How private armies will remake modern warfare • Hacker News Board

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#31

Post by mc32 » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 4:46 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #26

electromagnetic wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: inter…

From what I've read that's spot on. Royalty had powers, but they were not all that despotic --they could not afford to be. They had to keep a good balance with their financiers, supporters, the church, asf., all the while keeping an eye out for shifting allegiances internally and specially externally.

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#32

Post by 542458 » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 5:04 AM UTC

meric wrote: post #6

rayiner wrote: 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…

1. As the state slowly becomes encumbered by politicians who are controlled by a tiny minority of individuals who control key sectors of the economy, and the influence on policies from the democratic majority is reduced to zero, a 'country' controlled by warlord factions and private armies may be closer to the 'market' equilibrium by eliminating the waste of the bureaucratic middleman. No need to use roundabout ways…

Do nuclear weapons (or equivalently massive weapons) not change this equation, by making incumbents incredibly difficult to oust?

Alternatively, would nuclear weapons not make conflicts between warlords either token or devastating?

Does the reliance on extremely high-cost support and weapon systems (satellites, aircraft carriers) not make the barrier to entry for warlords impossibly high?

While the idea of history always repeating itself is appealing, I fail to see how this example can apply in a modern world. Too much has changed, and short of a "mad max" regression, I don't see how feudal China can repeat itself here.

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#33

Post by Spooky23 » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 5:06 AM UTC

jordanpg wrote: 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…

The problem with the big weapons systems is that they really need other nation states to fight with, and the biggest systems require dominance of the area to function.

Carriers are being challenged by hypersonic missiles that keep them offshore. Those billion dollar bombers have incredible capability, but advances in things like drone technology threaten their ability to operate in the long term. I think we've already reached the point where there aren't any credible opponents to have a big tank battle with.

Technology may be a great equalizer. Between nuclear proliferation and the advent of lots of tiny sensors and computers for low cost, operating a standing army will get difficult.

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#34

Post by meric » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 5:24 AM UTC

542458 wrote: post #32

meric wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. As the state slowly becomes encumbered by politicians who are controlled by a tiny minority of individuals who control key sectors of the economy, and the influence on policies from the democratic majority is reduced to zero, a 'country' controlled by warlord factions and private armies may be closer to the 'market' equilibrium by eliminating the waste of the bureaucratic middleman. No need to use roundabout ways…

Do nuclear weapons (or equivalently massive weapons) not change this equation, by making incumbents incredibly difficult to oust? Alternatively, would nuclear weapons not make conflicts between warlords either token or devastating? Does the reliance on extremely high-cost support and weapon systems (satellites, aircraft carriers) not make the barrier to entry for warlords impossibly high? While the idea of history al…

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 warlord-like state, to capture high-cost support and weapons systems and used them successfully against the Iraqi government, a government whose army was less than competent due to the corruption within. The Iraqi government is backed by a country with nuclear weapons and missiles and drones and fighter jets, and yet ISIS persists.

Many US departments are being militarised, from the police to the IRS[1] to the Department of Education[2] to the Environmental Protection Agency[3] and the USDA[4]. I wonder if it's because many in the government itself see militarisation as a necessary reaction to the threat of private weapons, which as you can read in the article is an re-emerging trend. If nuclear weapons and missiles and carriers and drone strikes are sufficient to prevent the US government from being ousted, why is it busy acquiring conventional weapons? If the US government is relying on conventional weapons to hold off the tide of the privately armed, can mere conventional weapons be enough to cause it's --censored--?

1. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/jeff-duncan-irs-rifle-...

2. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/18/us-school-distr...

3. http://www.thearkansasproject.com/no-federal-bureaucrats-don...

4. http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/23/politics/auditors-guns/

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#35

Post by cellis » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 6:17 AM UTC

ecobiker wrote: post #7

Is it really possible for someone to find motivation to risk their lives to fight for a paycheck? It would definitely motivate a few but can it motivate a large enough population making private armies feasible?

Is it really possible for someone to find motivation to risk their lives to fight for a paycheck?

See: pretty much all of history. Generals routinely promised wealth from invasion of neighboring places. In fact, rare is the case where the promise for fighting in a large scale war was not one of wealth, but of some derivative resource ( freedom, religious reasons, pride ). That is a relatively recent construct (maybe last 200 years).

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#36

Post by colechristensen » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 7:10 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #29

jordanpg wrote: 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 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, etc.) and the weapons our potential opponents have as well as experiences in the world wars together convince everyone that open war is absolutely undesirable. We build and maintain advanced weapons for the explicit purpose of not needing to use them.

The weapons accession strategy has much to do with maintaining the ability to manufacture advanced weapons to use against an advanced enemy so that we can continue to prevent such a war.

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#37

Post by XorNot » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 7:26 AM UTC

cpwright wrote: post #14

ecobiker wrote: post #7

Is it really possible for someone to find motivation to risk their lives to fight for a paycheck? It would definitely motivate a few but can it motivate a large enough population making private armies feasible?

People are motivated to be commercial fisherman, roughnecks, lumberjacks, and roofers. They are also risking their lives for a paycheck.

There's a pretty big perceptual and practical difference between environmental hazards and sentient, active, adversaries.

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#38

Post by tsotha » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 7:41 AM UTC

sien wrote: post #19

jordanpg wrote: 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…

The author makes this point at the end: "In the end, though, Mr McFate tends to overstate his case. Private armies may indeed play a role in failed and failing states, but it is unlikely that modern mercenaries will become more important than the standing armies of NATO or China soon."

And that should be obvious, too. Mercenaries aren't supported explicitly by any state, so they only fight where they're guaranteed to win, and they tend to be prosecuted for offenses official soldiers will not be prosecuted. They're not covered under most of the Geneva conventions, either.

Also, most of the people being labeled mercenaries these days aren't mercenaries. There's a big difference between people you hire to fight a battle and people you hire for base or convoy security.

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#39

Post by donavanm » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 7:42 AM UTC

Private armies aren't new. The very term "company" was originated as an organized, private, group of men under arms.

I haven't read _The Modern Mercenary_, but it sounds a bit myopic. For example, calling out potential actions in africa ignores 50 years of PMC work there. As far as proliferation in the last 25 years ... I suppose we've seen in increase in "market share" of defense dollars spent. Off hand I'd have to say mid century african bush wars and the 1990's "executive outcomes" era were notable for having tangible results. Most of the 2000s mid east work seemed like cash grabs shrouded in "outsourced logistics" work.

I'd definitely recommend PW Singers _Corporate Warriors_ for a thorough history of private force. http://www.amazon.com/Corporate-Warriors-Privatized-Military...

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#40

Post by tsotha » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 7:47 AM UTC

ecobiker wrote: post #7

Is it really possible for someone to find motivation to risk their lives to fight for a paycheck? It would definitely motivate a few but can it motivate a large enough population making private armies feasible?

Mercenaries don't fight pitched battles. Mercenaries will go home or even switch sides if it looks like they may take nontrivial losses, which is why nobody likes to rely on them.