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

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#41

Post by mercurial »

wtbob wrote: post #4
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…

> 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.

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 were the days.

More seriously, regulation takes some freedom away, but you have to look at the big picture. Smoking is harmful, even second-hand smoking, and public health efforts to reduce its effects should be applauded and not lamented.

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#42

Post by donavanm »

meric wrote: post #34
542458 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 personnel, the logistics, and the organizational will to tackle what should be civilian nation building exercises. It's a poor plan to put a 21 year old marine in charge of securing and rebuilding a village. An armies job is to "go places, kill people, and break their stuff." But for the last few decades the choice for the US has been to send our DoD personnel, or noone.

Because we've increasingly leaned on the DoD for these actions that's bled over to other organizations. A prime example there is the transfer of absurd materials to LEO under the LESO and Excess Property Programs. See also the budget of DHS/ICE/CBP which simply exploded in the last decade by following the militarization path.

If we want to stop the militarization of our society we need to fix our civilian agencies and stop relying on the martial.

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#43

Post by jm74 »

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…

That's a good point for a good discussion of exactly this issue there's an interesting TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_...

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#44

Post by baddox »

mercurial wrote: post #41
wtbob wrote: 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. 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.

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#45

Post by woodman »

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

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#47

Post by 0x5f3759df-i »

mikerichards wrote: post #23
knorby wrote: post #5

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. 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 commi…

You do understand how a representative government works?

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#48

Post by digi_owl »

electromagnetic wrote: post #21
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…

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…

Most shareholders today are passive institutions. They don't care as long as the dividends show up on time etc.

In between those you have individuals that are active. Just consider the jockeying between Dell and Icahn when Dell announced plans to take the namesake company private.

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#49

Post by pjc50 »

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.

Re: How private armies will remake modern warfare

#50

Post by cmdkeen »

It's interesting that the potential UN peacekeeping use of private military contractors is mentioned given that is pretty much what happens anyway.

Many UN peacekeeping operations are carried out by nations which are reimbursed by the UN at $1,028 USD per solider per month. If the nation chooses to pay its soldiers less than that it can turn a tidy profit.

For instance UNAMID in the Sudan has the largest troop contingent from Rwanda which pays its privates $40 a month. I'd wager that the UN gets $40 worth of effort from that soldier, not $1000.

Post reply on HN