Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How private armies will remake modern warfare

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 67 posts

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#51

Post by icebraining »

0x5f3759df-i wrote: post #47
mikerichards wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any policy related to the things you've mentioned were or were not enacted by popular support, on those issues in particular. Brutal slaver warlord can take away restaurants, high fructose corn syrup, and your children with a single vote. Nice try, but no dice. Most of those things weren't voted on. Most of them were decided by fiat of the slaver warlord (a mayor) and couple of his family members (some board or commi…

You do understand how a representative government works?

Understanding how it works doesn't mean that one has to agree that it's democratic; it's at best a mix of democratic and non-democratic elements, and for some that might be equivalent to "not really democratic". And that's even assuming that the mechanisms are working properly, and not subverted - which is a big assumption.

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#53

Post by nl »

colechristensen wrote: post #36
nl wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most modern wars are fought using little more than ground vehicle mounted weaponry[1]. There's even a war named after the trucks that both sides used[2]. The weapons acquisition program strategy of the US is defined as much by the defence industry as by the needs in the wars the US is actually involved in. You see US soldiers buying their own weapons, and even on a larger scale you have things like the US buying Toyo…

This is because modern wars aren't really wars. When was the last time America fought a war against an enemy whose weapons were designed and manufactured in any significant way by the enemy? When was the last time America fought a war against an enemy with remotely comparable military strength? The reason that "real wars" aren't fought any more is the weapons we have (nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, ships, planes…

This is because modern wars aren't really wars.

That's exactly the point. Proxy wars are how things have worked since WW2, and now they are getting even more complicated because they often involve non-state actors. This is what modern wars are.

To claim they aren't really wars is ignorant and kind of insulting to the people that fight in them.

No one is claiming that private armies will take over the anti-state deterrence.

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#54

Post by nl »

donavanm wrote: post #42
meric wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea, only noticed the recurring trend being described in the article. One thing we do know is nuclear weapons on its own is not sufficient to prevent the condition of warlords and private armies from appearing - Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons yet in the north of the country, tribes and warlords abound. US interference (incompetent due to corruption and graft?) in Middle Eastern politics allowed ISIS, a…

With regards to the militarization of the Unites States executive branch I blame the Department of State. State has been an utter failure in their core competency of nation building for the past 30 years. Ethiopia and the Baltics in the '90s, Iraq and Afghanistan in the '00s are examples of State basically abdicating their role to the DoD. The DoD has been the only major department with the budget, the expert personn…

Ethiopia and the Baltics in the '90s

I suspect you may mean the Balkans? And the Balkans have actually been a pretty successful outcome.

In Afghanistan and especially Iraq the State department was not allowed to do their job. See [1] where:

Secretary of State [Colin] Powell recently wrote to Defense Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld, urging that State oversee humanitarian assistance, an outcome that would help internationalize the effort. The United Nations and others, like the European Union, have experiences in the past relating to state-building. On the other hand, there are other elements in the administration, notably in the Department of Defense, which are beginning to try to invent a blueprint and map out the capacities in order to have the United States undertake this task alone.

As you note, the DoD took over this role. But it wasn't because of lack of interest of State.

[1] http://www.cfr.org/iraq/council-expert-says-state-department...

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#55

Post by rayiner »

baddox wrote: post #44
mercurial wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Note how recently polities have taken away the freedom of restaurants to choose to allow smoking, selling certain sizes of drinks; the freedom of parents to choose their children's education and so forth. Terrifying. And it has been going on for a long while. Remember when shops in the US had the right to sell their wares to whoever they wanted, back in the good old days before the Civil Rights movements? Those wer…

When you're referring to days before the civil rights movement, I presume you're hinting at laws which required private businesses to create separate facilities for blacks if they wanted to do business with blacks.

No, he's referring to back before Congress told private businesses that they weren't allowed to refuse to serve black people. When Congress took away the right of family owned restaurants to exercise their freedom of association with only white people.

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#56

Post by woodman »

pjc50 wrote: post #49
woodman wrote: post #45

If you're looking for an efficient security apparatus, you'll have a hard time topping an assassination market. [0] You combine that with intelligent software agents and crypto currency to create a policy of mutual assured destruction that scales :) [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_market

It's only a week after the assassination of cartoonists, this is in extremely poor taste.

lol, wait - how is this anything like that? This might be the most hamfisted attempt at whiteknighting I've ever seen.

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#57

Post by mylons »

tibbon wrote: post #24

Not to make light of this, but doesn't this sound like the plot to Metal Gear Solid 4? Private armies and all? Not sure I like it when reality mimics fiction like this.

ah! came to post this. I don't think reality is mimic'ing fiction. MGS4 came out ~7 years ago. Blackwater already existed, and the USA had been relying on them pretty extensively in Iraq.

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#58

Post by pjc50 »

woodman wrote: post #56
pjc50 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only a week after the assassination of cartoonists, this is in extremely poor taste.

lol, wait - how is this anything like that? This might be the most hamfisted attempt at whiteknighting I've ever seen.

The point is that an assassination market is facilitating murder, which is criminal and immoral and also destabilizing; you're far more likely to get a spiral of ill-targeted reprisals.

(I can't believe someone describes "murder is wrong" as "whiteknighting")

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#59

Post by woodman »

pjc50 wrote: post #58
woodman wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol, wait - how is this anything like that? This might be the most hamfisted attempt at whiteknighting I've ever seen.

The point is that an assassination market is facilitating murder, which is criminal and immoral and also destabilizing; you're far more likely to get a spiral of ill-targeted reprisals. (I can't believe someone describes "murder is wrong" as "whiteknighting")

You understand the context of this discussion involves: WMDs, state military and private military. So we are already talking about murder - and the scales aren't even comparable. How is a murder at the hands of the state less wrong than a murder at the hands of private assassin? That is why you are "whiteknighting", you are trying to defend the indefensible with an appeal to emotion. Waving about the bloody shirt of the dead cartoonists, nice.

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#60

Post by pav7en »

deepsun wrote: post #28
pav7en wrote: post #2

Hmm, mercenaries, 'soldiers of fortune', a very romantic concept. I'd like to be one, but then not. Military training is tough and if the only thing you're fighting for is a paycheck, then you won't hang in there when it counts the most and hence are worth jackshit as a mercenary. Most private armies worth anything consist of ex-soldiers of a republic. In essence these companies are subsidized by a/the republic's tax…

> if the only thing you're fighting for is a paycheck, then you won't hang in there when it counts the most and hence are worth jackshit as a mercenary. Completely wrong. From what I heard from spec ops, professional soldiers are way better in fight. The main point, he said, is that outside people think that war needs courage, while really it's experience that matters. And proper supplies.

You misunderstood me. Whom do you consider a truly professional soldier? In my view it's a marine, a SEAL, or another military member of a modern state. Heck even a Pakistan army soldier is a professional soldier.

So what drives these professional soldiers is not the paycheck, its the idea of patriotism or that they are upholding some set of values for their country, or the idea that they are protecting their country. That is what allows them to hang in there when it goes well beyond limits of human endurance.

Refer the marine campaign of Iwo Jima 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima', where soldiers went for 3-4 months without adequate food, rest or even barely human conditions against a fanatical enemy. Or for that matter any campaign during the world war. Or any other war worth something for the parties involved.

And my point is you can't get such kind of men or women to fight for money as mercenaries. And if I'm paying for mercenaries I want people like the ones who fought Iwo Jima.

So, if you look at the recruiting for the private armies most of them are ex-soldiers of a nation-state's army.

After a while some guys come to view it as any other profession. And then probably start working for a private army.

But even then I'd be surprised if private armies would be able to hold up their own against national armies or even if their members expect to.

Post reply on HN