Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Personal stewardship of nuclear weapons.

Please don't "prove to me how it actually would work". Just think about it a while for yourself, and learn to accept that there's limits to the philosophy. Libertarianism is ultimately a heuristic, and you do it no favors by handwavingly claiming that you can prove desirable large scale behaviors based on a small set of axioms.

Signed - a libertarian.

This is a simple one, just watch Dr. Strangelove.

This has been what bugs me about gun rights people. The argument about personal safety is fine, but the people who want everyone to be armed in case the government decided to show its true colors or something? Um. You don't want a firearm. You want a tank.

I dunno, there's some folks in Afghanistan and Iraq who did pretty good for themselves against our high-tech arsenal with just some old automatic rifles and homemade explosives. Vietnam, too.

All of the insurgents in these conflicts have been armed by third parties.

The Vietcong got weapons and supplies from China and Cambodia, the Afghani insurgents got weapons and supplies from the US to fight the Soviets (including explosives [1]), and the current Iraqi insurgents get money and supplies from extremists all over the place, mostly from the Emirates (afaik).

All of these fighters did not build their own weapons and skills out of nothing.

[1] "Other CIA specialists and military officers supplied secure communications gear and trained Pakistani instructors on how to use it. Experts on psychological warfare brought propaganda and books. Demolitions experts gave instructions on the explosives needed to destroy key targets such as bridges, tunnels and fuel depots. They also supplied chemical and electronic timing devices and remote control switches for delayed bombs and rockets that could be shot without a mujaheddin rebel present at the firing site. " http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/pol/wtc/oblnus091401.html

None of which is relevant to the original assertion, which was that defeating a modern army requires heavy armor (which we can use for discussion purposes as a proxy for the complete spectrum of modern, high-tech weapons) rather than small arms. The Chinese weren't funneling tanks to the Viet Cong, and the US wasn't funneling A-10s to the Afghan insurgents. It was small arms and man-portable weapons like mortars and MANPADs.

And while those armies did eventually get arms supplies from abroad, in their early days they had to improvise. Viet Cong fighters early in that war, for instance, had to scrounge old French weapons or even homemade shotguns fashioned from galvanized pipe. The Iraqis' first IEDs were jerry-rigged artillery shells lifted from abandoned army depots. The foreign arms pipelines generally don't open up for a revolutionary army until it's proven it can fight and win at a small scale on its own.

Turns out rifles and IED's are pretty effective. Tanks aren't worth shit in a guerrilla war.

No, you want black markets and cryptography.

That's actually kind of a fallacy. Gun lovers don't want guns because they are scared of the Government. They want guns in case the Government fails. To protect them that is.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact