Friday, March 22, 1985

The American and Soviet governments would do well to become thoroughly acquainted with the life and times of Patrick Henry. Both superpowers now are threatened by a confluence of technological wizardry and political tunnel vision much like that which enabled Mr. Henry and his colleagues to convulse the British empire during the 1700s.

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

     Like the British and French governments of the 1700s, each superpower today tends to regard the other as the primary threat to its "sphere of influence." Both should take note of the fact that two centuries ago the British government had its attention fixed so tightly on the French that it did not see Patrick Henry coming until it was too late.

     On March 23, 210 years ago, Mr. Henry delivered his famous speech which ended with the thunderous "Give me liberty or give me death!" This was a kind of 18th-century way of declaring "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any longer!" Mr. Henry's audience was so completely swept away by his oratory that there was no applause - only an uproar of "To arms! To arms!"

     Less than a month later, at Concord, a British column of 700 highly trained professional troops was ambushed by a rag-tag rabble of farmers and merchants. This rabble used the novel guerrilla tactic of sniping from behind trees and rocks. Suffering 273 casualties the heretofore highly disciplined Redcoats panicked and fled. They had no defense against these "unfair" guerrilla tactics.

     In July of the following year the colonies split from England and declared their independence. This was the first in a series of colonial uprisings that would eventually shatter all the European empires.

     Like the superpowers today, the British government had been projecting its power far and wide during a time of great technological advance. In the 1700s, this technological advancement consisted of the early stages of the industrial revolution.

"The typical individual would soon be able to acquire weapons every bit as powerful as those of the government."

     One result of the industrial revolution was that the effectiveness of weapons was increasing and the price was falling. The typical individual would soon be able to acquire weapons every bit as powerful as those of the government. In other words, the cost of resisting an 18th-century superpower was falling dramatically.

     As early as 1732, armories in Pennsylvania were producing an advanced flintlock rifle affordable by the typical American. This weapon was far superior to the Brown Bess musket carried by British troops, but the British government failed to recognize its importance.

     The Brown Bess was a smooth-bore weapon with a lateral error of 3 feet at 100 yards. At this distance the Pennsylvania flintlock was almost as accurate as a modern rifle, and it remained effective at twice the range. Thus an American rifleman could inflict savage destruction while hiding safely in cover beyond reach of the government's weapons.

     The use of this weapon in such an unconventional way was considered an outrage by the British. They had never dreamed their American cousins would stoop to such despicable tactics.

     A Pennsylvania Tory who had seen the American rabble use their rifles wrote a letter to a London newspaper offering the chill advice, "This province has raised a thousand riflemen, the worse of whom will put a rifle ball into a man's head at 150 or 200 yards. Therefore, advise your officers who shall hereafter come out to America to settle their affairs in England before their departure."

     Such advice was ignored, of course. At the battle of Saratoga one of Morgan's riflemen killed British Gen. Simon Fraser at a range of 300 yards.

"After all, what could one of the mightiest military powers on earth possibly have to fear from a rag-tag rabble of farmers and merchants?"

     For decades the British government had been ignoring the fact that the Pennsylvania flintlock had been invented. When the Americans began complaining about British rule during the 1760s, British politicians did not take their warnings seriously. The speeches and pamphlets of Patrick Henry, Sam Adams, and other rebels were roundly ridiculed. After all, what could one of the mightiest military powers on earth possibly have to fear from a rag-tag rabble of farmers and merchants?

     The American and Soviet governments today should be pondering that question as carefully as the British government should have pondered it in the 1700s.

     For four decades, the superpowers have been carving up the world into their two spheres of influence with little regard for the innocent individuals living in the path of the carving knife. Neither has paid any attention to the fact that the 20th century counterparts of the Pennsylvania flintlock have been invented.

     Some individuals simply do not want to be part of anyone's sphere of influence. They want to be independent. Observe the many "Yankee Go Home!" signs seen all over the world and their equivalent "Soviet Go Home!" signs in places like Afghanistan and Poland.

     These warnings have been roundly ignored-just as the warnings of Messrs. Henry, Adams and others were ignored-ever since the carving began at the 1945 Yalta conference, or for 40 years. At Yalta, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Stalin decided that Eastern Europe would be placed within the Soviet sphere of influence and Western Europe within the American sphere of influence. No one asked the Europeans what they wanted. It was not considered necessary.

     Before going any further with this practice of carving up the world, both superpowers should take a close, hard look at a modern weapons catalog. The price of resisting a superpower is again dropping precipitously, just as it was during the 1700s.

     Shoulder-launched guided missiles like the Stinger and Redeye weigh less than 50 pounds and cost as little as $50,000. They can shoot down a $1 million helicopter or a $15 million supersonic jet fighter.

     The shoulder-launched M-47 Dragon missile is equally compact and priced at $5,000. It is designed to destroy a million-dollar tank.

"These weapons are only the tip of the iceberg."

     These weapons are only the tip of the iceberg. The past two decades have seen the miniaturization of nuclear weapons. A warhead 10 times as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb now weighs only 300 pounds and costs only a million dollars. Less powerful "nukes" are less expensive and are small enough to fit easily into suitcases. Smuggled into the United States or the U.S.S.R. the way narcotics are, dozens could be delivered to their targets simply by sending them through the mails.

     Outrageous? Unfair? Yes, just as guerrilla tactics were in the 1700s.

     Today's high-tech industrial techniques are advancing rapidly. Within a few years the ability to produce shoulder-launched guided missiles and suitcase nukes, and sell them worldwide via the black market, will be pervasive. Therefore, it seems reasonable to ask, is there another Patrick Henry out there in the world somewhere? Has the lesson of the Pennsylvania flintlock been forgotten?

     Are the American and Soviet spheres of influence about to be shattered by small bands of revolutionaries using "unfair" weapons and tactics?

END