The Biggest Gun Wins?

[NghtRppr]

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.

[1715086067]

1715086067

[1715086067]

1715086067

[1715086067]

1715086067

[1715086067]

1715086067

[smellyBobby]

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 ??

[myrkul]

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.

[a63ntsm1th]

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!

[myrkul]

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

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

[Xephan]

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.

[NghtRppr]

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]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

[ascent]

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.

[Jaime Frontero]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[nafai]

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.

[MountainMan]

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.

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]

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.

[ansible adams]

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]

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:

[ansible adams]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

I find it interesting that you spend two entire paragraphs making my case, and then flippantly toss off 'but I'm afraid some kook's going to get a hold of one', and then use that as the basis of your argument. Do you honestly think that 'accidental or irrational' things can't happen now?

How many nukes did Russia have when it collapsed? How many of those were in border states? I'm pretty sure anyone who wants a nuke bad enough, can get one.

[ansible adams]

It's true, civilization could be smashed even now by foolish use of nukes. It almost happened before in 1983 and in 1962. More groups with nukes means more opportunities for disaster, though since the Cold War no nation has stockpiled ridiculous thousands of weapons.

Please cite a credible source for your idea that "anyone who wants a nuke bad enough" can get a former-Soviet warhead. Your gut feeling isn't very convincing.

Sort-of-on-topic for the thread: Ken MacLeod wrote a series of SF novels in the 1990s about about competing anarcho-capitalist and anarcho-socialist human factions colonizing space after many nation-states collapsed. One of the story strands was about an ex-Soviet republic that retained its nuclear arsenal and sold outsourced nuclear deterrence on the open market to groups who wanted to live under a nuclear umbrella without building their own weapons.

[BBanzai]

If you would be safe from armed men behaving irrationally, carry a weapon.  If you would allow all to be equally equipped, anticipate that 1 in 25 will behave irrationally.  That is the most current statistic I have found for sociopathy.  The other 24 of us can not defend ourselves and each other if we are unarmed.  We can only be shot down by the minority.  If we allow that disarmament in the name of peace, we will eventually find ourselves voting the minority into office, seeing as how they are the only ones left with weapon training.  Somehow, this sounds familiar.

[myrkul]

It's true, civilization could be smashed even now by foolish use of nukes. It almost happened before in 1983 and in 1962. More groups with nukes means more opportunities for disaster, though since the Cold War no nation has stockpiled ridiculous thousands of weapons.

Please cite a credible source for your idea that "anyone who wants a nuke bad enough" can get a former-Soviet warhead. Your gut feeling isn't very convincing.

Sort-of-on-topic for the thread: Ken MacLeod wrote a series of SF novels in the 1990s about about competing anarcho-capitalist and anarcho-socialist human factions colonizing space after many nation-states collapsed. One of the story strands was about an ex-Soviet republic that retained its nuclear arsenal and sold outsourced nuclear deterrence on the open market to groups who wanted to live under a nuclear umbrella without building their own weapons.

More groups means more opportunities, but more people with guns means more opportunities to get shot, too. Doesn't mean it happens.

Eh. My gut feeling doesn't convince me that Russian nukes are on the black market, either. And since I'm not a black-market arms dealer, I can't prove they are, or aren't. But tell me: Do you know where all those Nukes got to? 'Cause the Russians don't.

What books are these? I'm interested.

[indio007]

Some people are real foolhardy. They want an  group of strangers to have powers they won't allow themselves to have.

[ansible adams]

I think everyone having nukes is more like all my neighbors having truck bombs parked in their driveways. Even if they're just for deterrence against other people who might use truck bombs, I'm screwed if one of them goes off for any reason. Guns don't really compare.

The series of novels I talked about is the Fall Revolution series. I think the story of nuclear deterrence for sale is in the first book, The Star Fraction, and again in the last, The Sky Road. The first two books tell a certain future history and the next two books tell what happened after, with very different outcomes, based on the people who run the nuclear deterrence program making different choices at a crucial point in history. The third book is the most exciting, about a future where a hard technological singularity took off and humans left behind in the solar system almost went extinct. The fourth, the alternative scenario, is almost boring, about a "soft" technological singularity (and the history that led up to it) that left Earth like a libertarian paradise, with only voluntary cooperatives and long lives of abundance for almost everyone.

[myrkul]

I think everyone having nukes is more like all my neighbors having truck bombs parked in their driveways. Even if they're just for deterrence against other people who might use truck bombs, I'm screwed if one of them goes off for any reason. Guns don't really compare.

Well, this is true. Of course, The owners of those bombs would be screwed, too. And they know it. That's why, if they have half a brain, they've hired people to keep those bombs safe. And those people know that keeping those bombs from going off accidentally is a very important part of that job.

Edit: Fuck! I can only find 3 and 4! is 4 stand-alone, or would I be completely confused?

[ascent]

The owners of those bombs would be screwed, too. And they know it. That's why, if they have half a brain, they've hired people to keep those bombs safe. And those people know that keeping those bombs from going off accidentally is a very important part of that job.

That's not how it works.

[lemonginger]

Size is becoming less and less relevant as warfare become more and more asymmetric.

That being said, I'm banking on moving towards are world where there are no standing armies, not 2,000 separate ones.

[myrkul]

The owners of those bombs would be screwed, too. And they know it. That's why, if they have half a brain, they've hired people to keep those bombs safe. And those people know that keeping those bombs from going off accidentally is a very important part of that job.

That's not how it works.

Sorry, my crystal ball must be on the fritz. Yours is working better, then?

Care to enlighten us poor plebes on how it DOES work? Or are you just going to make vague proclamations of impending doom, like usual?

[ascent]

Sorry, my crystal ball must be on the fritz. Yours is working better, then?

Care to enlighten us poor plebes on how it DOES work? Or are you just going to make vague proclamations of impending doom, like usual?

My crystal ball works no better than yours. I'm just not blinded by the wonderfulness of your ideology, and thus I'm motivated to think things through - a motivation you lack since it's counter to your ideas. As for my proclamations, it's not my duty or responsibility to engage in lengthy explanations all the time. However, I do honestly feel that I'm justified in making statements from time to time to try and get you to think beyond your ideology.

[myrkul]

Sorry, my crystal ball must be on the fritz. Yours is working better, then?

Care to enlighten us poor plebes on how it DOES work? Or are you just going to make vague proclamations of impending doom, like usual?

My crystal ball works no better than yours. I'm just not blinded by the wonderfulness of your ideology, and thus I'm motivated to think things through - a motivation you lack since it's counter to your ideas. As for my proclamations, it's not my duty or responsibility to engage in lengthy explanations all the time. However, I do honestly feel that I'm justified in making statements from time to time to try and get you to think beyond your ideology.

So, No, then. Just gonna keep up the "you're wrong, but I can't say what's right", then? 'k.

[ascent]

So, No, then. Just gonna keep up the "you're wrong, but I can't say what's right", then? 'k.

I've discovered it's futile to present arguments to you. You never listen. I might actually bother if it were otherwise.

Your choice: listen to what I have to say thoughtfully, without the blinders on. Or keep on like you are, and get the short one liner every now and then from me. I used to bother engaging in lengthy explanations, but you made it clear you weren't interested.

[NghtRppr]

So, No, then. Just gonna keep up the "you're wrong, but I can't say what's right", then? 'k.

I've discovered it's futile to present arguments to you. You never listen. I might actually bother if it were otherwise.

Your choice: listen to what I have to say thoughtfully, without the blinders on. Or keep on like you are, and get the short one liner every now and then from me. I used to bother engaging in lengthy explanations, but you made it clear you weren't interested.

Keep blaming others for your own failings.

[myrkul]

So, No, then. Just gonna keep up the "you're wrong, but I can't say what's right", then? 'k.

I've discovered it's futile to present arguments to you. You never listen. I might actually bother if it were otherwise.

Quote one post where you suggested anything, rather than tearing down someone else's ideas?

[KBundy]

Hello all,

Your idea of many small armies forming an alliance to defend themselves collectively against the larger armies or the rich and powerful is very intriguing.

In your original description of the scenario, you described one army of 1000 trained and well funded soldiers, against 500 armies of about 100 militiamen.  So we have 1000 on the private army side, and 50,000 on the fighting for their own freedom side.  

Do you not think it would be incredibly possible if not probable for the 1000 men of the private army to still win this fight?  Given the difference is quality of fortification, weaponry, and combat training the private army could easily take out 50 or more of the resistance's combatants as they attempt to siege the "castles" of the rich and powerful.

Numbers are important, but more importantly in today's wars are training, efficiency in communication, and sophisticated weaponry that could literally mow down an entire field of incoming crazed, hungry, poorly organized militia men.

Just something to think about...

-KBundy

[myrkul]

Do you not think it would be incredibly possible if not probable for the 1000 men of the private army to still win this fight?  Given the difference is quality of fortification, weaponry, and combat training the private army could easily take out 50 or more of the resistance's combatants as they attempt to siege the "castles" of the rich and powerful.

See, that's the thing... In our scenario, and, in fact, the one that the other side is worried about, the rich and powerful are on the attack. The Defense, as you point out, has an incredible advantage, especially when you factor the numbers, and add in that they will have access to the same technologies (there being no laws restricting who can own what).

[NghtRppr]

The small armies are private armies too. They are funded by revenue from people paying for private defense. Think of it like the current security companies, Brinks, ADT, et. al., that have armed guards, armored trucks, etc. I'm assuming that the small armies are equally well equipped with AR-15's, night vision, whatever.

[KBundy]

Interesting concept to say the least, I agree that if the small armies worked as guerrilla attack teams from a defensive position they may be able to get the upper hand.  On any given day though anything could happen...

A real moral quandary I have come across in thinking about these scenarios is the temptation of going with the security of the larger dominant group.  Not only is the group think a structural component of society, in times of dire circumstances, such as we have been describing, one will be much more willing to take the least risky path.

So what would you do?

The war is upon us, many have chosen the side of security and numbers with the wealthy armies.  A larger number still bands together in small unorganized armies across the country.  However, even with the greater numbers, it is known that the only way for the rebellion to succeed is an massive loss of human life.

Do you side with the security of wealth and power? Or go almost certainly to your death in hopes of freedom for the people as a whole?

-KBundy

[FredericBastiat]

On the whole, it would seem likely that if a society were to come about organically, then the environment under which you lived with it's varying degrees of liberty and freedom would probably not be any better than the belief of the average man.

What I mean by organically is, if land and things were uninhabited and unowned, and then order to whatever extent were to come into existence thru the decisions of men, and also there was an initial condition of anarchy, what would arise?

I'm not sure we'd be too far different than what we have now. That's not to say what we have is correct, just that you probably have varying degrees of absolute despotism and absolute anarchy (on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being despotism, 10 being anarchy) that have a variance about a norm which is about what the average man understands and believes to be right and wrong.

This being the case, a unencumbered market of private armies vs. one which is conscripted might not provide you any greater peace, tranquility, or freedom, than the one you already live under. Any system of justice is going to have to grapple with the possibility that their choices, when under duress, may not have the outcome they expect nor the consequences they seek.

Competition for justice, liberty, right and wrong are difficult things to negotiate because they consist of principles and concepts that are incorporeal. They aren't physical things, but rather the result of the actions we apply to those physical things.

Just saying.

[myrkul]

"It is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees"

[ansible adams]

Edit: Fuck! I can only find 3 and 4! is 4 stand-alone, or would I be completely confused?

I think you can read any of them without reading the others, though they share some characters and an overarching story. The fourth will make more sense in light of the others. The Stone Canal and The Cassini Division are the best if you like dramatic hard SF, The Star Fraction and The Sky Road are probably still interesting if you are more interested in the political/social ideas.

[myrkul]

Edit: Fuck! I can only find 3 and 4! is 4 stand-alone, or would I be completely confused?

I think you can read any of them without reading the others, though they share some characters and an overarching story. The fourth will make more sense in light of the others. The Stone Canal and The Cassini Division are the best if you like dramatic hard SF, The Star Fraction and The Sky Road are probably still interesting if you are more interested in the political/social ideas.

That's what I was afraid of... I hate jumping in in the middle of things. I guess I'll see if I can find Fractions somewhere.

[KBundy]

"It is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees"

Well said...

[myrkul]

"It is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees"

Well said...

I can't claim it, It was Zapata's AgitProp gal who coined that one. I'll give this to the commies: they can come up with some great slogans.

[LokeRundt]

Regarding an earlier post questioning decentralized resistance to well trained military, may I remind  folks that the Viet Cong handed the US military's ass to them long enough that we had to draw out of Vietnam, much like the "terrorist" groups are doing in the middle east.  Much like Anonymous is doing on the cyber-front

[myrkul]

Regarding an earlier post questioning decentralized resistance to well trained military, may I remind  folks that the Viet Cong handed the US military's ass to them long enough that we had to draw out of Vietnam, much like the "terrorist" groups are doing in the middle east.  Much like Anonymous is doing on the cyber-front

Like Washington did... History is full of examples of small, decentralized forces making life terminally unpleasant for large, well-trained invasion forces.

[LokeRundt]

Regarding an earlier post questioning decentralized resistance to well trained military, may I remind  folks that the Viet Cong handed the US military's ass to them long enough that we had to draw out of Vietnam, much like the "terrorist" groups are doing in the middle east.  Much like Anonymous is doing on the cyber-front

Like Washington did... History is full of examples of small, decentralized forces making life terminally unpleasant for large, well-trained invasion forces.

Hmmm, come to think of it, the VC were fighting the US government and Monsanto (agent orange)

[cpunks]

I would like to introduce additional factors into the puzzle.

Does the multitude of small armies exist OUTSIDE the territory controlled by the big army, or INSIDE it?

Is their goal to attack the SOLDIERS of the big army, or the INFRASTRUCTURE of the society supporting it, or the LEADERS of the big army or, I hope not, civilians whom the big army exploits to raise its resources?

Is their GOAL limited to fighting it out, or do they have a social / economical goal external to themselves? Do they have an IDEOLOGY?

As a result, what is the popular ATTITUDE towards the big army, and comparatively towards the small armies, among the people whom they derive manpower and resources from? How many people SUPPORT, OPPOSE or AVOID the big army, and the small ones? What level of coercion must the big army bring against controlled territories to sustain unity?

Furthermore, what level of coordination do the small armies seek among themselves? Do they operate a command chain or cell structure? Are they easier or harder to infiltrate than their big counterpart? Are they easily targeted and located, or is fighting them like chasing shadows?

Finally, technology. Is their technology cheaper or more expensive, more robust or fragile? Which techologies are involved, and are they conductive to centralization or oppositely, decentralization.

(An example pertaining to the importance of technology: suppose the big army to draw support from a planet. Suppose the small armies to operate on asteroids. A planetary ecosystem allows for efficient living and production. However, a planetary gravity well requires extraordinary expenses to dispatch objects to orbit. Comparatively, on an asteroid, living is hard, but dispatching anything you build to a mission is highly economical. In addition, one asteroid strike can destroy a planet's ecosystem. A planet cannot maneuver or escape detection. Meanwhile, an asteroid with engines can run from an attacking fleet, or sit passive and hope nobody knows about it.)

(Another example pertaining to the importance of technology: suppose the big army draws support from a star. Suppose that small armies operate on autonomous space ships. Suppose the technology of the time allows for artificial singularities (black holes). One artificial singularity dropped into a star on a correct course will destroy it at a pace proportional to the initial mass of the singularity, eventually forcing evacuation of the solar system around it. However, employed against a target of little mass, such a weapon would be patently useless, merely pucturing a little hole into its target and moving on.)

I don't hold an answer, that's why I'm asking those questions. I merely propose that from a game theoretic viewpoint, size is not the only factor to which must be accounted for, but the reasons why conflict occurs, the ecological, economical and technological background, as well as the models of organization of the people involved, it would seem they must matter, and furthermore, that size is not an independent factor, but a given size can only occur together with a given combination of other factors.

[myrkul]

I would like to introduce additional factors into the puzzle.
Does the multitude of small armies exist OUTSIDE the territory controlled by the big army, or INSIDE it?

External, pretty much by definition. Both armies are private, the large one is attempting to establish a State.

Is their goal to attack the SOLDIERS of the big army, or the INFRASTRUCTURE of the society supporting it, or the LEADERS of the big army or, I hope not, civilians whom the big army exploits to raise its resources?

Neither. it is simply to repulse the invaders.

Is their GOAL limited to fighting it out, or do they have a social / economical goal external to themselves? Do they have an IDEOLOGY?

Here, if it wasn't already, it becomes clear you didn't read the rest of the thread. The soldiers in the small armies do indeed have an ideology - AnCap.

As a result, what is the popular ATTITUDE towards the big army, and comparatively towards the small armies, among the people whom they derive manpower and resources from? How many people SUPPORT, OPPOSE or AVOID the big army, and the small ones? What level of coercion must the big army bring against controlled territories to sustain unity?

The popular attitude would be nearly universally against the big army, as the overall societal structure is one of 0 coercion, and they would be attempting to set up a coercive State.

Furthermore, what level of coordination do the small armies seek among themselves? Do they operate a command chain or cell structure? Are they easier or harder to infiltrate than their big counterpart? Are they easily targeted and located, or is fighting them like chasing shadows?

Unknown, and to a large part, unknowable. The most resilient structure is the Cell, though likely that would not be needed. If needed, however, it would be used.

Finally, technology. Is their technology cheaper or more expensive, more robust or fragile? Which technologies are involved, and are they conductive to centralization or oppositely, decentralization.

We're assuming relatively terrestrial, and roughly equivalent, levels of technology between the two forces.

[cpunks]

Some principles which might apply in any case:

- Bigger armies are easier to find and observe. Which provides an inherent advantage to smaller forces, especially covert ones. Their support structures would be harder to locate and strike against. Operations of the bigger army would be easier to notice and respond to.

- Bigger armies have a fundamental capability of undertaking siege & sweep operations against smaller ones, which smaller armies must at all costs avoid. What level of numerical superiority is needed to surround and sweep a given object, would be a function of the size of the object and the dimensions of movement available. On land, that generally makes two dimensions of movement, and the most efficient formation to surround something is a circle. In space, it generally makes three dimensions, and surrounding something in an easy case takes a sphere. This suggests that the numerical superiority required to perform a siege operation in 3 dimensions is one step bigger than in 2 dimensions. Peculiarities of landscape and (in)ability to use it, as well as deviations of the line of siege from a perfect circle or sphere, would of course count in favour or against the relevant parties, generally favouring the defending or local party, under the assumption that they'd be better adapted to maneuvering in their environment, which might be a pretty small difference in space or air, yet a comparatively big difference on land.

Neither. it is simply to repulse the invaders.

Usually, some kind of priorities end up existing... either as a result of goals/ideology or a byproduct of organizational structure. These in turn shape how the force in question behaves, which shapes how they are perceived by non-involved persons, which determines if their support grows or diminishes... which could well determine if they can continue their course of action (invade, seize control, or oppositely demolish a system of control), or end up falling apart (e.g. defect, either out of disillusionment or to make it off with looted treasure) or end up being overwhelmed by opposition...

...which makes it all more complex, and not a direct function of size.

The popular attitude would be nearly universally against the big army, as the overall societal structure is one of 0 coercion, and they would be attempting to set up a coercive State.

Well, if this assumption would hold, then the bigger army would get denied factual information, which is a serious disadvantage. To overcome a lack of cooperation on new terrain, they would need a qualitatively better technology.

Another question is: to which degree could non-involved population deny information or assistance to one or another force. Basically, the autonomy of the population and their amount of choices would matter. If the invading force makes up 1% of the total population and behaves like an ass, and the population is highly autonomous, has lots of choices and is heavily armed, they'll join the defending force and crush the invading force. If however the armies are comparatively big relative to the non-combatant population, and the latter does not have a high degree of choice available, such a scenario may not be even remotely feasible...

...and thus, more complexity, and fewer simple answers.

Whether a group of persons pursuing some struggle, operating by certain principles and organizing in certain ways... whether they prevail or fail, does not in my opinion depend on their initial size, but rather, whether they gain ability or lose it in the process; whether their ways are efficient or counterproductive... and ultimately, how their behaviour matches their scale, and whether they can adapt it to changes in scale.

From my viewpoint, it is thus rather hard to associate a given initial size with a probability of loss or victory. I find that I rather can't, and probably should stop trying.

To provide a perhaps inappropriate analogy from the field of medicine & food... if a person has a weak immune system, 25 cells of tuberculosis may start a runaway process leading to premature dealth. However, if a person is in good health, and the cells involved are instead a benign strain of lactobacillus, a person may well drink a few billion of them, in the form of a cup of yoghurt, and not suffer in health but gain more.

EDIT: sorry, edited a dozen times to finally express a close approximation to what I ought really mean. :D