Mercenaries: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "mercenaries. However, Geneva Protocols I and II apprently outlaw this, so the state has a monopoly on war. Read more about the history of mercenaries - and the modern mercenar...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Source: https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/2031922/mercenaries-and-war-understanding-private-armies-today/ | |||
mercenaries. However, Geneva Protocols I and II apprently outlaw this, so the state has a monopoly on war. Read more about the history of mercenaries - and the modern mercenary scene at [https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/2031922/mercenaries-and-war-understanding-private-armies-today/]. As a case in point, one famous mercenary - ''Later he was killed by his client, an occupational hazard.'' The future appears to be - ''Like super technology, mercenaries are a crutch for a nation that wants to fight but does not wish to bleed.'' | mercenaries. However, Geneva Protocols I and II apprently outlaw this, so the state has a monopoly on war. Read more about the history of mercenaries - and the modern mercenary scene at [https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/2031922/mercenaries-and-war-understanding-private-armies-today/]. As a case in point, one famous mercenary - ''Later he was killed by his client, an occupational hazard.'' The future appears to be - ''Like super technology, mercenaries are a crutch for a nation that wants to fight but does not wish to bleed.'' | ||
Current state - ''War could get medieval. The only way to prevent this future is counterintuitive. Governments, international organizations, NGOs, and other clients who claim they want a responsible private security sector should consider employing overt actors, rather than let them literally slip to the dark side.'' | Current state - ''War could get medieval. The only way to prevent this future is counterintuitive. Governments, international organizations, NGOs, and other clients who claim they want a responsible private security sector should consider employing overt actors, rather than let them literally slip to the dark side.'' | ||
''Privatizing war changes warfare in dangerous ways. First, private war has its own logic: Clausewitz meets Adam Smith, the father of economics. For-profit warriors are not bound by political considerations or patriotism, one of their chief selling points. They are market actors and their main restraint is not the laws of war but the laws of economics. The implications of this are far-reaching. This introduces new strategic possibilities known to CEOs but alien to generals, putting us at risk.'' | |||
Revision as of 03:58, 25 February 2022
mercenaries. However, Geneva Protocols I and II apprently outlaw this, so the state has a monopoly on war. Read more about the history of mercenaries - and the modern mercenary scene at [1]. As a case in point, one famous mercenary - Later he was killed by his client, an occupational hazard. The future appears to be - Like super technology, mercenaries are a crutch for a nation that wants to fight but does not wish to bleed.
Current state - War could get medieval. The only way to prevent this future is counterintuitive. Governments, international organizations, NGOs, and other clients who claim they want a responsible private security sector should consider employing overt actors, rather than let them literally slip to the dark side.
Privatizing war changes warfare in dangerous ways. First, private war has its own logic: Clausewitz meets Adam Smith, the father of economics. For-profit warriors are not bound by political considerations or patriotism, one of their chief selling points. They are market actors and their main restraint is not the laws of war but the laws of economics. The implications of this are far-reaching. This introduces new strategic possibilities known to CEOs but alien to generals, putting us at risk.