by BlisteredWhippet » Sun 01 Jul 2007, 16:30:14
You're forgetting the militas and national guard. For instance, such localized paramilitary commanded much of colonial America's need for fascist police state controls. The Army needs its 3000 mile supply lines for fighting organized conflict 3000 miles away.
But, for instance, it draws on a localized network of military and Guard bases across the country. In my town, for instance, a state capital, there is a National guard armory situated a half mile from the legislative building, and multiple military bases within 100 miles. In an hour, the governor could summon 100,000 (thats hundred thousand) Neo-Nazi Rangers to do their bidding... with bradleys, A-10s, F-22s, etc. The supply line is shorter than one might think.
Who controls SPR? Who has a parallel supply line capacity, who has the organizational structure to adapt and react to changing situations? I think you underestimate the capabilities of the military.
In any kind of post-apoc. scenario, the military will have a huge advantage, even autonomous units, in part due to command and control. Its ability to telegraph force at extreme distances might be diminished, but its capabilities in North America, the continental US, in particular, will not be diminished.
As for the main bases of command and their power needs, small scale nuclear generation, when they figure out it is needed, will be implemented. The policy of nuclearization and the end of oil has been a part of official military planning since the end of WWII. To that end, much of the Navy uses nuclear fuel.
In my capital, there was an armed uprising after a series of general strikes by unionists and "communists" in the 10s and 20s, precipitating the establishment of the Guard Armory. Today it mainly serves as a training platform, but its fortress-facade conceals a very real cache of weapons and ammo.
So I really don't understand why you are suggesting that an organization, with a history and current experience establishing and maintaining supply lines, isn't going to be viable when precisely those skills are required in the future.
Throughout history, whenever the military required something- food, shelter, fuel, ammo, it simply seized it. The mechanisms exist for a sustainable military. Even at the expense of the larger society or economy. If Mad Max is the future, having a gun and a rank is going to be the possible employment.
There are no real counterforces against military power. Americans like to think that their small arms and Eagle Scout skills will somehow keep the military from taking over. I think that is patently ridiculous. 3/4 will hand over their young men, weapons and resources without question. The rest will be annihilated, their weapons pried from their cold, dead fingers.