From: yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Date: 10 Nov 1992 17:59:12 -0500
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: cathy.na.cs.yale.edu

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1dn0q0INN6qa@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
>>I was not talking about the possibilities of producing a nationwide
>>revolution of a military sort.  Such a thing is even more impossible than a
>>local homeowner standing off the cops.
>
>Really?  Then why have such nationwide revolutions succeeded 65% of
>the time since 1945?

Because they were in third-world countries!  We were talking about the US,
which is still extremely far from being a third-world country.

>>The Afghans would never have been able to counter the Soviets without
>>importing their weapons from friendly surrounding nations.
>
>The majority of their weapons were self-manufactured or stolen.

There is no possibility an Afghan tribesman is going to manufacture a gun.
(A sword, yes.  But it will take him a long time.)  Now perhaps the Soviets
were sufficiently inept that the Afghans could have lived on captured
ammunition alone.  But they did not have to, for we supplied them quite a
bit.

>>Stinger missiles
>>may be man-portable, but they are sophisticated and expensive -- extremely
>>difficult either to design or to manufacture.  The role that the Stingers
>>played in the conflict was not exaggerated.
>
>Sure it was; and Yarvin does so.  If their use was so damn important,
>why did the Afghans SELL them?

It would appear we gave them more than they needed.  Actually, I shouldn't
have said that the role the Stingers played was not exaggerated.  Undoubtedly
somebody exaggerated it.  But they did play an important role.

>>Without them, the Soviets could
>>have used their armored helicopter gunships with impunity.
>
>Note that a govt can't use helicopter gunships with impunity on its
>own territory and in its own cities, no matter what the rabble is
>doing.  A govt requires some base of support, and can't destroy it to
>win a revolution.

If the government controls the press, it will not destroy its base of
support by fighting the guerrillas within a city.  The press can simply
blame the guerrillas for all the damage; few will know the real truth.  In
Afghanistan, the government air-dropped antipersonnel mines disguised as
toys.  Anywhere you do _that_, you can surely operate helicopter gunships
without fear of further damaging popular opinion.

And helicopter gunships need not be exceptionally devastating weapons.  If
an Apache helicopter uses only its 20mm cannon (**), the damage would be no
worse than if the same cannon were on the ground.  Thus it would not be a
horrible crime to use these beasts in cities.  The operational advantage of
a helicopter lies largely in its mobility.  It can get to the trouble point
fast, can shoot at the enemy from any angle, and can run away fast.

--
(*) At least.
(**) 30mm?

--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu
 "Power corrupts.  Absolute power is kind of neat."
		-- John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy 1981-1987
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns