Why Pedersen shouldn't own his own battleship

[Slytovhand]

aka... The Gun Control Slippery Slope's Right Foot...

aka... My submarine is my Castle Doctrine...


You asked for it Pedersen.....

Ok - it's really about how much power and military might a person should be able to get his hands on.

Pedersen reckons he's got 15000 characters to spend on debating why it's a good thing that anyone can have anything (I presume anyone... or do you only mean yourself?? :P)

I'd say that would lead to a really bad oligarchy (rule by the rich) who have the power to use military might to control and oppress the citizens (not unlike the US goverment...).

With such military might, they could effectively overthrow many a nation with complete abandon, and completely ignore laws.


While I understand that many stances need to be made in the world, and military action could be desirable in certain locations (Burma for example), we've seen what mercenary units are willing to do for money - and it's not a pretty picture. They have no regard for the Geneva Convention - and because they aren't a part of a nation, they have no fear of it either. The only thing they may fear would be War Crimes... if they can be caught, and if they are being backed by Rich Bastard (tm), then that's not exactly likely to happen.


Pedersen (and others)... over to you.....


Slyt

[Greenday]

I think an aircraft carrier would be cooler IMO

But why shouldn't have have one? Where the heck will he put it?

[Pedersen]

You asked for it Pedersen.....

And I love the title

By the way, get ready to view me as a certified tin foil hat wearer. Either that or be very very frightened. Maybe both. Some questions you would rather not know the answer to.

Ok - it's really about how much power and military might a person should be able to get his hands on.

You've read the posts above. I'm not going to restate the negatives of mercenaries and the like. Nor am I going to discuss my home being burgled, and me rolling out the tank to deal with the thief. Those are not the reasons I would actually approve of private individuals owning major weaponry.

Many of the people reading this board seem to feel that they can trust their own government, that their government will do the job of protecting their lives and livelihoods without curtailing their individual freedom.

To all of you who feel that way, I envy you.

I happen to live in the USA. There was a time when this nation actually seemed to stand for individual liberty. Of course, that could just be propagandist/revisionist history. Even so, I live in it now. And I see this nation reaching a breaking point in the relatively near future. I can believe that this country is headed down the path of civil war, as we have a fundamental dichotomy occurring. I'm not terribly interested in starting that debate in this thread, so I'll just allude to it. Anybody who pays attention to what the USA is doing internally can see the dichotomy, and is able to identify the two sides.

My Google-fu is weak right now. I've only found one reference to back up what I'm about to say, and that is a reference in passing: http://www.huginmunin.info/2007/03/i...nd-future.html

About two thirds of the way down is the phrase "private ownership". Find that, and read the next few sentences.

Basically, it is nothing new for a country's military might to be in the ownership of private citizens. In fact, it is only in very recent times that this has changed so that the government owns the weaponry, and the citizens do not. This is also an extremely alarming trend to me. It gives the government the ability to act unchecked. If the citizenry does not like it, what can they do? File petitions? And if the government decides to ignore the petitions, then what?

A disarmed citizenry is one that is incapable of requiring governmental change. The government can act, and the citizenry can do nothing but grouse ineffectively.

Even still, in this country, we have an issue with what the citizenry can actually do. Yes, we can have guns, but the military proper has better guns, tanks, war planes, and war boats, all of which are capable of taking out major population centers without suffering real damage themselves. The government has insulated itself from the will of the governed. In an even greater travesty, it has managed to make the people agree with this course of action.

Now, tell me this: If the government were to face a real crisis within the population, could they kill the people involved with relative ease, and with relatively little consequence? Remember, they make the rules. Suppose that the President decided to eradicate the population of a major city. And all of on Congress, too. And then declares that all of this is legal, since the government has just changed to a monarchy, with him as King.

If he has the military backing, then what can the citizenry do? We certainly do not have the weaponry to do anything more than grumble and accept the new King.

If the citizenry is actually armed and can fight back effectively, then the government has to be more responsive. It actually has to listen, since the citizenry can forcibly remove the government if necessary. Instead, people of this country have chosen to disarm themselves in the name of stability, but at the price of becoming ineffective.

Just imagine the change of attitude coming from the White House if the President knew that 5 fully outfitted aircraft carriers had dropped anchor outside the Potomac in international waters, waiting to hear his next speech.

I am very much in favor of private ownership of military assets. It would be a wonderful day if the President had to ask the owners of said assets "Hey, look, we need to defend our interests over in this country, and here's why." instead of the current situation.

This one is a bit more rambling than my usual, or than I intended. I hope that my ideas came through, along with why I have them. And I hope I only scared you a little bit.

I think an aircraft carrier would be cooler IMO

I agree. A fully outfitted aircraft carrier would be much cooler than a nuclear submarine. Probably why I listed that one first, btw.

But why shouldn't have have one? Where the heck will he put it?

If I could afford it? Anywhere I wanted to.

[BlaqueKatt]

and there is a part of the government with congressional authority that exists only to sell military weapons to civilians. You get your signed fomrs and your tax stamp from the ATF-and they will sell you a tank if you have the money(there is a limit on what you can purchase and stockpile though)-and for those who think an armed populace cannot outfight a trained military-I submit Afghanistan v. Russia, Vietnam v. US, and the current Iraq v. US. If you know the terrain that is a better advantage than having the most sophisticated weaponry.

[Difdi]

While I understand that many stances need to be made in the world, and military action could be desirable in certain locations (Burma for example), we've seen what mercenary units are willing to do for money - and it's not a pretty picture. They have no regard for the Geneva Convention - and because they aren't a part of a nation, they have no fear of it either. The only thing they may fear would be War Crimes... if they can be caught, and if they are being backed by Rich Bastard (™), then that's not exactly likely to happen.

It could well be argued that many mercenaries are scum, not because that's the inherent nature of being a mercenary, but because from an international law standpoint, mercenaries are illegal. If you're going to be arrested, charged with war crimes and either jailed for life or simply shot by a firing squad, simply for fighting for money...what incentive do you have not to commit other war crimes?

Put another way...if you will be executed simply for having blue eyes, why not commit a few murders along the way?

Under international law, a mercenary is an unlawful combatant, which is in itself a war crime.

Oh, and by the by... the ™ symbol is accomplished by hitting 0153 on the numberpad while holding alt.

[Pedersen]

and there is a part of the government with congressional authority that exists only to sell military weapons to civilians.

Interesting. My Google-fu is weak today, so I'm not finding this department. Any chance you can provide me with more info? Any of the following would help:

Department name, organization name, any governmental publication number, url for the department.

Anything. I'm definitely having a tough time locating the Division of Used Battleships For Sale, sorry

[Slytovhand]

Hmmm - related thought...

The richest people in your country are quite often the ones paying the least amount of tax (by %), and the ones most likely to make (well - pressure to make) legislation decisions... wouldn't that mean that you wouldn't need that battleship (or aircraft carrier) if you had that sort of money in the first place?

And if you did, then you'd be going into battles with other rich people because of the decisions that they want to make don't help the sort of decisions that you want to make?

And what about the captain of said vessel deciding to take matters into her/his own hands?

Nukes??

Also - if all military hardware were in the hands of private individuals, and not a nation, couldn't you see a situation where Oil Tycoon III wants to acquire a larger share, so sets his sight on a small nation (or even a large one) and invade? Iraq without government backing? After all, with that sort of wealth, and those sort of laws, he isn't going to be too worried about 'trade embargoes' and the like.

Just imagine the change of attitude coming from the White House if the President knew that 5 fully outfitted aircraft carriers had dropped anchor outside the Potomac in international waters, waiting to hear his next speech.

Depends on which president Now... I seem to recall a thing called 'Bay of Pigs'...???? (presuming, of course, that the nation still had it's own military as well).


What you are basically proposing would boil down to a type of fuedalism (as I said, it would become an oligarcy... only slightly more obvious than the one you live in now). I think the reason that such things don't happen is because, while the government can make some stupid decisions, they can easily (or not so easily) be reversed at the next election poll. With such hardware in the hands of those willing to use it, the power shifts to individuals who are far more likely not to have the vested interests of the nation as a whole in their hearts. Which is why the democratic system came about in the first place!


(trivia: Re: the word 'Tyrant' - In ancient Greece, tyrants were influential opportunists that came to power by securing the support of different factions of a deme. The word "tyrant" then carried no ethical censure; it simply referred to anyone who illegally seized executive power in a polis to engage in autocratic, though perhaps benevolent, government, or leadership in a crisis. Support for the tyrants came from the growing class of business people and from the peasants who had no land or were in debt to the wealthy land owners. It is true that they had no legal right to rule, but the people preferred them over kings or the aristocracy. The Greek tyrants stayed in power by using mercenary soldiers from outside of their respective city state. - Note, in Athens at the time, the 'government' was an oligarcy, and the rest of the population, particularly the slaves, were feeling quite oppressed by an uncaring lot of 'politicians')


Slyt

[rahmota]

Pederson the government agency you are seeking is the DRMS (Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service.)http://www.drms.dla.mil/

And one slight problem with buying from the government is that they will not sell you anything you could use against them. Most equipment has been demilitarized. ie a tank would have nay firing or targeting mechanisims removed and detroyed. If it is a "vital national defense equipment or system" such as a nuclear submarine it will not be sold to a civilian. As it takes an act of congress to sell those puppies and even then anything that requires a clearance or could be used as a weapon system would be removed and destroyed. So while that battleship might still have the gun mounts they definately would not be useful. I suppose you could put a fishing line on there and have a really humongus bass boat.

Heck they wont even sell the M*A*S*H style willys jeeps saying they are not road worthy and cut them in half and dump them in the ocean.

[Greenday]

So, what you are saying, is that theoretically the government could give me a F-22 Raptor? Woohoo!

[crazylegs]

So, what you are saying, is that theoretically the government could give me a F-22 Raptor? Woohoo!

Unless you're average height or less you won't be flying it though...!

(Damn that milkman! )

[Greenday]

Unless you're average height or less you won't be flying it though...!

(Damn that milkman! )

I'm 5'10" and I don't have 20/20 vision. I won't let that stop me!

Note to self. Do NOT visit that website while at work. The government monitors all the computers on the military base...

[crazylegs]

I'm 5'10" ...<snip>

Good luck retaining your kneecaps should you punch out.

[rahmota]

So, what you are saying, is that theoretically the government could give me a F-22 Raptor? Woohoo!

hehehe nice try but no it doesnt work that way.

Anythign that is still in active service is pretty much not going to the DRMS auctions. Anythign that still could be used as a weapon against the US or give secrets to foreign nationals that would compromise national security isnt going to the auctions.

So mainly a few used trucks or humvees, some outdated personal equipment,used clothing, etc... Sometimes some really neat stuff does get released and occasionally there have been slipups where stuff got through that shouldnt have (like the time a guy got a live 2,000# bomb in a scrapmetal auction) but they kinda watch for those and get rather bent if they find out about it.

Not to mention but given the new purchase price of an F22 I think the bluebook value on a used one would still be rather high. Talk about sticker shock.

[Greenday]

Eh, the F-22 is being replaced anyway already by the F-34. F-34 is basically just a more advanced model of the F-22. And even if I destroy my knees bailing out (which I won't because no one will be able to touch me), so be it. It'd be totally worth it.

[Vagabond]

Didn't John Travolta buy an F-16?
Granted it was probably demilitarized, but still. An F-16!!
Still the only plane that I know of that can accelerate while going vertical!

I say, hell, if you've got the money to buy it, go for it. Providing that it has been demilitarized, and/or you are not a felon.

I'd love to have me a 2 1/2 or 5 ton truck.