What will happen to a former state's defense? (Troops, weapons, etc) And how will the stateless defend themselves?

Question

Will it be recycled for use by (likely untrained) community militias?
Destroyed/disassembled for resources?
As for the troops, will they be of any use of maintaining the weapons (if they're still in use)?

Also, how would we fair against a nation who, in addition to having a state, has a large and highly trained and advanced military and has been eyeing the United States for a while and would just love for an opportunity like this to come and take the nation with little resistance (should we decide to remove defense)? And even if we didn't remove defense. 2nd amendment advocates in today's nation would love to repel an invasion, but at least they would have a trained and effective national guard helping them somewhere (or most likely vice versa). Without the state's military, we'd be at a big disadvantage in defending the nation. Remember, Red Dawn was just a movie, we need to think realistically, it's not likely we would outmatch a military with many more years of training and experience as well as higher technology. With the combined efforts of the whole nation, at best we may match the strength of the state's military, but that's the whole nation, not just the willing.

Those of you who say other nations would cut their militaries when they see the strongest one, the US, vanish: that didn't really seem to stop Nazi Germany when our country was in the depression and had isolationist policies. In fact I'm pretty sure Hitler would have taken America once he finished up in Europe, if we hadn't depended on things such as drafts to get a decent military in the first place. I highly doubt an anarchist nation would rely on drafts.

Comments

There are so many problems with this question, I don't even know where to begin.

---

"an anarchist nation" ?....what are you smoking ?

---

I think this a good 101 question to revisit if anyone has some other ways to answer. I often hear some variation of "how will you contend with an invading modern-day military force?"
I presume much the same way guerillas have dealt with such circumstances in the past, such as those in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere

---

hi V V.

here is another places this has been asked...

http://anarchy101.org/2289/anarchistic-nation-defend-itself-against-foreign-invasion?show=2289#q2289

and on a lighter note

http://anarchy101.org/11756/would-anarchist-society-defend-itself-from-military-invasion?show=11756#q11756

---

maybe not like the islamist guerillas eh?  doesnt sound especially fun to be a jihadi, unless youre high on religious mania and really want an actual sex slave

Answer 1

i disagree, rice boy, i think this is a fair question, and certainly the kind of question that makes sense on this kind of website.
(i don't know that the history in the final paragraph makes much sense, as i understand it, but that is more or less irrelevant to the gist of the question.)

the questions of a) how to transform or address material things and relationships that are not appropriate to a new situation, and b) how localized it would be possible for a dramatic change to be, are both practical, reasonable questions, i think.

and the truth is that the anarchists i know don't think much along those lines. we see the possibility of real change (of the sort we want) as being so distant that the practical problem-solving asked for by this question is irrelevant, or a distraction from current concerns (or, at worst, a bad faith attack).

we do have the spanish revolutionary war as evidence that people who are fighting for their homes and friends do not require a military hierarchy to be effective fighters.

i'm not sure of the point of the first part of your question, about troops and arms. obviously troops are people, and in this case people with a particular skill set that would (in the scenario you're talking about) still be useful. are you wondering if the troops would be killed and the weapons destroyed?  why would we kill people who weren't trying to kill us? what level of weapons are you talking about? if WMD then i can imagine some kind of deconstruction attempt, because that level of destruction is never appropriate... and perhaps the things they're made from would be useful in some other context...

so that's what i've got for you. if i haven't understood, perhaps you will clarify.

Comments

i mean in regards to the spanish civil war, the anarchists lost that pretty handily.  whilst yes, a fight was put up for 3 years, 3 years isnt much of a human life, and franco's spain lasted till his death.  a lot to admire, but also a lot to learn.