Friday, September 18, 2015

I otta smack him 4


I OTTA SMACK HIM 4 of 4

All the survivalists out there that play militia, embracing to an embarrassing degree everything military whether it makes sense or not, parrot the military strategy “the best defense is an offence”.  One wonders if this wasn’t colored by such considerations as the brutal amount of labor needed to build defenses and more recently the financial needs of the military industrial complex, but be that as it may, the truism is apropos in more instances than not.  If you wait for the enemy to attack, your battleground is in close proximity to your civilians and farmland.  If you attack your enemy, than it is his breeders and eateries that are in danger.  On the other hand, your average survivalist is also, if one goes by the popularity of the biggest blogs in revenue, a friggin religious nut job spewing doctrine from organized religion rather than from on high ( I’m aware it is hard to separate the politics as that would require a doctorate in religious organizations histories.  A good litmus test would be to ask if a policy benefited God or the Church, but unless I’m mistaken most folks embrace the social aspects of a religious organization and usual accept church politics as inseparable from biblical doctrine ), and all too often the New Testament soft hearted BS implicitly backs a defensive posture militarily.  It seems good church folk are not allowed to act too barbaric in war ( one wonders if the Vikings raiding Christian churches had anything to do with an unconscious distain towards offensive warfare.  You might point to the Hundreds Year War as a counterexample, but I’d guess that was mostly civilized even given it was a civil war with most problems caused by the lack of logistics causing over grazing by invaders ).  You can smite the evil ones, but only defensively or in very rare occasions in retaliation. 

*

Alas, offensive war is exactly what you need to wage if you hope to survive.  In an energy scarce environment, you can’t afford to allow your crops to be stolen, your breeders to be captured, your offspring to be taken into slavery or your soldiers to get soft on garrison duty ( garrison is for down time between combat duties, as an R&R ).  Being preemptive in combat, going on the offensive to minimize defensive requirements and dangers, gives the appearance of violence and viciousness.  It does not sit well with our largely non-violent population ( playing GTA and watching Die Hard does not make you violent.  It channels your natural aggression safely, something to keep in mind every time some idiot Congressman champions less violent entertainment.  Those fools benefit from the trend ).  The most violent the experts agree on, post-apocalypse wise, is to patrol your territory to resist incursions.  I say, screw that.  Go Planet Of The Apes on your enemies, and bring the fight to them.  Do unto them before they can do unto you.  Smite them, for soon they shall invent a reason to smite you.  Embrace the warrior, not the soldier.  He who radiates from his center outwards, cleansing the land of future potential enemies, is safer.

END
 
Please support Bison by buying through the Amazon ad graphics at the top of the page. You can purchase anything, not just the linked item. Enter Amazon through my item link and then go to whatever other item you desire. As long as you don’t leave Amazon until after the order is placed, I get credit for your purchase.  For those that can’t get the ads because they are blocked by your software, just PayPal me occasionally or buy me something from my Amazon Wish List once a year. *The Old Bison Blog: Over five years of work and nearly two million words of pure brilliance: available as a free e-book, but not cleaned up or organized, at Lulu* My monthly newsletter: search at Amazon under Kindle “Malthusian Survivalist Newsletter”
*Contact Information*  Links To Others*  Land In Elko*  Lord Bison* my bio & biblio*   my web site is www.bisonprepper.com
*My books: http://bisonprepper.blogspot.com/2015/04/my-book-links.html
* By the by, all my writing is copyrighted. For the obtuse out there
 

 

12 comments:

  1. Not to disagree with your High Hairedness but, wouldn't it be easier to form pacts with those around you to ensure peace than to give them a reason to come after you when one might not otherwise have existed? Aren't you just poking the bear that might have actually protected you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That might be fine, except right after our die-off is when you want to cleanse the earth of enemies as far away from yourself as you can. Gives you time to rebuild and repopulate with a buffer. Look to Russia for a flexable border policy militarily. Plus, look at all their spare land they took. Room to expand. Better Russia than Europe.

      Delete
    2. shaka zulu, 'leave no enemy behind.'.

      Delete
    3. Right. It isn't pleasant, but it behooves us to think outside that box.

      Delete
  2. Look at what the current military is REALLY doing vs. the propaganda: sensors.
    With fewer assets (for attack or defense), knowing what and where the enemy is while focusing on response speed is cheaper than having 2M tanks and crews to feed every year, or 5M soldiers to feed while stationed in Germany. Sensors, combined with adjustable-yield nukes on precise delivery systems, is the cheapness strategy for a system in decline. The counter-strategy is to be too remote and low-value a target to deserve an expensive nuke, even if the sensors can notice/target you.

    pdxr13

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I were a German, I'd start worrying about "friendly" nukes all over again. I have little faith in a beurocratic ( sp? ) military using corporate weapons built by bribing Senators.

      Delete
  3. One has to consider military agressors as people who invest in a risky business. Their nature is predatory, but this kind of business is also doomed to go on, it is not sustainable, hence you never go out of risk. In a word, it is a dirty job.

    If your put your ressources in optimizing production of whatever you dio, you tend to specialize, maximizing expertise and economy of scale. Farmers are experts.
    But hence, you minimize your defenses. This is why it makes sense for farmers to pay experts to wage (defensive) warfare.

    If you are both cultivating and fighting, you might suck at both in terms of return on investment, but the big picture is that you're less likely to lose it all (you are more difficult to engage against than pure agricultural workers, i.e. slaves) and more resilient.

    This is IMHO why peasants were the prime choice for the infantry. They may suck against professional soldiers but they tend to moot the edge of the professionals, whereas specialized city people were best as mechanics or logistics, and generally sucked at warfare.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Military aggression should be a necessary strategy, not a career. The Romans specialized in it and eventually were defeated by it. The point is to defeat surrounding lands, depopulated them rather than colonize them, then populate them with your tribal decendents who then defend it. But, you defend it agressively, such as repulse probing attacks then retaliate against the intruders lands in a punative raid. ( excuse spelling-no coffee yet )

      Delete
    2. Like the Mongols did across Asia and Europe. Like the Han are doing now. Like Israel would do if they could agree that survival is worth doing unpleasant things for.

      pdxr13

      Delete
  4. The most efficient killing ration bullet to body that I know of is 6 to 1 when U.S. snipers with star scopes would sit out on barges on the river (forget which one) in Vietnam and pick of people along rivers edge. Otherwise, it still pretty well follows Frederick the Great's maxim of shooting a man's weight in bullets to kill/disable him: the difference being today that we have more accurate weapons, which force people to hide rather than march shoulder to shoulder in the open.

    If you go 20 rounds per pound (close enough for .308) that's 3,000 rounds per 150 pounds of casualty. So unless you have night scopes, and clueless opponents, you probably won't have enough ammunition for effective extermination action.

    Note, if you just want to chase people out of range, being sure to give them a clear flight path, that could probably work with a lot less. But recall that even with a bolt action you can shoot off your carry weight in ammo (~200 rounds) in only a few minutes.

    The most common historical tactic (chimpanzees do it) is skulk and ambush with numbers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bushwacking should be most preppers 1st tactic. For the masses, food control. You are correct on the ammunition, something I think we all forget as we congratulate ourselves for having two cases of ammo instead of one.

      Delete

COMMENTS HAVE BEEN CLOSED