StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Since Alyrium started this, I'm now responding by posting the official plank of the Libertarian-National Party, which would be my political party if I ran my own. This is the Party Plank, or defined set of beliefs you have to espouse if you want to be a national candidate for office for the LNP:

On Amendments:

I. The Repeal of the XVIth Amendment shall be undertaken when possible, so that all taxation of income by the Federal government shall cease, as being capricious and damaging to the welfare of the people and the nation, and harming to the general industry of our society, along with encouraging of excessive government spending and waste; and also to manipulation in the form of levying directed towards certain segments of the population, and loopholes the like, which unfairly distributes the tax burden.

II. The revenue of the State shall instead be collected in the form of a Sales Tax, not to exceed six-percent, which shall be implemented when the income tax is repealed. This sales tax will be comprehensive, and also shall be levied as a duty upon goods purchased in foreign countries by U.S. citizens and holders of green cards, and carried back into this country.

III. The XVIIth Amendment shall be repealed when possible, thereby allowing the appointment of Senators by the States again. This shall return our form of government to that of a full Federal Republic as intended by the Founding Fathers, and ease the extreme and erratic incidences of power seen since the implementation of the XVIIth Amendment from both parties.

IV. An Amendment strengthening the Second Amendment should be passed, with text along these lines: "The definition of the second amendment shall be, that the militia of the United States of America is the whole of the voting citizenry, and an arm is any weapon, which may be feasable carried and operated by a single person."

V. An amendment establishing full representation by population for the Territories, Commonwealths, and Districts of the United States of America, in the House of Representations, ought be passed; but this should also abolish the position of "Shadow Senator" allowed to Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia as undignified to that body.

VI. The Posse Comitatus Act shall be elevated to the status of a Constitutional Amendment when possible.

On Laws:

I. Of course, all current federal legislation regarding firearms would rendered irrelevant by proposed 31st Amendment (Repealing an amendment requires an amendment); individual states would only have the power to legislate firearm possession in the hands of noncitizens, pending likely challenge to the supreme court on the exact definition of "shall not be infringed".

II. Work towards repealing all Federal drug laws and replacing them with a series of special "Sin" Taxes on all drugs. Legalization would be up to the individual states, but in those states where the drugs in question would be produced, the FDA would have oversight on quality. Yes, I'm even talking hard drugs here. We'd fight the cartels by offering a higher-quality product and undercutting their prices even with the tax; smuggling drugs (Or more precisely evading the customs duties on them) would remain a very serious crime.

III. All federal money to the states would be halted, period. This would have the side-effect of ending a lot of federal standards which are not laws, but are actually standardized state laws which have been encouraged by basically bribing the states. We'd cut off the money and tell the states to do things their own way, and, by the way, they'd have to convince their own citizens to raise taxes to do it, too. This would be where we save the federal budget from total collapse after switching from the current income tax to a 6% sales tax.

IV. Social Security would be replaced by a totally voluntary government investment programme, where you could buy stocks and bonds in cooperation with the federal government at a portion of your income equal to what social security used to take, with the federal government providing free investment insurance so that you're guaranteed to at least break-even (depending on the level of risk in your portfolio the government may guarantee a profit).

V. End all Federal Welfare and Medicare. Or, more precisely, current recipients would still be covered, but no new applicants would be accepted. So we'd gradually phase it out, simply. The states, and Charities, can handle this; it is not the job of the federal government.

VI. End affirmative action. As simple as that; people get hired based on ability, not government quotas.

VII. End federal enviromental regulations. Again, this isn't the job of the Federal government. It's the job of the states, especially when each state can easily have a different ecology and need different regulations.

VIII. Consolidate government offices and get rid of others to trim the bureaucracy. (For instance, combine the FDA and the Surgeon General Office's, get rid of the EPA, etc.)

IX. Eliminate the BATF, FBI, and the DEA. The FBI's jurisdiction would be split between the Marshals for the criminal side and the CIA and the NSA for the intelligence side. Get rid of all of those police forces the other agencies seem to have these days. For instance, why the hell does NOAA need cops?

X. Create an armed military border guard force; basically a new branch of the military. Under Posse Comitatus they could not enforce the law inside the USA, could they could reinforce the defence of the borders, which are, as has been noted, a legal grey area.

XI. Strange the USAF and reincorporate it into the army as the Army Air Corps. Ground Support is vital these days and they don't do a good enough job. That will keep the Pentagon bureaucracy from exploding with the addition of a new service.

XII. On Religio: Essentially I'd obey the constitution, which says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" in the First Amendment, to quote it exactly. Therefore we shall do just that; we will leave religion alone.

Religious institutions, in addition to their current protections, will also not have to - even at the state level - go through the enviromental or normal building code safety processes for construction, nor adhere to fairness in hireing whatsoever. At the same time we shall endeavour to support judges who maintain the likewise proper avoidance of the inclusion of religious materials in State documents, including educational material; and of course faith-based charity is out, though at least at the federal level is immaterial, as we won't be handing out any charity anyway.

Basically, once land is in the possession of a religious institution, it might as well be a seperate country as far as the regulatory process is concerned, on the limitation that it is used for a religious function. Conversely clearly religious concepts cannot be included in government or the government institutions even when they have reasonable application.

Executive Orders:

I. I'd rename a few of those presidential carriers which are called after men who don't deserve it; after battles and things which do.

II. At all government functions at least, the entirety of the lyrics of the national anthem would be sung. I don't care if it mentions God; It's a damned good song, and God can be Deistic you know.

III. The rather wishy-washy current policy of "don't ask, don't tell" would be replaced with one more decisive and more sensible, I think: Openly homosexual individuals could serve on the condition that they swear an oath to remain chaste during their service; and would be dishonourably discharged if they broke it. Homosexuality does exist as an unchangeable fact of modern American society, but at the same time I understand that the military is a sub-culture which will always by its nature remain more conservative than the rest of a society; so I think this is an effective compromise.

Agendas:

Foreign/Defence:

I. In terms of defence spending, a national missile defence shield and a sustainable fifteen carrier, five hundred ship navy would be top priorities.

II. Cancel the F-22 Raptor; it's hopelessly over-budget, a complete waste of money. In fact, I'd want a special congressional investigation and lots of rolling heads. The Israelis have come up with numerous interesting designs in the past, but we've squashed the latest to make them take our own defence industry's products: It's time to get something good out of that relationship, and I think a cooperative effort between Israel, Turkey, and the USA for a rush-produced alternative to the F-22 would do quite nicely. The new Army Air Corps will be properly obedient for long enough not to complaint about at least this design anyway.

III. After Iraq is in order, American boots trudge through Saudi sand.

IV. A systematic review of foreign aide to find out where it is being given unnecessarily and withdraw it should be undertaken.

Domestic:

I. Postmodernist agenda in education shall be counteracted by the ending of federal funding to collegiate institutions; which would have been done on libertarian principles anyway.

II. Anti-terrorist operations shall be conducted on the ideal of preventing terrorists from entering the country in the first place, and therefore on the exhaustive screening of noncitizens, over restrictions and degregation of personal freedoms and intrusion upon liberties of citizens.

III. The removal of government from the entire institution of marriage shall be encouraged, reducing it to a purely spiritual affair, and thus ending the entire gay marriage issue by making it one between a couple and a priest/spiritual individual/their spiritual community or whatever. What exactly is the point of being forced to get a marriage license, anyway? (Especially if there's no federal tax deduction for marriage now.) However, in those states where one still is required to get one, the legalization of gay marriage would certainly be encouraged on the principle of equality.

While I like and agree with a lot of the platform there are a few things were I think they go too far. It seems that in limiting the Federal government to the degree they propose each state will be so free to do what it wishes. That each state will nearly be a country to itself in how it can act in regards to other states and countries.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Since Alyrium started this, I'm now responding by posting the official plank of the Libertarian-National Party, which would be my political party if I ran my own. This is the Party Plank, or defined set of beliefs you have to espouse if you want to be a national candidate for office for the LNP:

On Amendments:

I. The Repeal of the XVIth Amendment shall be undertaken when possible, so that all taxation of income by the Federal government shall cease, as being capricious and damaging to the welfare of the people and the nation, and harming to the general industry of our society, along with encouraging of excessive government spending and waste; and also to manipulation in the form of levying directed towards certain segments of the population, and loopholes the like, which unfairly distributes the tax burden.

II. The revenue of the State shall instead be collected in the form of a Sales Tax, not to exceed six-percent, which shall be implemented when the income tax is repealed. This sales tax will be comprehensive, and also shall be levied as a duty upon goods purchased in foreign countries by U.S. citizens and holders of green cards, and carried back into this country.

III. The XVIIth Amendment shall be repealed when possible, thereby allowing the appointment of Senators by the States again. This shall return our form of government to that of a full Federal Republic as intended by the Founding Fathers, and ease the extreme and erratic incidences of power seen since the implementation of the XVIIth Amendment from both parties.

IV. An Amendment strengthening the Second Amendment should be passed, with text along these lines: "The definition of the second amendment shall be, that the militia of the United States of America is the whole of the voting citizenry, and an arm is any weapon, which may be feasable carried and operated by a single person."

V. An amendment establishing full representation by population for the Territories, Commonwealths, and Districts of the United States of America, in the House of Representations, ought be passed; but this should also abolish the position of "Shadow Senator" allowed to Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia as undignified to that body.

VI. The Posse Comitatus Act shall be elevated to the status of a Constitutional Amendment when possible.

On Laws:

I. Of course, all current federal legislation regarding firearms would rendered irrelevant by proposed 31st Amendment (Repealing an amendment requires an amendment); individual states would only have the power to legislate firearm possession in the hands of noncitizens, pending likely challenge to the supreme court on the exact definition of "shall not be infringed".

II. Work towards repealing all Federal drug laws and replacing them with a series of special "Sin" Taxes on all drugs. Legalization would be up to the individual states, but in those states where the drugs in question would be produced, the FDA would have oversight on quality. Yes, I'm even talking hard drugs here. We'd fight the cartels by offering a higher-quality product and undercutting their prices even with the tax; smuggling drugs (Or more precisely evading the customs duties on them) would remain a very serious crime.

III. All federal money to the states would be halted, period. This would have the side-effect of ending a lot of federal standards which are not laws, but are actually standardized state laws which have been encouraged by basically bribing the states. We'd cut off the money and tell the states to do things their own way, and, by the way, they'd have to convince their own citizens to raise taxes to do it, too. This would be where we save the federal budget from total collapse after switching from the current income tax to a 6% sales tax.

IV. Social Security would be replaced by a totally voluntary government investment programme, where you could buy stocks and bonds in cooperation with the federal government at a portion of your income equal to what social security used to take, with the federal government providing free investment insurance so that you're guaranteed to at least break-even (depending on the level of risk in your portfolio the government may guarantee a profit).

V. End all Federal Welfare and Medicare. Or, more precisely, current recipients would still be covered, but no new applicants would be accepted. So we'd gradually phase it out, simply. The states, and Charities, can handle this; it is not the job of the federal government.

VI. End affirmative action. As simple as that; people get hired based on ability, not government quotas.

VII. End federal enviromental regulations. Again, this isn't the job of the Federal government. It's the job of the states, especially when each state can easily have a different ecology and need different regulations.

VIII. Consolidate government offices and get rid of others to trim the bureaucracy. (For instance, combine the FDA and the Surgeon General Office's, get rid of the EPA, etc.)

IX. Eliminate the BATF, FBI, and the DEA. The FBI's jurisdiction would be split between the Marshals for the criminal side and the CIA and the NSA for the intelligence side. Get rid of all of those police forces the other agencies seem to have these days. For instance, why the hell does NOAA need cops?

X. Create an armed military border guard force; basically a new branch of the military. Under Posse Comitatus they could not enforce the law inside the USA, could they could reinforce the defence of the borders, which are, as has been noted, a legal grey area.

XI. Strange the USAF and reincorporate it into the army as the Army Air Corps. Ground Support is vital these days and they don't do a good enough job. That will keep the Pentagon bureaucracy from exploding with the addition of a new service.

XII. On Religio: Essentially I'd obey the constitution, which says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" in the First Amendment, to quote it exactly. Therefore we shall do just that; we will leave religion alone.

Religious institutions, in addition to their current protections, will also not have to - even at the state level - go through the enviromental or normal building code safety processes for construction, nor adhere to fairness in hireing whatsoever. At the same time we shall endeavour to support judges who maintain the likewise proper avoidance of the inclusion of religious materials in State documents, including educational material; and of course faith-based charity is out, though at least at the federal level is immaterial, as we won't be handing out any charity anyway.

Basically, once land is in the possession of a religious institution, it might as well be a seperate country as far as the regulatory process is concerned, on the limitation that it is used for a religious function. Conversely clearly religious concepts cannot be included in government or the government institutions even when they have reasonable application.

Executive Orders:

I. I'd rename a few of those presidential carriers which are called after men who don't deserve it; after battles and things which do.

II. At all government functions at least, the entirety of the lyrics of the national anthem would be sung. I don't care if it mentions God; It's a damned good song, and God can be Deistic you know.

III. The rather wishy-washy current policy of "don't ask, don't tell" would be replaced with one more decisive and more sensible, I think: Openly homosexual individuals could serve on the condition that they swear an oath to remain chaste during their service; and would be dishonourably discharged if they broke it. Homosexuality does exist as an unchangeable fact of modern American society, but at the same time I understand that the military is a sub-culture which will always by its nature remain more conservative than the rest of a society; so I think this is an effective compromise.

Agendas:

Foreign/Defence:

I. In terms of defence spending, a national missile defence shield and a sustainable fifteen carrier, five hundred ship navy would be top priorities.

II. Cancel the F-22 Raptor; it's hopelessly over-budget, a complete waste of money. In fact, I'd want a special congressional investigation and lots of rolling heads. The Israelis have come up with numerous interesting designs in the past, but we've squashed the latest to make them take our own defence industry's products: It's time to get something good out of that relationship, and I think a cooperative effort between Israel, Turkey, and the USA for a rush-produced alternative to the F-22 would do quite nicely. The new Army Air Corps will be properly obedient for long enough not to complaint about at least this design anyway.

III. After Iraq is in order, American boots trudge through Saudi sand.

IV. A systematic review of foreign aide to find out where it is being given unnecessarily and withdraw it should be undertaken.

Domestic:

I. Postmodernist agenda in education shall be counteracted by the ending of federal funding to collegiate institutions; which would have been done on libertarian principles anyway.

II. Anti-terrorist operations shall be conducted on the ideal of preventing terrorists from entering the country in the first place, and therefore on the exhaustive screening of noncitizens, over restrictions and degregation of personal freedoms and intrusion upon liberties of citizens.

III. The removal of government from the entire institution of marriage shall be encouraged, reducing it to a purely spiritual affair, and thus ending the entire gay marriage issue by making it one between a couple and a priest/spiritual individual/their spiritual community or whatever. What exactly is the point of being forced to get a marriage license, anyway? (Especially if there's no federal tax deduction for marriage now.) However, in those states where one still is required to get one, the legalization of gay marriage would certainly be encouraged on the principle of equality.

Works for me.

Only problem is it must be taken extremely slow, frankly the goverment NEEDS our money and repealing Income tax right of the bat(As suggested here, the other things which are geneleted in are mentioned as such, that one is not) would bankrupt the Goverment faster than you can say what the hell?

A slight modifcation would make better sense to repel taxs LAST after Social Security is gone, and the various other things are out of the way you'll find that that extra money will go a long way toward paying down the debt

I am not a party! I am a free man!

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: and an arm is any weapon, which may be feasable carried and operated by a single person." .

Wonderful,so no one would be allowed to keep a Sherman tank, but MANPADS and some tactical nukes would be (a lighter version of the Davy Crockett for example):roll:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Strange the USAF and reincorporate it into the army as the Army Air Corps. Ground Support is vital these days and they don't do a good enough job. That will keep the Pentagon bureaucracy from exploding with the addition of a new service.

Apart from the fact that "they do not do a good enough job" is debatable
reincorporating the air force into the army is one of the most stupid ideas I have heard so far.Maybe scrap the B52,since you are

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: I. In terms of defence spending, a national missile defence shield and a sustainable fifteen carrier, five hundred ship navy would be top priorities.

And what is a 500 ships navy supposed to do? Where is the threat that justify it? Maybe you missed that but the soviet navy is not around there anymore.An additional carrier battlegroup may be a nice addition,to reduce workload, but I do not see any justification for such fleet numbers.Ten carriers are enough for war,twelve are necessary for peacetime deployments.I do not see the need for additional three,assuming that you manage to man them in first place.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: III. After Iraq is in order, American boots trudge through Saudi sand.

Do not forget to wash the Mecca with pig's blood,since you are already there.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Postmodernist agenda in education shall be counteracted by the ending of federal funding to collegiate institutions; which would have been done on libertarian principles anyway.

Define postmodernism.

Two questions:

What the fuck does Posse Comitatus mean?

Most people can't even remember the first verse of the National Anthem, and you expect people to sing the whole thing?

Andrew J. wrote:Two questions:

What the fuck does Posse Comitatus mean?

"Power of the County" - It basically means that military troops cannot be used to enforce law. Currently it's just a law; I'd make it a constitutional amendment.

Most people can't even remember the first verse of the National Anthem, and you expect people to sing the whole thing?

It's not an impossible song to sing along to.

Admiral Piett wrote:
Wonderful,so no one would be allowed to keep a Sherman tank, but MANPADS and some tactical nukes would be (a lighter version of the Davy Crockett for example):roll:

There's no such thing, and the so-called "suitcase" nukes are actually large enough as to not be carriable. Also, single-use devices are munitions, not arms.

Apart from the fact that "they do not do a good enough job" is debatable
reincorporating the air force into the army is one of the most stupid ideas I have heard so far.Maybe scrap the B52,since you are

Seriously, I could go into the reasoning behind this but it seems a pointless debate. The Air Force is arrogant and wedded to ideas which it cannot execute properly, and determined to carry them out when it needs to do other things; it was given too much power at its formation.

And what is a 500 ships navy supposed to do? Where is the threat that justify it? Maybe you missed that but the soviet navy is not around there anymore.An additional carrier battlegroup may be a nice addition,to reduce workload, but I do not see any justification for such fleet numbers.Ten carriers are enough for war,twelve are necessary for peacetime deployments.I do not see the need for additional three,assuming that you manage to man them in first place.

We need more carriers to meet our current wartime deployment needs; the USA is at war, and that is that. Some of our old carriers can be recommissioned, perhaps one or two with major overhauls, but it is unlikely. Ultimately, though, we need sustainable major force levels.

Five hundred ships, simply, is needed to firstly guard fifteen carriers at realistic levels, and secondly to meet our deployments. The navy is badly overstrained at the moment. We will, of course, need considerably more personnel. That can be accomplished by continuing pay raises at the current levels instead of cutting them back. Already military pay is competitive with the civilian sector; now we must make it moreso.

Likewise, recruiting from overseas to form "foreign legions"; though not quite the same thing but rather simply offering citizenship to outright foreigners and their families in exchange for extended service, is another possibility.

Do not forget to wash the Mecca with pig's blood,since you are already there.

You know better than that. That's why we need Iraq, of course: Once Iraq is under our control, properly restructured, and their army reorganized, that army will be capable of occupying the Hejaz, which is the only region of Saudi Arabia forbidden to non-Muslims. The USA crushes the Saudi military and occupies the rest of the country, then the free Iraqi army under our aegis occupies the Hejaz. Islamic law remains completely unbroken, and the clear terrorist threat posed by the KSA is removed.

Define postmodernism.

It's the current destruction of our society being undertaken in the universities by the extreme fantasy groupthink ideology being taught there; a combination grabbag of every interest group's needs on the planet summed into America-hating and a fuzzy love of cultural relativism without any clear morality (which, though obviously not derived from religion, a society still needs).

In a free society one cannot stop this sort of thing from being propagated unless the propagators commit crimes, like at the anti-WTO riots, obviously. But one can clearly cut the federal funding they are receiving so that their propaganda does not receive state sanction, and so that their mission in spreading it is not eased.

Mr Bean wrote:Only problem is it must be taken extremely slow, frankly the goverment NEEDS our money and repealing Income tax right of the bat(As suggested here, the other things which are geneleted in are mentioned as such, that one is not) would bankrupt the Goverment faster than you can say what the hell?

A slight modifcation would make better sense to repel taxs LAST after Social Security is gone, and the various other things are out of the way you'll find that that extra money will go a long way toward paying down the debt

We wouldn't necessarily do things in this order; you just have to agree to support all of these stances to run as an LNP candidate.

If these were the policies of a major-party candidate, I'd vote for them, buy voting third-party seems like throwing your vote away to me. Still, I agree with many of the policies.

On the topic of the social security policy, wasn't that similar to Barry Goldwater's policy in 1964? I believe Johnson used that against him.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:If these were the policies of a major-party candidate, I'd vote for them, buy voting third-party seems like throwing your vote away to me. Still, I agree with many of the policies.

On the topic of the social security policy, wasn't that similar to Barry Goldwater's policy in 1964? I believe Johnson used that against him.

Johnson got a sympathy vote from the recent assasination of JFK.

V. An amendment establishing full representation by population for the Territories, Commonwealths, and Districts of the United States of America, in the House of Representations, ought be passed; but this should also abolish the position of "Shadow Senator" allowed to Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia as undignified to that body.

Why, territories and commonwealths don't pay taxes. What would the point for applying statehood if they had representation and don't pay taxes?

VII. End federal enviromental regulations. Again, this isn't the job of the Federal government. It's the job of the states, especially when each state can easily have a different ecology and need different regulations.

Yes, lets help Bush destroy the enviorment

all government functions at least, the entirety of the lyrics of the national anthem would be sung. I don't care if it mentions God; It's a damned good song, and God can be Deistic you know.

I agree. Just can't force someone to sing it like how they often do in schools.

rms of defence spending, a national missile defence shield and a sustainable fifteen carrier, five hundred ship navy would be top priorities.

I hold the same view of the national missle defence shield as you do of the F-22 raptor, at least the first part of it.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
There's no such thing, and the so-called "suitcase" nukes are actually large enough as to not be carriable. Also, single-use devices are munitions, not arms.

Strange,I would have thought that you would have been aware of the existence of the Davy Crocket.It was a recoiless gun with a nuclear warhead,
used by the US Army in the 50's.
http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/FP/proj ... /davyc.htm
It was enough small to be carried by three people,once disassembled.
Warheads enough small to be fired from 105mm guns can be manufactured in theory,so I think that a mortar or something similar enough small to be carried by a single person should be within out technological possibilities. [/img]

Admiral Piett wrote:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
There's no such thing, and the so-called "suitcase" nukes are actually large enough as to not be carriable. Also, single-use devices are munitions, not arms.

Strange,I would have thought that you would have been aware of the existence of the Davy Crocket.It was a recoiless gun with a nuclear warhead,
used by the US Army in the 50's.
http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/FP/proj ... /davyc.htm
It was enough small to be carried by three people,once disassembled.
Warheads enough small to be fired from 105mm guns can be manufactured in theory,so I think that a mortar or something similar enough small to be carried by a single person should be within out technological possibilities. [/img]

The warhead would be a munition, not an arm. If you could move the 105mm gun by yourself, then the 105mm gun would be a personal arm. however, you can't move the 105mm gun by yourself, so therefore the Davy Crocket type warhead would be infeasible.

Beowulf wrote: The warhead would be a munition, not an arm. If you could move the 105mm gun by yourself, then the 105mm gun would be a personal arm. however, you can't move the 105mm gun by yourself, so therefore the Davy Crocket type warhead would be infeasible.

You have not understood.
It does not have to be fired from 105mm gun.It could be fired from anything else that can fire a shell of that size,a mortar for example,or a recoiless,which could conceivably be be man portable.

Regardless, there is a limit to how small you can make a nuke, and that limit is greater than you can carry. And again, the the nuke would be a munition, not an arm, considering that it is single use.

Beowulf wrote: Regardless, there is a limit to how small you can make a nuke, and that limit is greater than you can carry.

Obviously you do not know much about nukes.Small warheads can be done.

Beowulf wrote:
And again, the the nuke would be a munition, not an arm, considering that it is single use.

Any ammunition is single use.The nuclear mortar/recoiless/whatever is the weapon, and if you can buy the weapon then you can buy the relative ammunition,in this case the nuclear shell.
Admittely it would mean pushing the technology a bit,but I think it should be doable.As I said warheads enough small to be fired from 105mm guns are feasible,building something capable of firing that enough light to be man portable should not be impossible,albeit I am not an expert about mortars and similar stuff.
Of course this is an extreme,but I wanted to use this to point out the probelms with the definition given by the Duchess.In anycase MANPADS are fully comprised in the man portable category.And I would not like that any idiot could put its hands on one of those.

Admiral Piett wrote:
Any ammunition is single use.The nuclear mortar/recoiless/whatever is the weapon, and if you can buy the weapon you can buy the relative ammunition,in this case the nuclear shell.

You could use chemical shells with a 50mm mortar which is very easily man-portable.

Admiral Piett wrote:

Beowulf wrote: Regardless, there is a limit to how small you can make a nuke, and that limit is greater than you can carry.

Obviously you do not know much about nukes.Small warheads can be done.

Beowulf wrote:
And again, the the nuke would be a munition, not an arm, considering that it is single use.

Any ammunition is single use.The nuclear mortar/recoiless/whatever is the weapon, and if you can buy the weapon you can buy the relative ammunition,in this case the nuclear shell.

Small warheads can be done. Small enough to be single person portable along w/ the launcher, can't be. A 60mm mortar weighs around 50lbs, not including the warhead. The Davy Crockett warhead weighed 51 pounds, not including the aerodynamic fairings. Together, they aren't man portable. In addition, any smaller of a warhead would be even less efficient, to the point where loading a Ryder truck with ANFO would be easier.

Beowulf wrote: The Davy Crockett warhead weighed 51 pounds, not including the aerodynamic fairings.

That was in the 50's.A LOT of improvements have been made in this area.

Beowulf wrote:In addition, any smaller of a warhead would be even less efficient, to the point where loading a Ryder truck with ANFO would be easier.

It was so even with the Davy Crocket.The blast is not better than with conventional explosives,but you have a crapload of radiations.
I am not an expert about small artillery pieces, but I suppose that something capable of firing a 105mm shells and enough light to be man portable should be feasible.If not a mortar then a rocket launcher.
Obviously it would have to be custom built and it would not have any military use to speak of.But I do not think that that would be impossible.
Of course this is an extreme case.Very few people could afford to buy such a weapon if it was ever built.
Still however it shows that the definition given by the Duchess is inadequate.
A man portable SAM is clearly a more immediate problem.I would not like the idea of having to travel to the USA if every moron with enough money could purchase a stinger or an its equivalent and use it to shoot down an airliner.A madman with an AK-74 is a problem,A madman with a SAM is an other.

I agree with some of whats said, but I disagree with some as well. For instance, the second amendmant promotes the ownership of firearms to enable "militia" to function. That doesnt mean every NRA nut can fill their house with AK47s, it means you want a gun you join the army which IS the militia.

kojikun wrote:That doesnt mean every NRA nut can fill their house with AK47s, it means you want a gun you join the army which IS the militia.

Someone shoot this misguided fucktard over the meaning of the "milita"

Mind you if I wanted to I could join the Yosemite Militia, they are our Search and Rescue, our Firefighters, etc. Not just temp posse anytime the rangers want to break out century plus old laws.

(Of course if they would upgrade the wages to go with the times would be nice too.)

--Someone shoot this misguided fucktard over the meaning of the "milita"--

Main Entry: mi·li·tia
Pronunciation: m&-'li-sh&
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
Date: circa 1660
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Definition 1A makes it the Reserves, 1B makes it the military. Non military personell cannot be organized for military service because theyrenot in the military.

Definition 2 would be the entire draft able male population. No draft makes definition 2 obsolete.

By definition, Shep, the militia is the US Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Airforce.