Assuming the military was part of the tyranny (which it would have to be for tyranny to have any meaning), any rebelling national band of “patriots” would be told something like, “you either lay down your arms or the entire city of Dallas, Texas will disappear. You have one hour. If you continue, the next city to disappear will be Atlanta, Georgia.”
As usual, David does a fine job at pointing out the obvious: that anyone even dimly aware of human history can see that resistance is absolutely not futile; that superior force of arms does not always translate into victory; that tyranny's footsoldiers do not always run to stereotype; etc. There is no need to restate any of that.
What sticks out at me is that this "nuclear option" garbage, at least said out loud like this, seems to get trotted out in the early endgame, usually as a petulant reaction to the realization that the bloody peasants might actually mean it when they say no. "Wait, you're just going to say no? Well then, nukes!"
And that is but one setup to a classic exchange that we need to have so very much more of:
"I just can't believe you'd be willing to die over this."
"Well, not exactly willing. But that's hardly the point. The point is that you have made it abundantly clear that you are just fine with having me killed over this."
Well, at least they're saying it out loud, when they trot out "the nuclear option" like this. The funny part is that I'm not even sure the state, itself, is stupid enough to nuke its own populace, for whatever reason. Statists, however--QED above--may yet be even worse than the horror they support.
2 comments:
It's funny, I read the same thing, and I didn't get out of it that the author WANTS any cities nuked; just that he thought the government would do that. Nor did I see him saying he wants anybody killed over anything. Yes he believes "resistance is futile", and he is a boot licker, and still drinks the government kool-aid, but that's about it.
I've seen the "but, but, but, nukes!" argument brought out before. It's amazing people can be this dumb, but there it is.
Codrea and Vanderboegh are also wrong about nonviolent resistance. Both strategies (violent and nonviolent resistance) belong in our toolbox. They are not mutually exclusive.
Yeah, I can see how it might be a bit ambiguous as to whether he's actually advocating it himself, or if he's simply calling the military a bunch of idiots. I look at it this way: when the basic idea is that stupid, it hardly matters: you trot it out as a talking point, you own it. :-)
Completely agreed about nonviolent resistance, too. MBV and Codrea, bless 'em both, don't have many blind spots--at least, ones of importance--but I do think that one qualifies.
Post a Comment