From: Tim Smith <tssmith@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: No Army Needed(
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:31:40 GMT


From Tim Smith <tssmith@netcom.com>

In article <BzM9op.M1x@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
> baechler@lia.di.epfl.ch (Emmanuel Baechler) writes:
> >[interesting comments deleted for brevity]
> 
> >What you have seen is basically the propaganda of the swiss army.
> 
>         I realize this may easily stray from the charter, so please watch
> your posts.  Being an avid follower of rec.guns and talk.politics.guns,
> the Swiss model comes up frequently, but both groups reference the low
> homicide rate, not the military aspect of an armed populace.  That is
> what I wish to discuss in this subject.

I think Dan is raising an interesting question, and one that is
perfectly appropriate for this group.  Dan has covered most of the
trouble spots, especially keeping the discussion out of
talk.politics.guns, and focusing the discussion on military strategy
and tactics, rather than on gun ownership politics.

(As as a cautionary aside, I got involved in a similar discussion in
one of the .politics groups a few years ago, and even though I firmly
stated that I was completely in favor of civilian gun ownership, I
found that I had to spend most of my time defending my politics (most
people thought I was a gun-banner in disguise), rather than
discussing the more interesting military matters.  I think that in
this group the discussion could be much more instructive.)

Dan continues:
>         It has often been said that Switzerland doesn't have an army, it
> *is* an army.  The populace being well-armed is also a reason that is
> promoted for Japan not invading Hawaii during WWII.  Let's take a look at
> this from a military point of view, rather than political.

>         For a start, let us assume that 50% of the populace own guns,
> and can use them fairly effectively.  Variations are welcome, of course.
> This strikes me as a hopeless situation for a war.  As you drive down
> the street, some farmer with an old .30-30 shoots at you from the sewer.
> On the other hand, you do control the streets.
 
>         So what is the military significance of deer rifles in the hands
> of farmers, bankers, and the like?  I would like to think that it would
> make the war too costly, but know that I could be merely looking at the
> military situation through rose-tinted goggles.
 
OK, let me start off by throwing down the gauntlet.  My basic belief
is that in 20th century warfare, guerrilla movements that are armed
with small arms only (such as the deer rifles that Dan mentions)
have not been effective.

There are a number of test cases that we can discuss.  Let's take three of
the most well-known:

- France in WWII

- the "Viet Cong" in the 1965-1975 phase of the war in Vietnam

- the Afghan guerrillas in the 1979-198? time frame

Some discussion points are: 

(1) Were the French Maquis effective?  They did perform effective sabotage,
    destroyed trains, and generally tied down a few regiments of German
    troops.  Would they have been able to liberate France without Allied
    (including Free French) intervention?  Not at all likely.  Could armed
    French civilian resistance have prevented the capture of the country
    in 1940?  Not at all.  Panzer divisions and Stuka Geschwader weren't
    troubled much by civilian small arms.

(2) The Viet Cong were, I believe, not very effective.  They were able to
    terrorize and perhaps control some of the civilian population, but they
    seem to have been losing badly to the US and SV until the NVA
    intervened.  (I'm raising issues and questions for discussion
    here, not trying to provide expert opinion--I have no particular 
    expertise about the war in Vietnam.)

(3) The Afghan guerrillas were not particularly effective until the
    US began arming them with Stingers, with which they could threaten
    and kill the Soviet helos.  These are not small arms.

>         Insight is appreciated.  Mainly, I'm after a military reason
> to fear or respect civilian gun ownership, but I am perfactly willing
> to be convinced of the opposite reaction.  Between the US Constitution
> and various "Vietnam" movies it seems the military is in deep trouble
> if it goes up against an armed populace, and I felt this is the
> proper group to address the idea.

My guess is that most well-trained, well-equipped, and well-supplied
military units of sufficient size do not have much to fear from 
a citizen militia.  The firepower of a modern infantry company, with a
heavy weapons platoon, even when not supported by artillery, or
armor, or air (and it usually is), is enough to scare the sh*t out
of most citizens armed with deer rifles and shotguns (or even AK47's).

All of this is not to say that a sufficiently brave citizen guerrilla
force could not make life unpleasant for occupation troops.  But
evict them, or turn them away at the invasion?  I think not.

>         I'll start.  An armed populace will undermine morale, kill
> any popular support, and force soldiers to kill far more than what
> the US considers necessary or justified.  Thus, it is a losing
> battle no matter who wins so far as the Army is concerned.  Can
> you refute this?

I think history does (but perhaps not with respect to the US).  You
bring up an interesting point.  In these days of CNN and Wolf Blitzer,
can an invading army do the kinds of things that it needs to do to
suppress citizen uprising?  Consider Serbia.  The leaders there don't
seem to give a damn what the world thinks of them (posturing for the
current election aside), and the slaughter in ex-Yugoslavia continues.
 
> < Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
> <  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
> <  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
> <   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >

--Tim (tssmith@netcom.com)




Newsgroups: sci.military