Posted on 07/11/2006 10:08:13 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
The futility of arms control
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 10, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Vox Day
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
The first ordinance bearing on military matters in the Capitularies of Charles the Great is one showing his anxiety to keep as much armour as possible within the realm. In 779 he orders that no merchant shall dare to export byrnies from the realm. This order was repeated again and again in later years, in the Capitula Minora, cap. 7, and again in the Aachen Capitulary of 805; the trade in arms with the Wends and Avars is especially denounced in the last-named document. Any merchant caught conveying a mail-shirt outside the realm is sentenced to the forfeiture of all his property. – Sir Charles Oman, A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages, Volume One
As they say in France, ''Plus ca change.''
While the very public fizzle of North Korea's long-feared missile program has been viewed with a sigh of relief by some, no doubt the World Democratic Revolutionists will use it to argue that the United States must take advantage of this unexpected reprieve to attack Iran and bring its nuclear weapons program to a forcible end.
But as a brief review of Charlemagne's military ordinances shows rather clearly, arms control has been nothing but an exercise in futility for over 1,200 years. Law after law threatening brutal retribution didn't prevent the Avars, the Vikings or the Magyars from obtaining the iron armor that allowed them to meet the Franks on equal terms.
The most fundamental rule of technology is that once the genie has escaped the bottle, it is all but impossible to recapture it. Humanity can no more pretend it does not know how to split the atom than it can forget how to forge an iron-mail shirt. The only effective limitation on the spread of military technology is that of cost; the United States is able to prevent the proliferation of cruise-missile armed nuclear-powered submarines because very few countries or individuals possess the 4.4 billion dollars required to make one, let alone the werewithal to hire and train 133 individuals to staff it.
And of those few who do possess the necessary resources, it is obvious that none of them see any point to doing so. No law is necessary, indeed, any law banning the ownership of boomers would be easily ignored by anyone with the ability to buy one.
As diverse countries have demonstrated over the past decades, it is neither prohibitively difficult nor expensive to construct a nuclear weapon and a long-range delivery system. The French have done it, the Israelis have done it, the South Africans, the Indians and the Pakistanis have done it. If North Korea, a nation of 22 million people with a Gross Domestic Product of $1,700 per capita, can successfully pull it off, then anti-proliferation activists shouldn't be worrying about Iran doing it, as they inevitably will. They should instead probably start worrying about Ingvar Kamprad, Bill Gates or Roman Abramovich deciding to go nuclear.
It has never been possible to control human beings for an extended period of time. This holds true for nations as well as individuals. The fact that a probable event is seen as undesirable, even dangerous, should not lead those hoping it will not come to pass to resort to violence, at least not in a foolish cause that history has repeatedly proven to be completely ineffective.
There may eventually come a time when each and every man holds within his hand the power to destroy the world. Should that doomsday scenario ever come to pass, perhaps then we will finally find ourselves able to treat others as we would ourselves be treated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vox Day is a novelist and Christian libertarian. He is a member of the SFWA, Mensa and the Southern Baptist church, and has been down with Madden since 1992. Visit his Web log, Vox Popoli, for daily commentary and responses to reader email.
To think, I used to LIKE Libertarians.
Iron armor couldn't destroy a city a blow, and it could be assembled in a home workshop. A mail shirt could be hidden in a cart, or bale, or a crate.
ICMBs require a bit more infrastucture, and their payloads are potentially devastating. Its possible to destroy the infrastructure to build a missile and its warhead. They're a bit harder to hide than a mail shirt, too.
"The futility of arms control (Libertarian Argument Alert)"
I'm so grateful for the parathetical additions to the title you often see on this website.
It tells what attitudes the reader should have as they read the article.
I don't know what I'd do without them. I MIGHT even have to think for myself!
" -- It has never been possible to control human beings for an extended period of time. --"
Because its absurd. I used to think they made sense.
[Its] --- possible to control, if no other way, then through massive applications of force.
And given the fact that wackjobs seen to run a fair number of states, we should consider doing so.
We should consider using "massive applications of force" to control all the states run by the worlds wackjobs. -- Got it.
Ever occur to you to just kill the wackjobs, leaving the worlds states to peacefully run themselves?
Every generation feared the latest arms & armor just as much as we do today.
Chain mail was impenetrable and light.
Longbows gave the lightly armed and un-armored power at a distance over those with heavy arms & armor.
Alfred Nobel created his Peace Prize because dynamite would destroy mankind.
etc.
Generally I like Vox, but the article is a bit over the top.
Once WMD get so common and cheap to produce that everyone canown one, the world will have been destroyed. Assuming that people act rationally is a great way to be wrong.
Such has been said throughout history. We're still here. And yes, some WMDs are simple.
Libertarian ideals of small, limited government are still the most important fundamental basis of our founding... no matter what whackos who are interviewed by the (not exactly libertine) MSM say. Nothing will change that fact, nor my support of those ideals... and if Libertarins are elected in droves, I will firmly oppose those who say that those ideals include elimination of the military, legalization of narcotics, etc.
Sorry. Chainmail was anything but impenetrable. Go watch an SCA event. You'll see plate. You'll see tires and carpet, but you won't seem much mail. And, as I said before, you could make it at home (the hard part back then was the wire...).
Arrows and bolts can kill only one person at time. Firearms are a bit faster, but still LOS. Again you can 'em at home.
Nukes require the support of massive infrastucture to build and maintain.
Truth is, I don't mind nukes in the hands of sane people - which includes everybody currently in the club, except the PRDK, Iran and the Pakis (The Boers in South Africa destroyed theirs before they ended apartheid, showing they were saner than most folks...).
Generally, the fact that you want nuclear weapons is almost proof you shouldn't be allowed to have 'em.
BUMP FOR LATER
There are some good Libertarians such as Carla Howell in Mass. who are making a difference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.