Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 12 May 2001 08:58:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2334 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote:
> > > It seems to me that any well-funded, organized, national military force
> > > can, if a clear objective is established and a goal is set, wreak terrible
> > > destruction upon a nation defended only by a voluntary (and, by extension of
> > > your apparent views, privately-funded) militia.
> >
> > Oh, I don't know. I thought we settled that issue 226 (1) years ago...
> > And I don't think that's the only data point available to us either.
>
> I knew someone was going to say that. The nature of war, you'll agree,
> has changed so fundamentally in 226 years that there's no point in comparing
> them. Planted pikes will stop a cavalry charge, but who cares, if you're
> bombing a nation from a thousand miles away?
> Lindsay can correct me if I'm wrong, but the resources and time required
> to move ordnance from Mother England to the Colonies were somewhat different
> from today's world, not to mention communication problems. It is impossible
> to compare the difficulty of fighting a pre-industrial age war (on distant
> foreign soil) with an organized, modern, technologically advanced, national
> military force attacking a sporadically organized, privatized, and volunteer
> army.
While I agree in general, Afghanistan did pretty well against Russia.
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
