The Ultimate Argument of Kings?

If we want the world to remain peaceful, then we should remember not to hand-over key weapons systems to non-state actors

The Ultimate Argument of Kings?

Forget gun control, maybe the world needs to urgently concentrate on rocket and missile control.



When a drunken band of Cossack nationalists can knock down an airliner travelling 10 km in the air, or a bunch of Islamist terrorists can fire artillery rockets at an international airport over 60km away, we are all in serious trouble.

Since the 17th Century, international law and the peace of domestic societies has rested on a couple of related principles.  The new firepower of siege-guns and Men O’ War meant that the days of private armed actors became limited.  There were reasons why Louis XIV, ruler of France for most of the 17th Century had ‘Ultima Ratio Regum’ – ‘the Ultimate Argument of Kings’—engraved on his cannon.

Large cannon ensured nobody could shelter in insolence behind castle walls and no saucy pirate sloop could handle what a gun-deck full of 24 pounders could deal out.  The world became orderly because large-scale firepower became the province of national governments.  There would be no more serious threats ordered in Europe by noblemen’s retinues, mercenary bands, militias hired by mercantile cartels and tribal levies.

The British (the most-free people of that time) knew enough to let the citizens keep their firearms as a defence against domestic lawlessness and tyranny but big expensive weapons systems stabilized the civilized world.  The very foundation of international maritime law lay with the range of large-cannon… naval ships enforced law and a country’s national waters were those that lay within long-range shot from the shore.

Since the end of the Second World, however, a new generation of non-state actors has arisen

Since the end of the Second World, however, a new generation of non-state actors has arisen, but even then guerrillas and terrorists were always curbed by their lack of real firepower.  They could – and still do – destabilize states by attacking a nation’s will to fight, but their ability to conquer was seriously constrained until now.

Hamas, in the Gaza Strip, has been chucking home-made rockets into Israel for 14 years now; and the Israelis have learned by and large to cope with them.  However, 50 or 60 rockets a day is something else, particularly when Iran has been helpfully smuggling Hamas Fajr-5s and Chinese-built M-302s.  These have the range and warhead to do serious damage; they would be even more dangerous if Hamas ever learned the principles of competent gunnery.

The Gaza Strip depends on Israel for power and water, and the fundamental irrationality of Hamas is proved by their targeting of the main Israel desalinization plant on the Mediterranean Coast and of Israeli power-stations.  They’ve also managed to land a rocket near Ben Gurion Airport, forcing many airlines to stay away from Israel’s main link to the rest of the world.

Hamas has demonstrated in a few short weeks that it is an existential threat to both Israel and to the people of Gaza that Hamas claims to represent.  Israel now has no choice but to wipe them out.  The only other possibility is a cease-fire based on the immediate unconditional hand-over of the entire Hamas rocket arsenal.

In the centuries since Louis XIV, ultimate expressions of firepower have moved beyond large muzzle-loading cannon.  However, tank battalions, fighter-bomber-squadrons and cruise-missile armed submarines tend to be prohibitively expensive in terms of the human capital that needs to be trained in their use and maintenance.  This is why guerrillas don’t have access to such weaponry.

Putin’s coy bid to destabilize Ukraine: Russian veneer of “plausible deniability”
Enter Russia as the spoiler.  Putin’s coy bid to destabilize Ukraine by letting so-called insurgents arise in Crimea and in the east has still given Russia a veneer of “plausible deniability”.  The Russians, long-handicapped by a military based on poorly educated conscripts, has always made simple and reliable weapons.  This is why the AK-47 assault rifle has bedeviled so much of the world.  Even a chimpanzee can fire one (as demonstrated by a memorable You-Tube clip).

The Russians even made surface to air missiles relatively easy to use – so easy that even a bunch of drunken Cossack insurgents can shoot down an airliner.  The SAM-11 Buk missile that downed Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 is a medium level air-defence weapon intended to provide coverage for a troop formation in the field.

As opposed to such ubiquitous weapons as the SAM-7 or ZU-23-2 (also in the hands of far too many guerrillas around the world), a Buk SAM requires a launch vehicle, a command vehicle and a radar vehicle.  The missile isn’t some simple heat-seeker but a radar-guided one that has to be directed to the target.  However, the system is fairly autonomous.  A captain or major can command a Buk battery, even if he is on his third or fourth vodka of the day.

Rockets are fragile and electronic components more so, Buk missiles don’t just sit in storage sheds unattended for years.  Somebody had to maintain that battery, and presumably hand it out to the reprobates who used it on a civilian airliner.

The point is that between Hamas and the Russian ‘insurgents’ in the Ukraine, a line has been crossed.  What comes next?  Will somebody loan Somali pirate crews a frigate with anti-ship missiles?  Will Boko Haram get to purchase attack helicopters with the proceeds of captive school girls sold into slavery?

If we want the world to remain peaceful, then we should remember not to hand-over key weapons systems to non-state actors.  Even though the European states had the big guns 350 years ago, it still took a fair amount of rough brutality to bring things to order; do we have to go through it again?