From Open Source Ecology
Jump to: navigation, search

Nature of war is changing:

See another one on private armies:


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.

Private war’s inclination toward intensification is a result of its economic nature. Clausewitz observed that the nature of absolute war is escalation; privatized warfare exemplifies this because it is fueled by the profit motive. On the supply side, mercenaries do not want to work themselves out of a job.

You can kill individuals but not the market conditions that give rise to mercenarism in the first place. - an OSE solution here is to indeed change the market conditions.

International public law is feeble and difficult to enforce. One famed legal scholar called it the “vanishing point of law,” since it is followed by courtesy rather than compellence.43 This is especially true with the Law of Armed Conflict. There is no international judiciary, police force, or prisons so there is little consequence for violating the law. Just ask Vladimir Putin, who stole Crimea. Who is going to enter Ukraine and Syria to arrest all those mercenaries? The 82nd Airborne Division? UN Blue Helmets?

For private mercenaries - would need to solve the issue of jurisdiction - Take, for example, the issue of jurisdiction. What happens if a Colombian private military contractor kills an Afghan family while on an American contract?

OSE solution - Provide opportunities in creative work of Solving Pressing World Issues for mercenaries as a better career opportunity? Also, there is a gap in international public law enforcement - which should probably be addressed. And in the first place, if the OSE doctrine succeeds in mutually assured abundance - then fighting will be on a decline. This starts with education and accurate formation of mental models of how the world works. The key assumption that we need to correct is the assumption of scarcity.