Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 02:13:21 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: The Biggest Gun Wins?  (Read 4186 times)
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 22, 2011, 02:59:06 AM
 #1

So, let's imagine that there are no governments and that the rich and powerful have vast private armies. Let's also imagine that, as would be likely, there are a bunch of other private armies and though they are each far smaller, altogether the number of soldiers is greater than that in the private armies of the rich and powerful.

Now, let's simplify things a bit. Let's say that there is one big army of 1,000 soldiers owned by the rich and powerful and there are 500 small armies each with 100 soldiers owned by everyone else. If the big army were to attack any of the small armies one-on-one, they would win. So, it seems like whoever controls the big army, controls everything. But wait, what if the big army started attacking each of the small armies one after another to grab for that power? Would each of the small armies line up like dominoes waiting for their turn to be knocked down? I don't think so.

It's more likely that, even though the small armies are controlled by many different people, since they have a common enemy, they would unite long enough to take out the big army. It looks like it's not merely the biggest gun that wins. A bunch of smaller guns can win by working together and they have a motivation to do so, out of their own selfish sense of self-preservation. It's naive to think that you can just knock down army after army without being perceived as a threat to the others and taken out by a briefly united group of small armies.
1481249601
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481249601

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481249601
Reply with quote  #2

1481249601
Report to moderator
1481249601
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481249601

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481249601
Reply with quote  #2

1481249601
Report to moderator
1481249601
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481249601

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481249601
Reply with quote  #2

1481249601
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481249601
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481249601

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481249601
Reply with quote  #2

1481249601
Report to moderator
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
July 22, 2011, 03:22:43 AM
 #2

LOL Nice Scenario.

How about this one:

One big army 100,000 Soldiers.

Like the Romans.

500 small armies each having 100 soldiers.

Like every other group that had to fight against the Romans.


The Romans use the others for toilet paper. Why would you come here and ask us to support such a scenario ?? Do you need more toilet paper ??

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 22, 2011, 03:25:50 AM
 #3

The little armies don't even have to be that big. 4 guys in each are enough to outnumber the big one 2 to 1.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
a63ntsm1th
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 94


View Profile
July 22, 2011, 03:26:25 AM
 #4

I detect no real flaw with your reasoning.  The problem is however that war is actually very unprofitable without fiat money, or debt of some sort.  Eliminating fiat currency would mean governments would have a hard time going that far into debt resulting in the costs of war being more directly passed on to the people in the form of taxation, creating huge political problems for any political leader.

Imagine if the citizens of those countries involved in wars had to come up with the taxes for the costs of the war every year?

So you see, bitcoin can save the world!

just my .02 btc
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 22, 2011, 03:30:16 AM
 #5

Like every other group that had to fight against the Romans.

And when they ganged up on the Romans, what happened... Oh yeah, right:


BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Xephan
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile
July 22, 2011, 03:32:52 AM
 #6

Now, let's simplify things a bit. Let's say that there is one big army of 1,000 soldiers owned by the rich and powerful and there are 500 small armies each with 100 soldiers owned by everyone else. If the big army were to attack any of the small armies one-on-one, they would win. So, it seems like whoever controls the big army, controls everything. But wait, what if the big army started attacking each of the small armies one after another to grab for that power? Would each of the small armies line up like dominoes waiting for their turn to be knocked down? I don't think so.


Neither would the big army owner usually go openly attacking the small armies to provoke them into an alliance. Usually he will intimidate a few, get a few to be on his side for some benefits and start setting some of the smaller armies against each other. Then step in as "Big Brother" conveniently and gain positive PR points.

By the time the rest realizes what's going on, the total numbers able and willing to go up against Big Brother may no longer be sufficient.

186q9YUW3x8TVHC5aYBEqgZZYMxft8Cw9f
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 22, 2011, 03:53:51 AM
 #7

Neither would the big army owner usually go openly attacking the small armies to provoke them into an alliance. Usually he will intimidate a few, get a few to be on his side for some benefits and start setting some of the smaller armies against each other. Then step in as "Big Brother" conveniently and gain positive PR points.

By the time the rest realizes what's going on, the total numbers able and willing to go up against Big Brother may no longer be sufficient.

That calls for a great deal more speculation as to being able to manipulate people with a vast conspiracy without being exposed, etc, etc.
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 22, 2011, 05:18:49 AM
 #8

So, let's imagine that there are no governments and that the rich and powerful have vast private armies. Let's also imagine that, as would be likely, there are a bunch of other private armies and though they are each far smaller, altogether the number of soldiers is greater than that in the private armies of the rich and powerful.

Now, let's simplify things a bit. Let's say that there is one big army of 1,000 soldiers owned by the rich and powerful and there are 500 small armies each with 100 soldiers owned by everyone else. If the big army were to attack any of the small armies one-on-one, they would win. So, it seems like whoever controls the big army, controls everything. But wait, what if the big army started attacking each of the small armies one after another to grab for that power? Would each of the small armies line up like dominoes waiting for their turn to be knocked down? I don't think so.

It's more likely that, even though the small armies are controlled by many different people, since they have a common enemy, they would unite long enough to take out the big army. It looks like it's not merely the biggest gun that wins. A bunch of smaller guns can win by working together and they have a motivation to do so, out of their own selfish sense of self-preservation. It's naive to think that you can just knock down army after army without being perceived as a threat to the others and taken out by a briefly united group of small armies.

Or you could just pay some taxes and in general, live in a nation that does not have a bunch of armies fighting each other in your backyard.

You're rambling on about the theory of whether the biggest gun wins or not, and totally missing the point. Who wants to be concerned about hiring private armies to do battle for you in the streets? I think I'd just rather pay some god damn taxes.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 22, 2011, 05:25:58 AM
 #9

Or you could just pay some taxes and in general, live in a nation that does not have a bunch of armies fighting each other in your backyard.

You're rambling on about the theory of whether the biggest gun wins or not, and totally missing the point. Who wants to be concerned about hiring private armies to do battle for you in the streets? I think I'd just rather pay some god damn taxes.

Yes, you're right. It's so much better to be forced to pay for armies to fight in OTHER people's streets.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
July 22, 2011, 05:32:37 AM
 #10

Yes, you're right. It's so much better to be forced to pay for armies to fight in OTHER people's streets.

The fighting in other people's streets has nothing to do with this discussion. If you want to discuss that, first get a grounding in ecological economics and steady state growth, which I have asked you to do now for about three weeks. I have provided the links in other threads. Then come back and we can discuss that issue.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
Jaime Frontero
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
July 22, 2011, 05:55:03 AM
 #11

Yes, you're right. It's so much better to be forced to pay for armies to fight in OTHER people's streets.

it is, y'know...
JeffK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350


I never hashed for this...


View Profile
July 22, 2011, 06:02:53 AM
 #12

LOL Nice Scenario.

How about this one:

One big army 100,000 Soldiers.

Like the Romans.

500 small armies each having 100 soldiers.

Like every other group that had to fight against the Romans.


The Romans use the others for toilet paper. Why would you come here and ask us to support such a scenario ?? Do you need more toilet paper ??


You are the worst poster. It's bad enough that the shit you post is nonsensical, but the formatting style would be no different if all your postings were copy/pasted from the chain emails your racist grandfather sends you. Type in a way that people can read easily, and then restructure your postings so they form a coherent point and not some splintered series of half-thoughts.
MountainMan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28



View Profile
July 22, 2011, 06:10:25 AM
 #13

bitcoin2cash, what really happens (and I base this assessment off of experience with wargames, realmVrealm in online games, history, and common sense) is that unless those 500 small armies band together and become a single big army, they get chewed up and systematically assimilated or destroyed outright. It happens so often that I am shocked when the little guys manage to pull off even short term victories. It comes down to simple logistics.

Economies of scale occur in warfare just as in commerce. It's easier to provide a monolithic vertically integrated supply chain than it is to provide equivalent support to hundreds of smaller units. There's also the psychological impact of facing superior numbers. Any sort of operation, whether it's rapid-fire skirmishes or long-term sieges can be better performed by the army with bigger numbers, assuming commanders of equal knowledge and skill.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 22, 2011, 06:14:27 AM
 #14

Economies of scale occur in warfare just as in commerce. It's easier to provide a monolithic vertically integrated supply chain than it is to provide equivalent support to hundreds of smaller units. There's also the psychological impact of facing superior numbers. Any sort of operation, whether it's rapid-fire skirmishes or long-term sieges can be better performed by the army with bigger numbers, assuming commanders of equal knowledge and skill.

It's also a hell of a lot easier to disrupt said monolithic support structure. Army travels on it's belly.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
nafai
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112



View Profile
July 22, 2011, 06:40:09 AM
 #15

Quote
One big army 100,000 Soldiers.

Like the Romans.

500 small armies each having 100 soldiers.

Like every other group that had to fight against the Romans.

Did you know the US spends more on its military than every other country in the world combined?

I just thought that was interesting.

1HQiS9PLHPcoQMgN8ZdcGwhoMHWh2Hp37p
MountainMan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28



View Profile
July 22, 2011, 06:43:54 AM
 #16

Quote
It's also a hell of a lot easier to disrupt said monolithic support structure. Army travels on it's belly.
Not sure that that is true anymore. For example, I haven't seen any truly successful disruptions of the US supply chain, even though Al Qaeda is perfectly willing to blow themselves up to take out trucks. Modular and standardized supply chains guarded by well trained troops with highly specific regulations (+ sniper towers) create a pretty damn secure situation.

It'd be more accurate to say that armies today travel on their diesel. Disrupting diesel shipments has happened occasionally, even for political reasons. I can't ever recall hearing of troops going hungry or thirsty.

Quote
Did you know the US spends more on its military than every other country in the world combined?

Yeah, just look up how much they spend in Iraq and Afghanistan on A/C alone. That by itself exceeds the GDP of a helluva lot of countries, let alone our entire budget.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 22, 2011, 06:56:51 AM
 #17

It'd be more accurate to say that armies today travel on their diesel. Disrupting diesel shipments has happened occasionally, even for political reasons. I can't ever recall hearing of troops going hungry or thirsty.

Point. Weren't for a gas shortage, Hitler might have made it back to the beaches.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
ansible adams
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 52


View Profile
July 23, 2011, 09:02:06 PM
 #18

South Africa covertly spent less than $10 million per year for about 15 years to develop a nuclear arsenal, and succeeded. All this wargaming talk of guns and men is nonsense. Even a "little" army can have nuclear weapons for the price of a handful of new aircraft. And once all the armies have nuclear weapons, the first to strike can destroy any of the others, though they will probably be destroyed in kind.

We probably shouldn't worry about this, though, because after the state is abolished human prejudice and folly will be too. People will only go to war for sound and sober reasons that appeal to homo economicus, the same way they would plan investments for a pension fund. Therefore it is safe to say that a thousand private armies can have a hundred warheads each and we can still sleep sound at night, because only a fool would start a nuclear war and this stateless new paradise will have a big "no fools allowed" sign hanging over the gates.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 23, 2011, 09:17:03 PM
 #19

We probably shouldn't worry about this, though, because after the state is abolished human prejudice and folly will be too. People will only go to war for sound and sober reasons that appeal to homo economicus, the same way they would plan investments for a pension fund. Therefore it is safe to say that a thousand private armies can have a hundred warheads each and we can still sleep sound at night, because only a fool would start a nuclear war and this stateless new paradise will have a big "no fools allowed" sign hanging over the gates.

Mmm... sarcasm. It is... delicious, yet tangy. The taste of fail.

Yes, people will still be stupid without government. They just won't be in charge:

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
ansible adams
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 52


View Profile
July 23, 2011, 10:36:15 PM
 #20

OK, no sarcasm in paradise either. In a stateless world you can eventually expect every armed group bigger than the local militia to have nuclear weapons. There will be peace or there will be spasms of mutual extermination, not a lot in between. And the relative size of the armies and their budgets doesn't matter. Russia, France, the UK: any one of them could utterly ruin the United States and be destroyed in turn by the counterstrike. It doesn't matter who has more soldiers, smarter tacticians, or greater wealth. Tiny Israel can produce enough nukes to cripple giant China.

If Sam Colt made all men equal, nuclear weapons make all armed forces equal. This is why nuclear weapons are attractive to states like North Korea. This tiny dysfunctional country can't hope to produce an industrial base capable of matching its enemies in conventional warfare. But for less than the cost of a pair of F-22s, nuclear capability can give NK a "get out of invasion and occupation free" card. This is why the states with nuclear weapons enter open warfare only against states without them.

In this sense nuclear weapons discourage warfare generally and their spread is actually a good thing. The problem is the possibility of accidental or irrational use of nuclear weapons, which could quickly kill more people than all wars of the 20th century combined. In my estimation the probability of unplanned disaster rises sharply if there are 1000 different groups with nukes.
Pages: [1] 2 3 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!