Thread: UAE firm opens biggest armoured vehicles plant in the world!

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Hardly comparable to Xe/Blackwater in terms of structure, organization, manpower and material.

Gaddaffis "mercs" included Bedouin tribesmen and Africans from across the Southern border. I'm referring more to actual defense corporations that will be dealing with considerably more cash.

granted

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

In any case, I don't think any merc outfit would have the audacity to stand up to one of the Big 5, or 8, at least not in the near future.
Preventing a war from breaking out in the first place is one of the main reasons for having a military.I'm sure

that is not the point.
I'm not asking them to win, i'm asking them to fight.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

We haven't had massive large scale conflicts between great powers for a while now, and given globalization and economic-interdependence, I (as a civilian) doubt we will see the re-emergence of it. I'll let those more knowledgeable on the nature of modern war correct me, but the last few decades have seen insurgencies and an asymmetrical balance of forces, smaller-scale conflicts that seem perfect for mercenary forces.

BLACKWATER could not, would not, should not take on the likes of Lybia. It is beyond their capabilities to prosecute.

Wayrafer,

Do you think it would make more sense the countries to contract companies, rather then to keep their own armies?

What would be the motive for that? Savings? You think it would be cheaper to hire 10,000 men rather then to upkeep them?

Finally, I doubt that any pro (that's not raised here) will fight if my country is attacked by another country.

Another thought, will we have elections then? What if those companies start a war between themselves?

Many questions come to my mind.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

BLACKWATER could not, would not, should not take on the likes of Lybia. It is beyond their capabilities to prosecute.

Sir,leaving aside the ''should'' part,BW(or was it Dyn Corp) offered a brigade size element for intervention in Darfur 5-6 years ago.Granted,it would have the mantle of UN,but still required kicking some natives,perhaps even some tougher bunch than Gaddafi's men.At the very least,they thought themselves able to do it.

Originally Posted by Doktor

Wayrafer,

Do you think it would make more sense the countries to contract companies, rather then to keep their own armies?

What would be the motive for that? Savings? You think it would be cheaper to hire 10,000 men rather then to upkeep them?

Finally, I doubt that any pro (that's not raised here) will fight if my country is attacked by another country.

Another thought, will we have elections then? What if those companies start a war between themselves?

Many questions come to my mind.

Buddy,keep in mind that the future of warfare,international relations,of the state as an institution and of whatever other power centers need not resemble the last 250 years.On the contrary,we are likely,IMO, to return to the more fluid situation that existed before the rise of the modern state.

Originally Posted by Mihais

Sir,leaving aside the ''should'' part,BW(or was it Dyn Corp) offered a brigade size element for intervention in Darfur 5-6 years ago.Granted,it would have the mantle of UN,but still required kicking some natives,perhaps even some tougher bunch than Gaddafi's men.At the very least,they thought themselves able to do it.

And when they get into trouble, ala BLACK HAWK DOWN scenario, they'll start screaming to New York for a relief force.

Sir,it can be so.

But the other possible outcome is that the Rangers return to Mogadishu the day after Black Hawk Down.And after a kill ratio of 50:1,the Somalis were scared of the prospect.The UN might need to put a leash rather than send a QRF

The Rangers had USN F-18s on standby.

Originally Posted by Mihais

Buddy,keep in mind that the future of warfare,international relations,of the state as an institution and of whatever other power centers need not resemble the last 250 years.On the contrary,we are likely,IMO, to return to the more fluid situation that existed before the rise of the modern state.

Hmm... make me wonder how would these mercs go. If their company shell my hood, some of them will die in a very painful way. If they set foot o/c. Are they willing to do the same for a paycheck?

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

We haven't had massive large scale conflicts between great powers for a while now, and given globalization and economic-interdependence, I (as a civilian) doubt we will see the re-emergence of it. I'll let those more knowledgeable on the nature of modern war correct me, but the last few decades have seen insurgencies and an asymmetrical balance of forces, smaller-scale conflicts that seem perfect for mercenary forces.

Of note the last time the last time the globe was this linked by commerce the large powers were or had been fighting a number of small COIN wars around the globe when a small nationalist terror cell sparked WWI.

That's true,but 100 years ago we didn't had nukes.So alternatives need to be found.Plus the modern states are bit shy when it comes to killing as required,which may be a lot.So why not let others do it,preferably deniable non-states actors?The Shia slaughtering the Sunni's and winning their civil war gets labeled as a model COIN by our glorious leaders.But we genocided nobody.
Al Qaeda planting its flag in Benghazi and doing the usual killing when they win?Anger at the tyrant.
Mobs doing ethnic cleansing in Kosovo while NATO and EULEX pick their noses?The difficult birth of a democracy.
Same sh!t in Zimbabwe and SA?Resentment over apartheid,ya know.

Notice a pattern?There's no state sanctioned action.

70 years ago Soviet army had no qualms doing its killing in Eastern europe.Nor the Germans had any,while it was obvious to all hat would happen if the Japanese or Germans tried to resisit the occupation armies.150 years ago the US Army killed Indians en masse and sent the others in reservations.Russian army did the same in Central Asia(minus reservation).Likewise the English,French ,Germans,Belgians,Dutch etc... in their respective colonies.We can go back to Reconquista,medieval warfare,the conquest of Anatolia by the Turks,of the ME by the Arabs and of Britain by the Saxons.And the list doesn't do justice to the hundreds,if not thousands of nations and states that waged war for real,when they had to ,but brevity rules.The pattern is that the state sanctioned these actions and while the mobs ocassionaly did the dirty work,it was the military force's job(at times the people and the army coincided).
What ''old'' war has in common with ''new'' war is that at times,people actually want to kill each other.Most of the times they don't,since a poor bastard from 3000 km hasn't done anything wrong to me or mine,nor is he able or particularly willing.And when that happens,the modern state officially does his best to prevent violence and find a peaceful solution.Ahem

Here comes the deniable merc force,among other entities,such as rebels,freedom fighters,insurgents,pro-democracy forces,holy warriors.Pick your label depending on whose side you are.