Defence

THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF WARS

It seems inevitable that war will continue to plaugue us until the gospel converts the earth. The Federalist Papers saw the same inevitability in Paper 28 "There will be from time to time wars and insurrections and in Paper6 "The causes of hostility between nations are numerable" and also "Neighbouring nations are naturally enemies of one another unless their common weakness forces them to league in a confederate republic" Gabriel Bonnet de Mably.

In world war one 8 million soldiers have lost their lives but since WW2 , 7 million have lost their lives in 150-160 wars p12 .(2) ( not counting civilians or wounded or those who died later)

60 of the 200 UN members have had wars since 1945 and there were 31 wars in progress in 1990 alone Internal violence also claims many lifes , among the Kurds 26,000 have been killed in the last 13 years. In contrast the last 30 years has claimed 3200 in Ireland and 800 as a result of Basque seperatists. So its clear there is a need for solutions to this major historic and global problem.

NON SOLUTIONS

Nuclear disarmament and Pacificm :resting on the idea that people are intrinsically good and that there is no risk of attack from elsewhere we can reject his theory. Also we have strong Biblical support for the idea that self defense is legitimate.

Trying to insure homogeniety (of any type )may help but its not the whole sollution .Its usually a good idea to give nations that want to secceed their independence but this wont solve every problem. The Middle East has the same language, same religion and is the same ethnic group (Arab)- yet it is at war continually. Medieval Europe was the same.

Wholly relying on the idea that God will protect the righteous nation doesnt seem to work either :a country getting attacked is not necesarily under judgement : Harold at Hastings . However there may be counter arguments in this case.

The Status Quo isn't efficient : Defense budgets are distributed by the way everything is , what areas will get the most votes. Each service will make a case for its budget not being cut, regardless of strategic concerns That's the democratic problem. Its also expensive to have standing armies etc. etc Non Proliferation treaties are surely a waste of time ultimately. Its worthwhile to slow the spread, of course, but nuclear weapons will in time get into the hands of terrorists and rogue regimes so the only defense is surely to develop something that stops them exploding, intercepts them or can de-radiate a place after they have been detonated. In the context of the current system : a bounty of $1 million for anyone giving information of nuclear weapon smuggling would be more effective ( and cheaper) than the present inspectorate.

One individual can hold any city or business to ransom. What are the implications? Don't have a government that has much in the way of resources is one solution . Having an armed citizenry so he can be shot on sight in another. Clearly ,.having a policy of never paying helps And certainly high rewards for those who catch them. They may decide to extort money from businesses instead of . governments of course

Nuclear weapons arent all bad however, they do protect small countries (Japan) from big ones (China)

The Global Policeman : its a myth that even if America was 100% Christian that it would have a responsibility to stop all wars from a compassionate point of view. Apart from being impossible this strategy ignores the fact that only through the gospel will wars cease

HISTORIC AND COSTS

The costs of war have long been a major drain on the economies of the world . In medieval times: to keep one knight required 4 horses and 6 men which required the output of 8-10 farms- that's 10% to 12.5% of GDP on this kind of military, not counting the king.

Russia in the nineteenth century spent almost 40% of GDP on the army and in Britain at the time of the federalist papers , 1/15th of government expediture for the ostentation of the monarchy, the other 14/15ths for past wars and maintenance of fleets and armies.(1) Paper 35 relates that many of the states were in debt because of the War of Independance.

World defense expenditure is down from 1987 peak of $811 billion to 40% less now America only spends 3.6% of its GDP on the military. But it is absolute amounts and not per capita that counts in military matters- for Christian nations confederating with others on military matters is most important. % of GDP: North Korea 27%, Saudi 12,Yug 8,botswan 6,russ 6, ang 6,pak 5, china5, sing 5, taiw 5, greece 5, us 3.6, chile 3.6, s kor,France,uk.swed,india 3.4, columbia\3, regions : middle east/n afr 6.8, centr s asia 5,east asia 4, non nato eur 3.8, ss afric 3, nato 2.5, latin amer 2 Economist Oct 18, 97 figures for 96

So alliances do seem to make defense cheaper.

Costs for Defense in Britain : total £22.519 bil =£1000 pa for each household

(declined from the real equivalent of £28 bil in 1994)

Armed forces : 9.3 bil of which 6.4 soldiers , 2.8 civilian ( personnel)

Equipment: 8.8 bil of which 2.4 sea systems, 1.6 land systems, 3.1 air systems, 1.5 other

Other expend: 4.3 bil ( 2.4 on works , buildings and land, 1.98 on misc. stores and services) Army is 222,000 , navy is 44,000, air force is 59,000 TA is 60,000, cadets is 137,000

5600 doctors, 95,000 houses for married accommodation, 222,000 hectares of land

Defense expenditure / GDP ratios are not related to size (Getting it right : Baro p30). Small countries don't spend proportionately more

WHY WARS HAPPEN- THE MOTIVES

As in the past, the war-makers of the world do not merely calculate economic pluses and minuses before plunging into war. ...instead, their chances of seizing, expanding, or political power."p16

Worse yet, geo-economic war is not a substitute for military- conflict. It is, all too often, merely a prelude U.S.-Japanese economic rivalry leading up to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor

Economic motives have been causes for wars of aggression in the past, Spanish in America,

MOTIVES FOR ATTACKING A NATION THAT WOULDNT APPLY TO A CHRISTIAN STATE

i.e. why nations wouldnt attack us for these historic reasons.

(1) Historically , absolute monarchies have sometimes attacks otherd even when there is nothing to gain but glory or revenge for personal affronts. (no monarchy or proactive executive) Defense especially by monarchs (e.g. C18) is mostly in terms of their interests rather than the nations necessarily. And can be effected by the emotions as anyone can.(their desire for glory). The desire of a dictator to defeat a personal rival would not occur as we have no powerful figurehead to be a rival.

(2) Attempts to collect taxes (Boston TP, Alva in the Netherlands in the sixteenth century ) ,since we would be a non-taxed state , attempts to collect taxes would not be a cause of wars for us.

(3) The desire for the power or money of the crown ( Jacobite rebellions, Vikings). Having no powerful executive means there is no great prize. And having no centrally collected revenue would have put off the Vikings (who went for the centre- they weren't remotely interested in having to pillage every house individually- that would have been far too much work)

(4) The Ancien Regime- for an original military justification - ended up taking all the income from the peasants that they could without actually starving them . Such unjust sytems which caused the French revolution would not exist in our free, untaxed economy.

(5) Territorial claims and personal dynastic claims like those of Louis over Milan at the turn of the sixteenth century . The desire of governments for more land and hence more power ( medieval nobles). This is perhaps an anacronism everywhere since land is no longer really the basis of wealth.

(6) Hatred of other nations . Many of England's wars were at the insistence of the representatives of the people - the English peoples dislike of the French kept the wars going against the opposition of the court in the Middle Ages. As long as we were sending missionaries into the countries of potential enemies we probably would stay on good terms.

(7) Wars of particion: The crimean war was about how to divide up Turkey when it disintegrated, Biblical nations aren't remotely interested in more territory especially not now. So we wouldnt get involved in foreign wars for this reason. In a similar way, the Franco-Austrian war was about Austrain troups occupying Italy, the Franco Prussian war was about the formation of a hostile power in Spain (Prussian succession). Christian nations wouldn't get involved in the affairs of other nations, except diplomatically Such particians can cause problems later on , remember , Kuwait was carved out of Iraq by the British and Africa was divided up without any thoughts for what tribes were where.

(8) Huguenots arms were in self defense against attacks on church meetings resulting in many deaths Once a nation is Christian persecution of Hugenots is not very likely !

MOTIVES FOR ATTACKING A NATION THAT WOULDNT APPLY TO A CHRISTIAN STATE

i.e. motives occuring in the past that may reoccurr

(1) Spain and France closing their ports against more efficient US ships is the kind of thing that causes wars- Japans perceived unfair trade today (those this is of course a myth and so the solution is ideological -that free trade is good for a nation even when other nations don't follow)

(2) False ideology (Hitlers motives- were to create a better society through eugenics) ,for wars are ideological and the solution is sending in the missionaries (before the ideology takes route). Christian radio etc. also helps

(3) Financial : desire for oil / default on debt (Sadam Hussein) or gold and silver (Philip 2nd in the new world). Most wars historically have not paid for themselves and its difficult to see how they could have been expected to. But the odd one here and there seems to have been fought for financial motives. While tax revenues might not be a motive for attacking a Christian nation. If it had oil or similar resources then it could be target for that reason. The debt situation is particularly relevant (Saddam Hussein owed millions to Kuwait ) since we "would lend to many and borrow from none" Deut 28. It may be better to lend to busisnesses than states ! (Philip's default on debts at various times bankrupted many banks!)

(4) Personal ambition (Wolsey's desire for the papacy from Emperor Charles 5 made him lead England into a war with France). Its always possible that some personal motive will lead a dictator into war.

(5) And not just dictators- even commericial republics engaged in wars : Carthage (Hannibal), Athens, Venice were not uninvolved in wars of agression and they ultimately destroyed them ,Carthage by the Rome it attached, Venice by the league of Cambray.

(6) A christian free market nation will be richer than the nations around so it might seem like there is a lot to gain. How can we reduce the benefits and increase the costs to a foreign military power of attacking for economic reasons ? Laws encouraging assasination of foreign military leaders if they attack and prosecution of tax collectors imposed. The lack of a tax system helps . The determined non- co operation with any invaders through guerilla warfare- for the last 40 years most military action has failed even against small bands of guerrillas .(Defense plans drawn up in advance). Alliances with other powers for defense. Strong defense or counter strike manoevers , the removal of credit from the attacking power. Hiring of mercenaries possibly. "to be more safe [even the most ardent lover of liberty] at last becomes willing to bear the risk of being less free"

(7) Its also possible that boundary disputes might play a role in future conflicts in that a nation might be bound to defend its citizens if another country tries to absorb a province in their country.

ENDURING REALITIES

In the Military if not in Economics, its size that matters!

The media can start wars ( e.g. War Between the States and the northern press) but they also make casualties very unpopular

NEW REALITIES

Governments losing their monopoly on arms
There is no defense against a hand delivered nuclear bomb
Invasion achieves little because the wealth is in peoples minds
Defense against a coup is the main defense motive
Age of mass armies in past , now its technology
Nuclear bombs are actually very cheap its the delivery systems that are expensive
Holding more territory doesn't really help a nation now, brains are where its at
For only within recent decades have some of the key parameters of warfare hit their final limits these parameters are range, lethality, and speed.
Most important change since Vietnam: precision guided weapons
A alpha chemical laser, capable of producing a million watts of power, as part of the development of an anti-missile system. The laser can, if targeted correctly, reach an enemy missile at the speed of light. what would be the motives for more defensive warfare. Would it help to develop anti missile systems rather than missiles. Would it give some the incentive to take over if it thought that other countries missiles could be knocked out. Would missiles not then be invented to evade anti missile systems. Still devices to clear up after nuclear explosions would be useful
Six day war in 73- Israel greatly outnumbered:the primary lesson, for Starry, was that "starting ratios" do not determine the outcome. "It makes no difference who outnumbered or who is outnumbering." Put differently, the fact that the Syrians had echelon after echelon of backup troops did them no good at all.
Whoever seizes the initiative will win.
This is a problem for the raise up executive that only attacks after it has been attacked So the building up of huge armies was not necessarily the key to victory
the nature of war changes with technology, who is going to set our response and change it. Destroyed command and communication centers, knew what the enemy was doing without it knowing what you were doing.( in C19 the key advantage was better organisation through use of the railways and management techniques- the general staff)
enemy formations and strengths are tracked and analyzed with computers, courses of action are war gamed with programs using artificial intelligence and logistics, and personnel information is compiled and tracked on computer spreadsheets." whose going to do this in the Christian nation Earliest attacks targeted 'microwave relay towers, telephone exchanges, switching rooms, fiber optic nodes, and bridges that carried coaxial communications cables." This had the effect of either silencing them, or forcing "the Iraqi leadership to use backup systems vulnerable to eavesdropping that produced valuable intelligence.".
Knowledge, in short, is now the central resource of destructivity, just as it is the central resource of productivity p82
Desert storms first attack was on Iraq's radar early warning system
''It was the first real test under war condition, the $200 billion US space machine and the first justification for the $1 bil French and British investment military space. ,coalition made direct use of some sixty allied satellites provided detailed images of Iraqi forces and the damage inflicted by allied air attacks., Niche warfare will become more because governments will find it a relatively low-cost option-perhaps by non-national players from transnational corporations covertly employing mercenaries to fanatic religious movements. Islamic terrorist attacks on Christian nations? What can you do about terrorism? As armed citizenry helps but if they are suicide bombers all you can do is evangelise the areas they are likely to be from

SOLUTIONS
Armed Citizenry
If everyone has a gun and defends his home as an individual can an invading government obtain its objectives in its invasion. People invade because they are want the things you have ( James 2) - the booming industry of a Christian nation, the land, seaports ? , oil resources.
Through intimidation, it can usually keep most of the people in subjection. But people can fight guerrilla warfare , possibly with mobile phones, faxes, etc. or without if such things are knocked out. By individual bands picking off enemy soldiers , assassinating enemy heads of state,) . Secret stashes of food etc. . They can certainly effect the cost benefit ratio for the attacking power..
Free countries never lack volunteers when invaded.

Confederations and their problems
This in one of the main themes of the Federalist papers - unity between states ( e.g. England and Scotland unification of Italy and Germany, even England itself in the ninth century ) certainly lead to less wars between those now in the union, but there is also less economic competition which is a negative effect.
Hamilton argues that a united america causes less cause for internal war than a number of confederacies (cf Frances desire for European Union rests on her history of being continually invaded ) ( This didn't stop WBS but argument seems generally sound as long as there is an expelicit right to seceed ). In our program we only have courts so its fairly easy to join jurisdictions into one whole as more nations become Christian. This from a defense point of view makes good senses - its is indisputable that external war mongers are more repelled by a large alliance.

Condederacies have their problems historically :there were many wars between states and emperor in the German confederation ( and between half the states and sweden against the other half). Even if they are united the need for discussion and agreement slows the process in the event of an invasion or attack. In view of this there does seem to be a need for one chief magistrate to be raised up for Christendom rather than each individual country having one to take executive power in emergencies. Would confederacies go to each others aid or would their be a danger of them being flattered or bribed by the enemy or lacking sufficient motive to defend their confederates ( apparently this happened often in Greece) . If they did help would they submit to one general (America is reluctant to do so with the United Nations forces in the 90s). Confederacies in the US would have been played off against each other by Britain , France and Spain say the Federalists if there hadnt unified under one constitution.
(strong evidence for this in the history of GB before the Union as the continental powers skillfully manipulated. Events in Scotland for their own ends). So there seems a lot of argumnents in favour of one command for the whole of the Christian nations.
Another problem is how to decide matters . In Greece at the Amphictyons confederate council - judgement always went to the most powerful (says Plutarch ) and even in defensive wars with Persia and Macedon, they didn't act in concert. Finally Athens went to war against Sparta.. The probelm is (Paper 7 ) that states, like individuals, accede with great reluctance to decisions against them , so have to be effectively enforced.and how do you enforce decisions against the most powerful member?

One executive, raised up by the integrated judiciaries of Christendom in time of need would have to have the power to defend the whole, this is better than non-Christian allies - Paper 18 points out that a victorious and powerful ally is but another name for a master. Macedon (ally) ended up taking over Achea as Rome did in Greece as a whole.
Our federated military would be proportionately less expensive the larger the confederacy became , more missionaries would be a major contribution to our defense. In our system of united defense of Christendom we would have the usual problems that some parts of the region would be more vulnerable that others. In the seventeenth century , New York was seen as being more vulnerable to attack since it is closer to the sea and yet should it bear the whole cost of its defence. In a Christian system there is no doubt that we have the duty to defend our brothers elsewhere if they are under attack (although we are talking volunteers here and not conscription). This is different from the modern concept of a Global Policemen when national citizens are defending other nations regardless of the ethics of that nation. Why do we consider the Kurds worth defending, when they were the Iatola's henchmen they were despised by the world.
United Nations type arrangments are based on a faulty system of ethics but that's not to say they have been totally useless. It is possible that the Christian nations would be part of such a scheme until they became large enough not to need it. Even after that it might not be a bad place to conduct diplomacy. The idea that the UN on its own can stop wars is anathema to the postmillenial concept of how that wars will eventually cease.

Private armies
Individuals and companies owning armaments is the best way to defend a country.
This system creates private sector efficiencies :
It also created deterents to internal violence making people unlikely to attack each other An armed citizenry with all the latest weaponry is not an inviting target for an aggressor. Private armies have existed in history e.g. the east india company,
Paper 29 of the Federalist recommends the assembling of people once a year to ensure they are armed However , if we had an armed citizenry that knew how to shoot but weren't trained in manoevers like SAS operations, assassinations, parachuting, and so on, how useful would that be ?
And if they should be thus trained then who is going to pay for it?
Its possible that military companies of mercenaries that sell their services worldwide.
Or people may buy systems to speculate on spoils, but we don't want them to be warmongering as a result People could leave legacies for defending the country that could buy weaponry as it saw fit, previous spoils could support the system.
Do we have a judicial commitee to deal with this area through voluntary donations
Partial Privatisations
Can privatise parts of defense without privatising it all :for instant- privatise the processing of information for intelligence, and the physical army part, and simply destroy the militaries monopoly on some other areas and see what the private sector does.
Foreign mercenaries for other nations, spoils
Another way to finance defense is to rent out troops and equipment to countries at war elsewhere. Problem is if the country was a friend then you'd want to help for free and if an enemy would you want to help them? Could Israel's army fight for Babylon against Egypt for pay ? Maybe they could ? Private nations by their prosperity encourage others to do the same which would encourage everyone to reduce their military as the process developed.
Even without that there is a equilibrium because if you spend too much on the military you might fall behind in other areas and thus loose technological lead and loose militarily. The need for practise
Paper c25 argues that armies have to practise and that reliance on militias almost lost the US the War of Independence
The Veteran legions of Rome defeated other less well trained peoples
ED to have a effective non- standing army, a nation has to be a nation that exports mercenaries
Deterence from effective defense
Europe's armies came from its continental nature : by the time of Federalist had so many defenses that war was the taking of a few towns, and a huge victory was the taking of a frontier fortress, so the country was not much at threat from war.
Seccession
Letting anyone who wished to seceed is a money saver cf Britain's debt after American War of Independence, cf War Between the States ,cf Spain in Latin America
Assassinations of Enemy leaders
The best military specialism of a defensive nation would be that of effectively assassinating the key leaders of an agressor nation as soon as they declared war on the Christian nation. As in the situation with Eglon and Ehud.
There is the principle of self defense- if Israel was attacked it could counter attack the aggressor contries and put them under tribute to pay restitution.
FUNDING
How do you fund wars without taxation , by allowing people to lend to the executive and receive a 100% return or more when the defeated country pays back restitution., possibly with slaves ! and certainly with spoils. Perhaps some of this should go to the victims ?
END FEUDALISM
Cathedrals virtually empty except twice a year -packed for feast days.

feudalism was a private force but they were not a free enterprise system: there was taxation, there were serfs who weren't free to move around. Worth examining the danger to private force becoming like this. the middle ages "public power in private hands". How to we stop such developing ?
INTERNAL
Ed Strong private incentivised police power to bring to justice any insurrectionists should be sufficient to deal with internal disorder
Control of factions : landed against unlanded, creditors against debtors. Predictability of Biblical institutions means people look for other solutions than political because there is little restraint on freedom anyway.
ED : Insurrection , local courts must stop it or higher courts entitled to do so . Those defended or insurance cover the costs recovered later from the agressors (spoils is a source of revenue for wars)- anything beyond restitution could be made into an endowment for future wars.
(1) The Federalist papers
(2) Toffler :War and Anti War