Why not privatise the US military?

[Graham Kennedy]

Well they'd have the same drive the real military does on that front; if they're going to be called on to fight then they'd want to win.

Of course they might think something like the F-22 was overpriced and over-capable... "why be five times better when it's good enough to be two times better" sort of thinking. But to be honest I'm not sure they'd be at all wrong in thinking that. A LOT of people think the US overspends on expensive super-toys rather than getting what they need for a decent price.

I think there's a certain degree of polishing the cannonball that we do indulge in far too much, I can't argue that. However I also think that for someone like us the need or I suppose you could say desire to have significant influence the world over as well as global commitments to our allies you either have to get the most bang for your buck in terms of the equipment you do buy because you're likely to be outnumbered wherever you go or you have to be willing to raise a huge military in terms of raw numbers. Well since we threw the draft out and went all voluntary we couldn't guarantee ourselves a huge number of recruits so we went for the most bang for our buck with every piece of kit.

I think we probably agree, or at least mostly.

Yes, the US does need the best equipment; you certainly can't argue with the results of recent wars in terms of how successful the policy of buying the best has been.

That said, you don't always need warp speed death machines. The A-10 is slow, cheap, simple, tough - the air force hates it precisely because it's NOT cutting edge tech, but it proves to be massively good at what it does, over and over. When you're bombing Taliban in Afghanistan, there's a lot to be said for a platform like that.

[Graham Kennedy]

There is a big problem, however. What is the forces opposed aren't worth the money spent? Can they simply bail and go like "sorry, we can't get involved in this fight. Here, have a refund."?

No, they'd get sued for breach of contract.

What court? U.S.'s court?

US court, I would think. There are plenty of international companies and deals right now, it seems to work well enough.

A country that put its military fate into a mercenary army who decides the risk isn't worth the wage won't last long ennough for the settlement of the court case.

Countries may be invaded and fall, but the leaders often escape and that's all you'd need for a court case. And it would be a pretty open and shut case, after all.

Plus, imagine even one case where the armed forces did that. How do they then turn around to their other clients and say "oh... well, we'd never do that to YOU..." It would destroy their credibility and thus their income. Powerful incentive not to do it.

[Tyyr]

I think we probably agree, or at least mostly.

Yes, the US does need the best equipment; you certainly can't argue with the results of recent wars in terms of how successful the policy of buying the best has been.

That said, you don't always need warp speed death machines. The A-10 is slow, cheap, simple, tough - the air force hates it precisely because it's NOT cutting edge tech, but it proves to be massively good at what it does, over and over. When you're bombing Taliban in Afghanistan, there's a lot to be said for a platform like that.

I think we do mostly agree. Buy equipment that fits the need. In the case of the A-10 it doesn't need to be able to cross oceans or dogfight with MiG-29's or anything like that. It's a survivable bomb truck. It's hard to conceive of an aircraft more perfectly suited for its role. In that it should be an example to the entire military, get the absolute best you can, but make sure its filling the need and not some desk jockey's needless wish list.

[BigJKU316]

I think we probably agree, or at least mostly.

Yes, the US does need the best equipment; you certainly can't argue with the results of recent wars in terms of how successful the policy of buying the best has been.

That said, you don't always need warp speed death machines. The A-10 is slow, cheap, simple, tough - the air force hates it precisely because it's NOT cutting edge tech, but it proves to be massively good at what it does, over and over. When you're bombing Taliban in Afghanistan, there's a lot to be said for a platform like that.

I think we do mostly agree. Buy equipment that fits the need. In the case of the A-10 it doesn't need to be able to cross oceans or dogfight with MiG-29's or anything like that. It's a survivable bomb truck. It's hard to conceive of an aircraft more perfectly suited for its role. In that it should be an example to the entire military, get the absolute best you can, but make sure its filling the need and not some desk jockey's needless wish list.

Yeah, the A-10 and the F-16 were the result of what happened last time they tried for a do-all-wonder plane and figured out it was a bad idea.

Shockingly enough the A-10 is one of the planes the F-35 is supposed to replace, along with the F-15. Think about that one for a second and then wonder why the thing ended up costing so much.

[Foxbat]

So, we privatize the military, and they become inefficiently run. They take on too many unprofitable missions over time and become bankrupt. Then the US has to spend a big pile of $$ to bail them out... That sounds familiar...

I am not for a national military that is not in the elected hands of the people of this nation. We're not talking about selling corn or making cars, we're talking about deploying military forces to defend/engage enemies of this nation (however misguided it may be).

Whether it's one big corporation, or several dozen 'start up defense organizations', reverting back to a model of nation defense from the middle ages doesn't sit well with me. We need to focus major effort on ravamping how the military operates, not just turn it over to a defense firm (Blackwater anyone?). Maybe I've watched a little too much '24' on TV, but it's a prospect that would concern me greatly...

[Graham Kennedy]

I'm wondering how one might introduce competition to the model. Having several competing militaries, each defending a different portion of the country, vying to get states to sign up with them? Seems like that would open a big can of worms and whilst competition would bring some efficiencies, it would probably bring problems - like would they each have to fund development of their own separate equipment? If so you double your development costs.

[SolkaTruesilver]

I'm wondering how one might introduce competition to the model. Having several competing militaries, each defending a different portion of the country, vying to get states to sign up with them? Seems like that would open a big can of worms and whilst competition would bring some efficiencies, it would probably bring problems - like would they each have to fund development of their own separate equipment? If so you double your development costs.

Privatise vertically

But then, you lose control on the military high-technology, and risk it going into your nation's ennemy's hand.

[Tyyr]

Solka... do you really think about what you say before you say it? Do you honestly think that the reigns on the privatized military would be so lax as to let the companies sell F-22 or Virginias to North Korea or Iran?

[Mikey]

Solka... do you really think about what you say before you say it? Do you honestly think that the reigns on the privatized military would be so lax as to let the companies sell F-22 or Virginias to North Korea or Iran?

Indeed. If a simple work contract can legally include such things as confidentiality agreements, I can't imagine that a military defense provider contract wouldn't have a clause about approved customers or even proprietary purchase rights.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Solka... do you really think about what you say before you say it? Do you honestly think that the reigns on the privatized military would be so lax as to let the companies sell F-22 or Virginias to North Korea or Iran?

To be honest, I don't care if NK or Iran get their hands on such technology. I'd be more worried about Japan, China, Turkey and Russia.

And yes, I believe there is more likelihood of breach of security with a privatised military than a nationalised one.

[Tyyr]

Right, because the threat of losing their contracts and being sued into oblivion wouldn't motivate the company to keep a close watch on things.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Right, because the threat of losing their contracts and being sued into oblivion wouldn't motivate the company to keep a close watch on things.

Right, because companies would NEVER slip on some security procedures if they get a fat payout out of it.

Ye know, "We sorry we lost the F-35's propulsion parts. But we have good news! China awarded us a 50,000,000,000 contract and right to use their airspace for the next 10 years!"

You are talking about outright violation of the law. I am worried about fuzzy lines where it's hard to prove the company is responsible. Remember Lord of War:

There are three way to sell arms. White-legally, Black-illegally, and, my personal favorite, grey.

And it's not just hardware. What about military procedures, military doctrines, etc... the kind of things that gives an edge to an army on the field? What's to stop there companies from delivering these advantages, or losing some documents between office transit?

[stitch626]

Question: if it was privatized, would the "soldiers" still be under current military law, able to be tried in a court martial and such, or would they be under civilian jurisdiction?

[Mikey]

Right, because the threat of losing their contracts and being sued into oblivion wouldn't motivate the company to keep a close watch on things.

Right, because companies would NEVER slip on some security procedures if they get a fat payout out of it.

Ye know, "We sorry we lost the F-35's propulsion parts. But we have good news! China awarded us a 50,000,000,000 contract and right to use their airspace for the next 10 years!"

You are talking about outright violation of the law. I am worried about fuzzy lines where it's hard to prove the company is responsible. Remember Lord of War:

There are three way to sell arms. White-legally, Black-illegally, and, my personal favorite, grey.

And it's not just hardware. What about military procedures, military doctrines, etc... the kind of things that gives an edge to an army on the field? What's to stop there companies from delivering these advantages, or losing some documents between office transit?

Who cares what Orlov says? It doesn't apply here. We're not talking about some Somali warlord making a few extra bucks - we're talking about a hypothetical supplier who has contracted with the United friggin' States. There is no way to sell enough of anything to anyone - white, grey, or black - to make up for what would be lost when the U.S. fires your ass and then sues the ever-loving shit out of it.