4 ms·

Once there's violence targeting you, the solution is to bring real weapons and resolve it using ordinary military tactics, that is, you kill the operator.

seabass-labrax 2y ago
"Attack is the best form of defence" is a well-grounded doctrine, but it's not mutually exclusive with protecting yourself. Armies use armoured vehicles even though armour-piercing shells exist, for example. It's also not always necessary; actively using force against the authorities would essentially be the start of a civil war, and personally I don't think starting a civil war is more likely to result in change than peaceful protest. For instance, Serbia is to some extent reliant on the EU, and has expressed an interest in joining. That should force the current government to reconsider and crack down on corruption much better than an attempted coup would. Full disclosure: I have never been to Serbia and this is just my personal feeling. But for expressly peaceful protests to seamlessly turn into a full-blown revolution, and a successful one at that, seems incredibly unlikely to me.
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  Yes, but these kinds of systems are not actually very good as military weapons. They are easily countered by simply shooting the operators.
  - dmurray 2y ago
    Are they? They seem easy enough to operate remotely, or by a guy in a tank or a bulletproof Popemobile or whatever.
    - impossiblefork 2y ago
      It's probably something like a horn, or a speaker. A couple of bullets are probably enough to break it.
6r17 2y ago
Defensive measure are also enjoyable as they give an increased tactical field - as to put it, they increase the luck area.
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  Yes, but presumably dealing with just a couple of systems like this has to be a quick matter. These things are probably off right now, so it's just a matter of finding them, shooting the people guarding them and either destroying or taking them.
ta1243 2y ago
Operator is typically thousands of kilometres away
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  No, he's probably just around the corner, having just set up the speakers and put on his hearing protection.
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    Yes, these weapons are much shorter ranged than an AK-47 in trained hands. They are not really for fighting wars.
mmooss 2y ago
That sounds bold and exciting, but it's clearly false and terrible advice. Violence, like warfare, is politics by other means. Every expert knows that law of warfare - the first law of warfare, in a sense - that it ends when and only when there is political agreement. Even in warfare, violence just buys time and changes your political position. In countries with rule-of-law, you can use the political / legal system to stop the violence and hold accountable the perpetrators. In countries without, the only solution is political. It's also well-established that non-violence and other tactics can be quite effective. While if you attack back and injure others, your credibility and legality is gone - nobody will listen to you or pay much attention to 'they started it' (which the other side will dispute anyway).
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  Once there's violence targeting you, the politics is over and a different kind of problem solving begins. If someone has attacked you and there has been no apology or attempt to solve the situation, he must be eliminated. Once he's done it, he may well try again, in which case you might die. Better then to get rid of him.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    > Once there's violence targeting you, the politics is over You are missing the fundamentals: violence is the continuation of politics, and is resolved by politics. > If someone has attacked you and there has been no apology or attempt to solve the situation, he must be eliminated. Really? If someone assaaults you, you must "eliminate" them? That is bizarre, extreme, dangerous behavior. People have become highly indocrinated with violence as an ideology. Look at the absurdity of this comment.
    - impossiblefork 2y ago
      I don't really agree that it's necessarily a continuation of politics. It's an interpretation of things from Clausewitz. It's to some degree a great interpretation, explaining certain aspects of warfare, but you choose the role that your violence plays. You can make it an extension of politics, you can make it simple self-defence, purely a matter of destroying your enemies. >Really? If someone assaaults you, you must "eliminate" them? That is bizarre, extreme, dangerous behavior. If the government or other powerful entities target you specifically, yes, you have to get rid of them.
martin-t 2y ago
I fully support targeted use of violence against oppressors and aggressors but it needs to be said that materialized (as opposed to threatened/implied) violence only works if you are able to deliver sufficient amounts of it. Up until that point you need to paint yourself as the victim (the just/right/good side) to get more support to deliver more violence later what the time comes to materialize it. Premature materialization leads to the oppressor/aggressor painting _himself_ as the victim and you as the aggressor. And because most people are uninformed, not terribly intelligent and conditioned to prefer peace over justice, they are more likely to take his side.
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  Yes, but you probably only need something like a 1000 men to get something like Mariupol. That of course does require all of them to be ridiculously resilient, but I think you can learn that.x
pjc50 2y ago
You're really up and down these comments advocating the start of another war in the Balkans, aren't you? How did that work out last time, and the time before that?
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  Think of it like this instead: if those who run countries or otherwise have power over people know that they if they attack people risk a proper response, then all such people who are sensible will refrain from violence. If things get too out of hand there's always the possibility of calling an election.

seabass-labrax 2y ago

"Attack is the best form of defence" is a well-grounded doctrine, but it's not mutually exclusive with protecting yourself. Armies use armoured vehicles even though armour-piercing shells exist, for example. It's also not always necessary; actively using force against the authorities would essentially be the start of a civil war, and personally I don't think starting a civil war is more likely to result in change than peaceful protest. For instance, Serbia is to some extent reliant on the EU, and has expressed an interest in joining. That should force the current government to reconsider and crack down on corruption much better than an attempted coup would. Full disclosure: I have never been to Serbia and this is just my personal feeling. But for expressly peaceful protests to seamlessly turn into a full-blown revolution, and a successful one at that, seems incredibly unlikely to me.

impossiblefork 2y ago
Yes, but these kinds of systems are not actually very good as military weapons. They are easily countered by simply shooting the operators.
- dmurray 2y ago
  Are they? They seem easy enough to operate remotely, or by a guy in a tank or a bulletproof Popemobile or whatever.
  - impossiblefork 2y ago
    It's probably something like a horn, or a speaker. A couple of bullets are probably enough to break it.

6r17 2y ago

Defensive measure are also enjoyable as they give an increased tactical field - as to put it, they increase the luck area.

impossiblefork 2y ago
Yes, but presumably dealing with just a couple of systems like this has to be a quick matter. These things are probably off right now, so it's just a matter of finding them, shooting the people guarding them and either destroying or taking them.

ta1243 2y ago

Operator is typically thousands of kilometres away

impossiblefork 2y ago
No, he's probably just around the corner, having just set up the speakers and put on his hearing protection.
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  Yes, these weapons are much shorter ranged than an AK-47 in trained hands. They are not really for fighting wars.

mmooss 2y ago

That sounds bold and exciting, but it's clearly false and terrible advice. Violence, like warfare, is politics by other means. Every expert knows that law of warfare - the first law of warfare, in a sense - that it ends when and only when there is political agreement. Even in warfare, violence just buys time and changes your political position. In countries with rule-of-law, you can use the political / legal system to stop the violence and hold accountable the perpetrators. In countries without, the only solution is political. It's also well-established that non-violence and other tactics can be quite effective. While if you attack back and injure others, your credibility and legality is gone - nobody will listen to you or pay much attention to 'they started it' (which the other side will dispute anyway).

impossiblefork 2y ago
Once there's violence targeting you, the politics is over and a different kind of problem solving begins. If someone has attacked you and there has been no apology or attempt to solve the situation, he must be eliminated. Once he's done it, he may well try again, in which case you might die. Better then to get rid of him.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > Once there's violence targeting you, the politics is over You are missing the fundamentals: violence is the continuation of politics, and is resolved by politics. > If someone has attacked you and there has been no apology or attempt to solve the situation, he must be eliminated. Really? If someone assaaults you, you must "eliminate" them? That is bizarre, extreme, dangerous behavior. People have become highly indocrinated with violence as an ideology. Look at the absurdity of this comment.
  - impossiblefork 2y ago
    I don't really agree that it's necessarily a continuation of politics. It's an interpretation of things from Clausewitz. It's to some degree a great interpretation, explaining certain aspects of warfare, but you choose the role that your violence plays. You can make it an extension of politics, you can make it simple self-defence, purely a matter of destroying your enemies. >Really? If someone assaaults you, you must "eliminate" them? That is bizarre, extreme, dangerous behavior. If the government or other powerful entities target you specifically, yes, you have to get rid of them.

martin-t 2y ago

I fully support targeted use of violence against oppressors and aggressors but it needs to be said that materialized (as opposed to threatened/implied) violence only works if you are able to deliver sufficient amounts of it. Up until that point you need to paint yourself as the victim (the just/right/good side) to get more support to deliver more violence later what the time comes to materialize it. Premature materialization leads to the oppressor/aggressor painting _himself_ as the victim and you as the aggressor. And because most people are uninformed, not terribly intelligent and conditioned to prefer peace over justice, they are more likely to take his side.

impossiblefork 2y ago
Yes, but you probably only need something like a 1000 men to get something like Mariupol. That of course does require all of them to be ridiculously resilient, but I think you can learn that.x

pjc50 2y ago

You're really up and down these comments advocating the start of another war in the Balkans, aren't you? How did that work out last time, and the time before that?

impossiblefork 2y ago
Think of it like this instead: if those who run countries or otherwise have power over people know that they if they attack people risk a proper response, then all such people who are sensible will refrain from violence. If things get too out of hand there's always the possibility of calling an election.