Libertarians and Military Necessity

[Brant Gaede]

One of the reasons that Ayn Rand disliked Ronald Reagan is that she denied that the USSR was a threat to the USA.

Michael, "The Age of Mediocrity," lecture and Q&A, does not support this statement. In fact, she only called for more defense spending apropos this. Once she even advocated a "just" war with the Soviet Union.

--Brant

[dennislmay]

We all have our experiences and maybe you have more education and work than you let on. (I see you as a redneck from Missouri whose dinner consists of the squirrels you shot with your AK-47 or AR-15 while waiting for the federal troops to assault your farm.) Myself, I worked in factories and I did a job at NASA. I trained electricians in robot operations and programming. Long, long ago a NASA consultant with libertarian attitudes told me that he thought that if the button were pushed, we might get a dozen missiles out of the silos and the USSR maybe one.

The USSR produced chess champions because no one with brains wanted to work for them... "no one" or not many, really ... I met one. He completed a Ph.D. in computer science, was recruited by the KGB -- and defected. (Boris Yuzhin Wikipedia bio here.)

The USSR was not a threat. The USA government in Washington just made it convenient to be perceived as a threat.

This squirrel eating Missouri redneck was in a PhD track for physics at age 22 before leaving [due to disagreement about QM research] joining the Air Force in the physics career field. I then worked in weapons design as an Air Force Officer at Wright-Labs - first in hydrocode modeling of weapons and later non-linear modeling of electronic components for phased array radars. I was there [1985-1992] during the peak of the military high tech. buildup which brought down the Soviets. One of my best friends and one of my bosses for several years were missileers - the comment that would have gotten off a dozen missiles and the Soviets maybe one is pure fantasy by a know-nothing.

Since leaving the Air Force I have designed machinery for an assortment of factories and continue to do independent work in QM and gravity research.

The Soviets were ahead in some technologies - behind in others. They were ahead in several forms of nuclear technology - behind in control systems and advanced information systems. Unless you sat in on secret briefings you shouldn't know the details.

The USSR was a terrible threat and the Russians are a terrible threat today.

Your background is interesting but no more so than hundreds of people I have known and worked with - far less remarkable than most I worked with in the Air Force in R&D.

Dennis

[Brant Gaede]

In the late 60s or early 70s the Nixon administration authorized the export of precision drilling machines--my memory is fuzzy as to what machines--to the USSR which enabled the Soviets to manufacture small nuclear warheads. I was aghast at the time, with this my layman's understanding, but now I'm glad they could downsize their warheads and change their city-busting nuclear strategic strategy.

I've never had any doubt that GNW with the USSR would have been horribly devastating. I was so glad when the three-pronged nuclear deterrent came on line in the 1960s. This started with the B-36 bomber (maybe the B-47 earlier) in the 1950s--replaced by the B-52; the George Washington nuclear missile launching submarine(s) around 1961; Titan and Missileman siloed missiles shortly thereafter. Tucson was ringed with Titan bases.

Dennis, can you correct or comment on what is still my ignorance? My geek cousin in Florida just told me that because of the nature of an EMP blast and the robust nature of modern electronics--they don't mesh very well-- EMP is vastly over-rated as civilization-ending technology. An example if not another example it seems where I've mis-understood the basic nature of these things.

There is a lot to be said for Michael's general thesis, which is typically libertarian, but until it collapsed the USSR had a mighty right (nuclear) arm, so things were more complex than they might seem. I now read that Russia is getting rid of its nuclear stockpile and replacing it with low-maintenance atomic bombs. Is this true?

--Brant

[Frediano]

So the Soviets were going to be relatively imprecise if and when they directed a relatively few ... 60+ MT warheads at us using any means. I guess that is what is called Cold War Comfort. Screw that MAD endgame, their biggest threat to freedom was their organizational concept, and that threat is lingering like a fart in a taxicab. That concept was the basis for the conflict, and ours could no more exist in a world where theirs was dominant than theirs could in a world where there was even just one America; that experiment was already run in post war Berlin, and they could not possibly build the walls high enough or thick enough to keep their victims chained in place as long as there existed one free nation on earth. Yet America, too, has fallen in love with the idea of centralized and centrally planned command and control 'the economy' running.

Who needed H2 bombs when we've got the over-run chokepoint Ivies to lead us to Hell on Earth?

[dennislmay]

Your background is interesting but no more so than hundreds of people I have known and worked with - far less remarkable than most I worked with in the Air Force in R&D.

Appeal to authority is not the best approach to argumentation.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

In the late 60s or early 70s the Nixon administration authorized the export of precision drilling machines--my memory is fuzzy as to what machines--to the USSR which enabled the Soviets to manufacture small nuclear warheads. I was aghast at the time...

The West has continuously supplied technology to its enemies. It comes about through stupidity, corruption, bribes, internal traitors, theft, and sloppy security. It is and has been a serious problem.

My geek cousin in Florida just told me that because of the nature of an EMP blast and the robust nature of modern electronics--they don't mesh very well-- EMP is vastly over-rated as civilization-ending technology. An example if not another example it seems where I've mis-understood the basic nature of these things.

I have not heard that modern electronics are more robust - except in military systems. My Dell - 1 year old crashes at the slightest hint of static electricity near a USB port. Everything I've heard about EMP [my undergraduate Relativity Professor was an EMP researcher for the DoD] says it would indeed be a civilization killer.

I now read that Russia is getting rid of its nuclear stockpile and replacing it with low-maintenance atomic bombs. Is this true?

A likely part of upgrading and modernizing but I have not heard the details.

Dennis

[Brant Gaede]

So the Soviets were going to be relatively imprecise if and when they directed a relatively few ... 60+ MT warheads at us using any means. I guess that is what is called Cold War Comfort. Screw that MAD endgame, their biggest threat to freedom was their organizational concept, and that threat is lingering like a fart in a taxicab. That concept was the basis for the conflict, and ours could no more exist in a world where theirs was dominant than theirs could in a world where there was even just one America; that experiment was already run in post war Berlin, and they could not possibly build the walls high enough or thick enough to keep their victims chained in place as long as there existed one free nation on earth. Yet America, too, has fallen in love with the idea of centralized and centrally planned command and control 'the economy' running.

Who needed H2 bombs when we've got the over-run chokepoint Ivies to lead us to Hell on Earth?

We just have to consider ourselves lucky there was never a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union. There's no point now in criticizing MAD and other 1960s nonsense. Basically the USSR and the US were two military superpowers that butted up against each other, mostly in Europe with a NATO and Warsaw Pact buffer. That's over but serious dangers remain. The growth of the state seems to be an inevitable consequence of American democracy in action as we transition to a more authoritarian structure. The only thing I see stopping it is economic collapse into the greatest recession-depression ever. That would be a better outcome than gross inflation eviscerating the middle class leaving the bad guys intact with their expanding political power.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

"Civilization killer" means mass starvation of hundreds of millions of people and no recovery to speak of. The more primitive the country, the less general devastation. Also, primitive countries are less likely targets. Many wouldn't even be able to get water. New York City would be a hellhole in days with millions fleeing the city, by walking, with few places to go to. Some of those who stay behind will be down at the Hudson River waiting for the water to reverse from salt water inflow to fresh water outflow. But that's only Manhattan. What will you do when your starving neighbors beg you for some of your food and water? You best be very isolated and self-sufficient and not needing dental care or antibiotics and feed for your chickens.

--Brant

the end of the world as we know it

[syrakusos]

This squirrel eating Missouri redneck was in a PhD track for physics at age 22 ... I then worked in weapons design as an Air Force Officer at Wright-Labs - first in hydrocode modeling ... I have designed machinery for an assortment of factories and ...

I figured as much. Just checking.

One of my best friends and one of my bosses for several years were missileers - the comment that would have gotten off a dozen missiles and the Soviets maybe one is pure fantasy by a know-nothing.

... and yet he had his credentials as well...

Your background is interesting but no more so than hundreds of people I have known and worked with - far less remarkable than most I worked with in the Air Force in R&D.

Just the tip of the iceberg.... I am satisfied that you know what you are talking about, even as we continue to disagree. The USSR collapsed. The facts speak for themselves. But, as Mises pointed out, socialists and capitalists agree on the facts - that at a time and place a commodity had a price - but disagree on what the facts mean. Theory informs.

[dennislmay]

One of my best friends and one of my bosses for several years were missileers - the comment that would have gotten off a dozen missiles and the Soviets maybe one is pure fantasy by a know-nothing.

... and yet he had his credentials as well...

Sounds more like a cynical off the cuff remark than any real knowledge of the facts. I have no idea why a NASA consultant would be considered a good source unless he also had a military background in missiles and somehow everyone else involved is wrong and covering it up.

Dennis

[RidleyReport]

Dennis you do bring up an issue that need addressing. How about we address it with "bazooka freedom?"

[Frediano]

Brant:

MAD effectively worked; I wasn't criticising it at all. That whole issue was binary: MAD either worked, or nothing else mattered. The experience we have is for two 20 kTon blasts (0.020 MT) We can't even imagine what a 50 Megaton detonation burst would be like over a city. The airtests of the H2 weapons were crippled below maximum yield. What is nearly incomprehensible at a crippled near 60 MT was in theory capable of 100 to 150 MT at full yield.

The point I was trying to make was, their factual damage was their theory of politics, which we seem to have been infected with. The hypothetical damage from an exchnage of modern weapons would be beyond imagination even if just a few of the thousands were successful. It is the actual damage from their politics that we are experiencing. The infection lingers. America thinks it is now safe to wax Totalitarian. It's not. We as a nation are no more educated or enlightened than the Germans who succumbed to existentially terrified philosophers from the 1800s. Our pinheads read the same slop.

MAD worked because both sides knew it could never be allowed to happen, there would be no winner. The problem with the lower key political confilct has been both sides think their politics is doable, like an inconsequential choice, their vanilla to our chocolate, so take our pick. It's more like a choice between poison and food, or when we endlessly compromise away our freedom, between a little poison in our food and a little more poison in our food, to be repeated because so far we're only sick not dead, and we have poison sellers convinced the reason we're sick is because we haven't swallowed enough poison..

regards,

Fred

[dennislmay]

Dennis you do bring up an issue that need addressing. How about we address it with "bazooka freedom?"

Neither libertarians nor objectivists have adequately addressed the issue of the rights of individuals concerning

weapons or dual use items. Restricting ownership implies restricting commerce and manufacture which in

turn leads to a collectivist/fascist/communist outlook on the role of government in the production of goods and

services. My grandfather and older cousins used explosives routinely on the farm - something which cannot

be done today. On my fathers side of the family we had gun dealers and designers in the family. I have had

several friends and colleagues in the gun design and sales industries. As an AF Officer I participated in the

design and testing of larger scale weapons. Private industry participates in the heavy weapons industry - but

only with permission and extremely heavy regulation. The bar to entry is set extemely high and can be very

political. Dual use is where strict prohibition leads to Fascist/Marxist type controls - which is where the US

is at in several areas today. Our current government is heading the way of Soviet Poland in the 70's where

the law is whatever we say it is - and we will use it for whatever poltiical purposes we desire. The BATF and

the Justice Deparment have involved themselves in criminal activities for poltical purposes without

consequence. The problems is more widespread than just Fast and Furious. Corruption on top of Fascist/Marxist

controls is not a pretty thing.

Dennis

[Brant Gaede]

The 2nd Amendment denotes a right which is not primary. The primary right is the right to self defense. That is the non-infringeable right, not the right to own, possess and use any weapon. However, assuming I'm correct, this is too sophisticated to justify repeal and replacement of the 2nd for the statists would roll right over this right as opposed to the right now formally stated. For the purposes of freedom, the 2nd is working pretty well. I just learned yesterday that a concealed Arizona carry permit, which is not needed in Arizona, would enable me to conceal carry, at least in my car, in almost all states while travelling. Exceptions are such as New Jersey and Massachusetts, maybe New York--one of the reasons I left New Jersey and will never live there again.

Unfortunately, I've not the time to devote much more of my tremendous brain-power to this discussion.

--Brant

genius is as genius does