Hacker News Reader

> What does the average American have that can stop a tank, or an armored personnel carrier, or a jet, or a helicopter

The conscience of the man in the driver's seat.

This is precisely the safeguard that police/military robots (controlled directly by generals or even politicians) will take out of the loop.

> robots or not will not change the situation since both sides will have them.

The side with control over the nation's industrial capacity will have them. This is the side that will win. And it will almost certainly be a cause for regret.

Technologies are not neutral:

"It is a commonplace that the history of civilisation is largely the history of weapons. In particular, the connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon--so long as there is no answer to it--gives claws to the weak."

"You and the Atomic Bomb", by George Orwell.

(http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/abombs.html)

The conscience of the man in the driver's seat. Regrettably, this has turned out to be a fungible good in many contexts. Although I don't think we're doomed - the internet's democratization of information after all gives us far greater access to knowledge than was possible 20 years ago, for example - I am profoundly depressed by the willingness of many to have their freedoms eroded ( a lot of the more rabid type of 2nd amendment supporters seemed incongruously comfortable with the patriot act, for example, presumably on the basis that it was something they only expected to affect Other People).

Thanks for posting the Orwell article. I hadn't thought about the difference between democratic and tyrannical weapons before.

A lot of the people in the US army during the revolution were civilians prior to the shooting, but they were led by men who had fought in the French & Indian war for the British.

How is this any different from today? There are nearly 25 million veterans in the U.S. today. That's nearly a tenth of the population with previous military experience, many of them officers, trained in the same rifle platform that is the mainstay of our infantry today.

It does however seem likely that there are fewer civilians with practical firearm experience nowadays, though I am not aware of any statistics from the revolutionary era to compare to (anyone have a source?).

FWIW: anyone who paid attention in HS chemistry should be able to make a rocket propelled thermite grenade, homemade napalm, nitroglycerin, etc... in their kitchen. Chemistry + a .50 cal should take care of everything except the jet... hmmm...

Hm, we didn't learn about that stuff in chemistry. It was more about learning the names of different molecules and pouring stuff from one beaker into another. Maybe you were educated in a better school system?

>anyone who paid attention in HS chemistry

anyone with internet access

  So if some of the military is joining the breakaway sect, robots or not will not change the situation since both sides will have them.

But it is not a given that the military may not break apart. Supporting the population tends to happen in conscript armies. The US army is a professional army. They are loyal to the USG, and to the Army itself.

But the oath says (emphasis mine):

    "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
    support and defend the Constitution of the United States
    against all enemies, foreign *and domestic*"

Not the government, not the Army itself or even the President, the Constitution.

Don't be naive. A majority of people are sufficiently flag-simple that they'll do whatever they're told to do, including rounding the dissenters if necessary. Do they give tests and/or classes in constitutional law and the limits circumscribing the behavior of superior officers in the military? I think not. But we do train all children of school age to pledge their allegiance to a flag every morning, a level of indoctrination which I find both bizarre and troubling.

I don't mean this post to be anti-military or anti-American, but your faith in symbols seems naive to me. Christianity and Islam both lay claim to being peaceable religions subservient to a merciful deity, and yet the history of both is drenched in blood. Besides which, there's a history in the US (as in many other countries, to an even greater degree) of just suspending bits of the constitution as and when 'necessity' demands it.

Actually, there are LOTS of classes and tests on what constitutes the law of land warfare, competent authority, etc. in the military -- way better than anything at MIT or Harvard that I encountered. Yes, these are simplified for junior enlisted personnel ("do this, don't do that", vs. why), but for officers and NCOs it probably goes far beyond what anyone in civilian government, outside the judiciary, thinks about.

Having been in multiple combat zones, I think the US military errs too much on the side of legalism. I actually think the US Government, and especially the military, is the wrong tool for counter-insurgency -- there are a lot of people who just need to disappear, or die colorfully, and it would be better if doing so didn't hurt the image of the US.

(I say this as a libertarian atheist...)

Most of the "rah rah usa usa!" people are not in the military.

Fair enough. I was certainly thinking more of enlisted personnel, and your point about the more mindless kind of patriot not as likely to be in the military is well taken. I apologize for the simplistic dismissal of the issue.

I agree with your other points about counter-insurgency, but that's a whole other discussion.

From the anecdotal evidence I have, the military has its fair share of gun nuts, libertarians, and other potential dissidents.

>> Do they give tests and/or classes in constitutional law and the limits circumscribing the behavior of superior officers in the military? I think not.

As someone who's actually gone thru the training, I can assure you that the US Army does indeed teach, in classes, that a soldier must always obey all lawful orders, and never obey any unlawful ones.

>> Christianity and Islam both lay claim to being peaceable religions subservient to a merciful deity, and yet the history of both is drenched in blood.

They are indeed, which is part of the reason I've been an atheist since I was 11. Socialism claims to be all about helping the little guy", but the vast majority of the blood spilt in the last 100 years has been spilt by Bolshevism, Maoism, the National Socialist German Workers Party, Slobodon Milosovic's Serbian Socialist Party, and the Khmer Rouge.

>> But we do train all children of school age to pledge their allegiance to a flag every morning, a level of indoctrination which I find both bizarre and troubling.

Created by a socialist, by the way. http://www.oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pledge.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

>> A majority of people are sufficiently flag-simple that they'll do whatever they're told to do...

Well, some people are just not as with it as you are.