From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Tanks, Revos, Etc. (Was: Registering "Assault Keys")
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1dv1i9INNfhh@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU>
	<1992Nov13.235742.13856@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<1e1lljINNi81@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:00:15 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.

	Citation, please?

	Yarvin wouldn't be confusing "Viet Cong" with "North
	Vietnamese People's Army", would he?

	There *was* a difference.

<>>If tanks cannot be used correctly in a given situation, the authorities will
<>>just have one less weapon they can use.  They still will have plenty of other
<>>weapons.
<>
<>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.  Tanks are not the ultimate war-winner, nor are they
< useless.  Neither are snipers.  Neither are attack helicopters.  Neither are
< tear gas grenades.  That is why our military has plenty of all of them: so
< it can select the weapon appropriate to the occasion.

	Which begs the question; how effective would the US
	Army be as a tool to oppress the US population?

	Yarvin is surely aware of what the Oath all US military
	personnel take entails; does not the Oath suggest that
	compliance of US military with orders to suppress the
	population might not exactly be 100%?

<>>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, 

	The unorganized militia traditionally uses smallarms up
	to and including cannon of caliber similar or identical
	to arms used by the Army.

	This suggests that .45 and 9mm pistols, .223 AR-15/M-16
	carbines, .308 rifles and the like would be appropriate.
	
	Astonishingly, the weapon mix currently held by US
	citizens includes lots and lots of such arms.

<and the features of the terrain or of buildings which
<make the resistance possible.

	See "The Red Book" by Mao, "On War" by Sun Tzu for
	a start.

<   I hope you appreciate that this is a part of the argument I cannot provide,
<   for I am arguing that no such details exist.  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.

	Yarvin is asserting that the US military is larger than, say,
	50% of the US population between the ages of 18 and 45?

	My, that Reagan defense buildup was much more sweeping
	than I previously thought....
From: blanch@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (David Blanchard)
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 01:59:33 GMT
Subject: Re: Alternative RKBA Groups Needed
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino