From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:34:04 GMT

In article <1e1lljINNi81@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>In article <1dv1i9INNfhh@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
>>>Thank you for providing an example of the kind of thing I was talking about
>>>when I mentioned "incorrect ways to use tanks".  But what is your point?
>>
>>My point was that tanks aren't useful in revolutions.
>
>Which is wrong.  It may be correct that tanks are not useful in most
>situations in a guerrilla war.  But they will still have their uses.  The
>Vietcong brought out tanks on occasion.

And, they lost them.

Tanks aren't useful to govts in a revolution because the revolutionaries
don't have fixed positions.  Since tanks are only useful for attacking
fixed positions or other tanks, tanks don't help the govt.

>>Yarvin insisted that tanks were useful so govts would always win.  Now
>>he's admitting that they're irrelevant but insists that govts will,
>>nevertheless, still always win.  Only this time he doesn't even have a
>>bogus reason for that theory.
>
>I am tired of dealing with someone who can see no middle ground between
>saying a weapon is the ultimate war-winner, and saying the weapon is
>completely useless.

And I'm tired of pointing out that 65% of the revolutions fought in
the conditions that Yarvin insists are unwinnable have been won.  I'm
tired of pointing out that the US Army's armor experts disagree with
Yarvin's claims about tanks.

>>>Well, you have had the opportunity all along to provide details of how
>>>somebody could resist the military, or resist a large local police force.
>>
>>And I've done so.
>
>The article must not have reached my machine.  It surely wasn't one of the
>ones I replied to.  Incidentally, "details" mean things like the sort of
>weapons to be used, and the features of the terrain or of buildings which
>make the resistance possible.

Rifles to snipe from cover or even concealment are a nice start.
("Cover" and "concealment" define the relevant features.)  Most every
essential service in a modern society is very difficult to protect.
(Some can be disabled without even being attacked.)  If Yarvin can't
take it from there....

>I think that it is clearly impossible for a small group of people to
>stand off a much larger one, if the large group is well-armed.

So what? Even if true, it isn't relevant, let alone decisive.  It
isn't obvious that the army always outnumbers the revolutionaries.
One can win without standing off anyone.  (Note that the VietCong LOST
every open battle they got into, including the Tet Offensive, yet they
still won.)

There are bad tactics for revolutionaries.  Getting into fixed
position battles is one of them.  There are effective tactics.  (For
example, Yarvin incorrectly assumes that the revolutionaries can be
identified.)  They are effective because they make the big war
toys irrelevant.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu