Live data from Hacker News

How private armies will remake modern warfare

economist.com

21–30 of 67 posts

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#21
post #3

> The author fears that the world is entering an era of “neomedievalism” in which the state loses its monopoly of legal force and instead other wealthy groups or individuals fund private military adventures. I've seen a narrative in few places, often from libertarians who don't embrace the state but also don't believe that people would live peacefully without it. They posit some variation of: the wealthy don't gain o…

Except the evolution to this point requires complete inaction on the parts of the governments.

Yes, some businesses have more money than entire countries. Because we allow it.

It was the King who decided who was a Baron, an Earl or a Lord, and it was on the King's grace that they kept that position. Piss him off, act disloyal and you'll be stripped of your rank. If your subjects stay loyal... well then you get things like The Harrowing of the North.

The US Congress has 535 members, and we're not talking about individuals we're talking about corporations, which themselves are made up of shareholders. There's no formal loyalty structure.

Your feudal Lord granted you land so you could provide for your family, and in return pay rent to him. When your kid went missing in the woods, it was the reeve and the Lord's men who helped search. When your barn roof collapsed, it was the reeve and the Lord's men who helped dig out your animals, and it was your Lord who stabled your animals. It might have been mutually beneficial, but it was still at his will.

A shareholder is invested in a company because they think it will be profitable, but most large shareholders are more invested in the industry than the individual. So if they think something might jeopardize their investment, they'll jump and go invest in another company. The managers and employees? To them it's just a job, if they think their company is going to go up against the US Government they'll be out the door and pretend they've never even heard of the Globex Corporation, even if they're wearing a company emblazoned jacket.

I see no loyalty structure that would be capable of supporting anyone trying to be a neolord. When the US government decides your company has gotten too big, it'll just nationalize it or split it.

Edit: Nice HN, act like reddit. You can't come up with a valid argument against my post so you downvote it.

Yes we get it this is some distopian idea, but it'll never happen. The closest we've ever come to an organization like this was the White Company, and they--like these private contractors will--stayed on the good side of the super power of the time, the Papacy, because their existence was entirely predicated on the grace of being allowed to exist.

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#22
post #3

> The author fears that the world is entering an era of “neomedievalism” in which the state loses its monopoly of legal force and instead other wealthy groups or individuals fund private military adventures. I've seen a narrative in few places, often from libertarians who don't embrace the state but also don't believe that people would live peacefully without it. They posit some variation of: the wealthy don't gain o…

Except the evolution to this point requires complete inaction on the parts of the governments. Yes, some businesses have more money than entire countries. Because we allow it. It was the King who decided who was a Baron, an Earl or a Lord, and it was on the King's grace that they kept that position. Piss him off, act disloyal and you'll be stripped of your rank. If your subjects stay loyal... well then you get things…

>It was the King who decided who was a Baron, an Earl or a Lord, and it was on the King's grace that they kept that position. Piss him off, act disloyal and you'll be stripped of your rank.

And sometimes the Baron raised an army, killed the King, and took the throne for himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VII_of_England

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#23
post #5
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course, anyone powerful enough to protect you in the absence of the state has no reason to work for you rather than enslave you. I think the libertarian point is that this same logic applies to states themselves. 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 fort…

> 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. 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 chi…

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 commission).

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#26
post #3

> The author fears that the world is entering an era of “neomedievalism” in which the state loses its monopoly of legal force and instead other wealthy groups or individuals fund private military adventures. I've seen a narrative in few places, often from libertarians who don't embrace the state but also don't believe that people would live peacefully without it. They posit some variation of: the wealthy don't gain o…

Except the evolution to this point requires complete inaction on the parts of the governments. Yes, some businesses have more money than entire countries. Because we allow it. It was the King who decided who was a Baron, an Earl or a Lord, and it was on the King's grace that they kept that position. Piss him off, act disloyal and you'll be stripped of your rank. If your subjects stay loyal... well then you get things…

It was the King who decided who was a Baron, an Earl or a Lord, and it was on the King's grace that they kept that position. Piss him off, act disloyal and you'll be stripped of your rank.

This dramatically understates the dependency a King had upon his Lords. Yes, a King could strip someone of his rank, but if he did it too often or too capriciously and he'd soon been replaced.

You see this in democracies too: interest groups (whether they be companies or other groups) are quite happy to remove their support for a member if their interests no longer align and if another credible candidate appears that is more aligned with their interests.

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#28
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.

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#29
post #8

State-sponsored defense spending of the kind the US government engages in is safe from being replaced by the private sector, ever. The cost is astronomical. Individual units like carriers, submarines, and bombers cost hundreds of millions up to several billion. The author of the article (and maybe the book?) don't make this distinction. Instead, these private mercenaries raise the possibility that non-state actors of…

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 Toyotas off show-room floors to take to to Iraq[3].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_(vehicle)

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_(vehicle)#Iraq_War

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#30
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.

That was immediately what came to my mind as well. Metal Gear Solid 4 was being developed around the time that PMC's were gaining a lot of public attention for their work in Iraq and the game seems very inspired by that. Perhaps the author of this article has played the game, rather than being life imitating art, it could be reporter imitating art.
Post reply on HN