<daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU> (Wei Dai) writes:

...

I don't understand why there is so much talk about guns here lately. Unless someone comes up with a weapon that has some very unusual economic properties, individuals cannot hope to compete with governments in

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 05:28 06.01.98 -0500, Ryan Lackey wrote: the

...

domain of deadly force. If we have to resort to physical violence, we've already lost!

Think about it: if we can defend ourselves with guns, why would we need crypto?

I am fairly certain that as an irregular army soldier I could inflict a substantial amount of damage upon an occupying military. With maybe $20k in equipment and several hundred hours of training, you could make life very difficult for any luckless squad that happens your way. Multiply that by 100 million armed citizens and you see that armed civilian resistance *can* defeat an occupying army.

I'm not sure I am convinced by this argument. The "enemy within" seems to be the main focus of the discussions in the CP list. When the 'luckless squad that happens your way' is manned by your countrymen at the command of their (and your) government, what then? As far as I can see, the result would be a *very* bloody civil war. The outcome may indeed be less obvious than in a 'conventional' (i.e. unarmed populace) civil war, but the cost much higher. This is from the standpoint of a 'sissy' European. I admit I am poorly equipped to comment on the American Zeitgeist. However, my experience of civil war victims (refugees from the E-bloc) suggests that we should be concentrating on social revolution before we tool up for military. There is more to be won, with a potentially much lower cost. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNLImc4n3W0ooQnZKEQL4VwCffzMNK1MfQ/1zMv+E/3dfoioc8e8AoL0d uZMzgq6LPu9nVe90kcA49cbG =yL/D -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----