/liberty/ - Liberty

>

If your ideology comes to the conclusion that average citizens can have nuclear bombs, don't you think you should question the underlying assumptions that the ideology makes? (i.e. free market solves everything.)

no? why? it seems like you haven't thought this through for even a second. read rothbard

>>71268

I'm probably going against the consensus when I say that preemptively disarming nukes, publically or privately owned, does not violate the NAP, for precisely this reason:

>The only use for McNuke would be mass murder.

Until aliens attack, or shooting down asteroids becomes a pastime for rich people, there is no question of whether anybody should own nukes. Owning one, and actually having it primed and ready, is akin to holding a gun to everybody's collective head. At least for strategic nukes. Something on the scale of Davy Crockett, which causes less conventional damage than a thermobaric bomb, has real use for killing attackers (and only attackers). That's doubtful on anything in the 10kt range unless there's a lot of unowned property but massive hordes of enemies that may attack you (very unrealistic). For anything in the megaton range, there will never be a situation where using them would be justifiable. So, in that case, forced disarmament would be legitimate.

>If your ideology comes to the conclusion that average citizens can have nuclear bombs, don't you think you should question the underlying assumptions that the ideology makes? (i.e. free market solves everything.)

I actually agree with this somewhat. Terrible conclusions do not invalidate the ideology per se, but they are a good indicator that something about it is wrong. When you cannot reconcile your moral intuitions and your rational judgement, then either your intuitions are massively fucked, or your judgement is misinformed. That both would be the case is hard to believe. I cannot even think of an example.

>>71271

A nuke by itself does not threaten to kill everyone unless it's actually launched. The arguments for nukes are the same with guns, but nukes do not infringe NAP until they are actually used.

Small, but absolutely vital point that prevents anti gunner faggots from saying LOL WHY WOULD YOU WANT A GUN/TANK

>>71294

>a good guy with a nuke WON'T stop a bad guy with a nuke.

It's irrelevant whether there is a good guy at all. Deterrence doesn't allow for it. It's a massive self-imposed cost to maintain at seemingly no benefit. You can't even threaten to nuke your enemy in order to conquer them as you'll destroy all capital, even human capital, that you might seize. There is no scenario where nukes are of any use other than soaking up public funds. It's a literal spook.

>>71296

Not entirely true. The current strategy for states who own nukes is to take out military targets, with a 16-to-1 target ratio due to the effectiveness of anti ballistic missiles. The first in line for instant sunrise is other nuclear silos, then airbases and fleets, then back-line logistics, then government buildings, and then finally after going through 11000+ nukes worth of targets due to the inverse pyramid required to actually hit your target you get to the commercial and domestic targets. In an aggressive state's mind it is far better to go tit for tat and lose some small percentage of your land and conquered land + human capital than to wear an invasion.

The advent of even a single nuke in a country makes it extremely risky for anyone who wants you dead, and only second strike in a voluntary government/ancap society would be moral.

>>71294

>I want restrictions on nukes for the same reasons I like guns

Lefties and internal consistency apparently don't mix. The existence of nukes would also spur on the private development of cheap ABMs, which in terms of cost effectiveness are already hell of a lot cheaper than any nuke ever and easily forseeable in any private army or voluntarist gov military.

>>71301

***>How does one own a nuke WITHOUT the state

Sorry, I had to correct that. Sorry.

>>71301

>I'm talking about, like, terrorism

If it's terrorists then a "ban" means nothing. Makes even less sense without a State to enact that ban. Even right now if you want to ban nukes you'd have to outright seek out and destroy all plutonium/uranium as you can never be sure entirely whether it's being used as nuclear fuel or secretly converted into arms.

>Or some psychopathic Elliot Rodger type nuking

Elliot can only dream of ever having enough cash and connections to buy one.

>How does one own a nuke with the state?

Requires massive funding and as already stated, it's generally not worth acquiring by private entities. I don't know what the ratio of increasing scarcity as opposed to locating new sources of nuclear materials is, but as it is it should still be incredibly expensive to acquire, secure and maintain.

>>71282

>The arguments for nukes are the same with guns, but nukes do not infringe NAP until they are actually used.

Not the same. A gun has a legitimate use, a (strategical) nuke doesn't. Someone who gets himself a nuke makes his intent to use it as clear as it can get, and any use of it is bound to break the NAP. It's like someone peacefully sitting on his own property, taking you in the crosshairs of his sniper rifle. You do not have to wait until he pulls the trigger, you can take immediate action to disarm him.

>>71295

And this.

>>71300

>The current strategy for states who own nukes is to take out military targets, with a 16-to-1 target ratio due to the effectiveness of anti ballistic missiles.

Literal spook, sorry. An ICBM flies way too fast to be intercepted. The only thing that can intercept an ICBM is another ICBM, and even then, the reliability is pretty low. Add to that that a lot of decoys will be launched, too.

Not to say that all nukes will be effective. They'll even get in the way of each other, if you launch too many at once. But ICBM-interception still doesn't work.

Nukes are a purely defensive weapon and massively expensive. If your ideology comes to the conclusion that average citizens are both genocidal and hypercompetent, don't you think you should question the underlying assumptions that the ideology makes?

>>71285

This is basically what I was going to say but I wanted to add another point. Even if some dystopian fantasy mega-corporation, despite all reason and logic, developed nuclear weapons and financed at great expense an army to assert its authority by force over others we would be right back to the states we now live under. At least we would get a well deserved vacation in the mean time from the tyranny of states.

Nuclear weapons only make sense if you're a state and you consider other states, and everyone who lives inside those states, to be a potential enemy. In a stateless world they serve no purpose and even if you're comically evil there are much more cost effective ways to enslave people.

>>71303

Terrorism only makes sense really with states, too. Terrorism by definition is an act to change the political landscape of a nation, terrorist organizations don't blow up buildings, shoot innocent, or bring down towers just to scare people. It's for a wider goal of changing politics, whether it's to antagonize a state to embroil themselves in warfare, to change immigration policies, or to ensure freedom for an oppressed minority. I'm not trying to defend terrorism but it has clear and defined goals and without a state that has a monopoly of authority over a given reason terrorism would not meet those goals.

>>71328

>to change immigration policies

That sounds like a use for terrorism I haven't heard before. It sounds faintly plausible. If people are scared of a place, they aren't likely to immigrate to it. Can you tag any examples in the wild?

>>71333

I believe that terrorism in Europe that we've seen the past two years has been a result of terrorist groups operating in the Near East to turn public opinion against refugees fleeing Syria and Iraq. If Muslims living in these areas affected by combat leave to settle in Europe then it undermines the legitimacy of groups operating out of the Near East, these terrorist organizations require support from Muslims but if they leave then it directly hurts the image of these groups as the savior and protector of Muslims, whether Sunni or Shia, in short, it's a public relations disaster. So it makes sense that they would create terrorist cells in Europe to kill and maim, to hurt the people of Europe until the people feel that it's far too painful to settle refugees than to turn them away. It's worked surprisingly well, too, with people who, despite their empathy with the beleaguered families fleeing from war, want to deny them entrance because of the fear of terrorism.

Of course, this is purely speculation as you can't exactly ask what the intent of terrorist groups are but I feel this makes perfect sense. It also only makes sense because only a state can unilaterally deny entrance to people but in a free society you could never convince everyone to break off voluntary arrangements with foreign peoples, so terrorism would be much less effective in this case.

>>71336

fear of terrorism

I think that you're misunderstanding quite thoroughly. People are far more bothered by the degradation of liberal values represented by the importation of intolerance from abroad than they are by the statistically negligible risk of terrorism.

>>71338

Samefag - when I speak of people there, I speak of myself. I don't know where to find people who fear terrorism. It's easy to find people who mock those who are openly unafraid, but that's because assigning a zero fear value to terrorism is strictly incorrect. To find people who prioritize antiterrorism over protecting cosmopolitanism, I have not yet managed.

>>71311

>ABMs don't exist

Friend, do some research bext time and save yourself being red-faced.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile

>Sniper looking thru crosshairs

Only applies if you are actually targeting your enemy. What applies to the large must apply to the small- you would equate having a stash of dynamite as infringing NAP.

>>71342

U cheeky cunt. In controlled tests, the GDM - the current ICBM-interception system of the US - succeeded about half the time. Again: controlled tests. How well would the GDM fare during a real attack?

>Only applies if you are actually targeting your enemy.

Clearly what I meant.

>What applies to the large must apply to the small- you would equate having a stash of dynamite as infringing NAP.

When you're stashing it with the unmistakable intent of blowing a group of innocents up, then self-defense is already justified. You don't have to wait until the NAP is actually broken, when it's obvious that it will be broken.

If a guy is smart enough to build a nuke in his garage then he deserves to have one. Honestly, I'd feel safer with him having a nuke instead of Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton et al

>>71369

A gun, a nuke and dynamite in their respective holsters and storage places hurt nobody.

Once any of them are deployed for their purpose of defending your life, you have to be *VERY* discriminating about where you take your shot. If you can't guarantee you won't hurt non combatants with your shot you probably shouldn't take it. This is where the MOAB fills a role of absolute annihilation with little after effects.

>>71268

killing and the threat of killing are the primary uses for weapons. hunting etc are recreational gimmicks and imho a very poor reason for owning weapons.

nukes are just very powerful weapons, the principles stay the same.

so under the nap nothing stops anyone from owning nukes - except for defense agencies purging 'credible threats'. and there is nothing wrong with that. a big part of the reason there is no hot war between the US and russia or china is nukes - the mutual destruction would be so ludicrously bad that its not at all worth it for either side. unlike regular wars wich can worth it if other people for the soldiers and weapons (via taxes, via sense of duty etc)

so in the same way you need guns to defend your farm from coyotes and treaders, you need nukes to defend your (private) country, or generally your various insured clients as a defense agency