Howard Berkowitz writes:

In article , Jack
wrote:

On 2004/01/18 10:05, in article ,
"Damien
R. Sullivan" wrote:

Basically, can a small or lower-tech democracy with non-corrupt
government and motivated citizenry make invasion too expensive to
work?

Possibly not today, but back in 1776....


Exactly. I am _not_ in favor of gun confiscation, but I really can't
accept the idea of the unorganized militia, with sporting weapons,
deterring either regulars or invaders. With a laptop and intimate
knowledge of communications networks, I can be a MUCH nastier deterrent.

More likely, you can come to the same end as Archimedes, accomplishing
no more in the end than one guy with a hunting rifle.

Now, with a laptop *and* a rifle, you can accomplish a lot more than
with either alone. On the defensive side, every detective with a hunch
as to where that nuisance with the laptop is, every house-to-house search
for same, has to allocate a SWAT team per target instead of just a couple
beat cops. Which means the whole process takes them longer for the same
available resources and gives you that much more time to make a nuisance
of yourself with the laptop.

Offensively, a lot of what you are going to accomplish with that laptop
is learning interesting things like, e.g., section X of the enemy's
operation is grossly dysfunctional except that mid-level person Y knows
how everything works and is keeping the whole thing running. Is that a
bit of abstract knowledge, or a target for a well-placed bullet?

And then there's the nice combination of a laptop, a gun, and a bunch
of improvised explosives...


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *