether a country is winning or losing a war change as a war goes on.

Countries never really lose or gain anything, because they aren't actors with goals.  The only actors are people, and wars will always be in the interest of some people.

 I think nukes are a result of statism and when statism disapears, so will nukes.

I don't think they would have been created without the state.  Ownership would look so different if statism was not around.  Owning anything that would require anything more than some simple security to protect would be nearly impossible, in my opinion.  It is principally the state that makes anything more than modest fortunes possible.  So with that in mind, why would you ever need a nuke? 

 Even if you were an awful person set on taking over the world by force, with smaller tracts of ownership, a nuke would not be too useful or practical.  As defense, perhaps, but it just seems like overkill, considering the size of what is owned.  Nukes make sense when it is possible to "own"  or be at war with a country. However, if the biggest thing you could hope to takeover was one person's property, it wouldn't make sense to have  huge nuke, the expense alone wouldn't justify it.

Like, I don't think there are countries that currently say, "If you try to invade me, I will blow up the whole earth."  They tend to have weapons big enough to take out their targets and not much else. 

As the targets shrink, I think the weapons will too.

It is just unfortunate that they got as big as they did already.

 

 

Yeah, what he said!  Excellent points, david kopp.  If the revolution is in changing people's minds and raising kids without aggression then the idea that a person or group of people could justifiably wield the destructive power to vaporize a whole city would not enter anyone's mind.  A whole city of people cannot initiate force against one person so it's morally impossible for one person to violently defend themselves against a whole city with a nuclear weapon.  And all the animals, vegetation, dirt and air for that matter.  Weapons that turn bits of the earth into useless, uninhabitable wastelands don't make any sense, even if it were moral to use them.

david kopp:

 I think nukes are a result of statism and when statism disapears, so will nukes.

I don't think they would have been created without the state.  Ownership would look so different if statism was not around.  Owning anything that would require anything more than some simple security to protect would be nearly impossible, in my opinion.  It is principally the state that makes anything more than modest fortunes possible.  So with that in mind, why would you ever need a nuke? 

 Even if you were an awful person set on taking over the world by force, with smaller tracts of ownership, a nuke would not be too useful or practical.  As defense, perhaps, but it just seems like overkill, considering the size of what is owned.  Nukes make sense when it is possible to "own"  or be at war with a country. However, if the biggest thing you could hope to takeover was one person's property, it wouldn't make sense to have  huge nuke, the expense alone wouldn't justify it.

Like, I don't think there are countries that currently say, "If you try to invade me, I will blow up the whole earth."  They tend to have weapons big enough to take out their targets and not much else. 

As the targets shrink, I think the weapons will too.

It is just unfortunate that they got as big as they did already.

 

 

The issue is that its rather unrealistic to expect the state to dissappear in every continent on Earth simultaneously. The first stateless society has to provide good reason for imperialist states from invading.