Mercs
From: "Thomas Barclay" <kaladorn@f...>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 02:57:15 -0500
Subject: Mercs
1) Why wouldn't the Mercs Guild buy a nice AE
rock? The rationale for a potentially deeply
buried subterannean hard-to-destroy HQ for
the Guild is obvious. A great place to house
arms factories, medical short and long term
care facilities, R&R facilities, training areas,
recruiting offices, contract lawyers, financiers,
reps from various countries, etc. And of course
a decent defence force (such a Guild World
would probably be able to call up ALL available
Mercs on-planet for emergencies).
2) There will undoubtedly remain Guild and non-
Guild mercs. Many smaller or shadier ops will
have either no Guild sanction or a fake one
(mind you, not a good idea to get caught with
fake paperwork....)
3) In order to threaten the NAC in any way AT
ALL, a mercenary company would have to be
able to field a Division I would imagine with
corresponding support assets. I see this as
very uncommon. And the only people who'd be
able to hire such a force would be the Big 4. Or
UberMegaGatesCorp of Seattle. I see most
merc ops as "below radar" of most powers.
4) People talk about the expense of a fighter
versus its manpower in a specious way. Sure
the fighter costs $40 million, but the base of
technical training required to fly it and maintain
it is probably a big chunk of that. Remember, it
isn't just the pilot. It's weapons techs, avionics
techs, flight systems techs, computer systems
techs, and all the people and apparatus to train
and support them plus logistics, etc. And the
fighter is the FAR end of that wedge. Look at
infantry - the ratio of hardware to trooper
training can be much closer here.
5) When you hire a mercenary force it is usually
because: 1) you want to augment your own
maximum strength (hence you can't just recruit
more), 2) you need it NOW (don't have time to
train more), 3) you don't want to lose your own
guys (cultural, religious, or just economic
reasons), 4) you don't have the base of military
experience to draw on (small colonies without a
Big 4 backer), 5) you have money but
manpower is a rarer resource (though note
that mercs let into the city without some local
protection can lead to a new government....),
6) You want to attack or defend and save your
own troops for later stages of the conflict 7)
you don't need force very often, so it isn't cost
effective to maintain your own.
6) Let us not ignore the fact that not everyone
is cut out to be a soldier. This is sometimes a
good reason to hire mercenaries. I expect the
IAS or some NGOs or small corporations might
hire merc security or other special teams on
the rare occassions where power projection or
personal security forces are required. Mercs
bring expertise, experience, and many times the
basic disposition of the career soldier.
Think of the type of Merc Missions:
1) Striker/Assault - short term, often with
success bonuses or sometimes success only
payments
2) Security - short or long term security, often
not to bonusworthy (this might constitute
garrison or field work)
3) Cadre - training locals or other mercs,
sometimes bonusworthy
4) CounterInsurgency - mostly patrolling and
other counter insurgent warfare, rarely
bonusworthy
5) Insurgency - assisting a revolution, success
only bonuses most likely
6) Bodygaurd - for key people, often smaller
forces, short or long term, can be lucrative if
attached to the right patron
7) Specialist - recce, assassin/sniper, demo,
EW, etc. small forces or individuals recruited
and well paid for specialist skills
8) Recovery - this is a form of strike/assault,
but might also involve investigation, often with
success only bonus
As risk to life and limb and requirements for
deniability or expertise go up, so does the cost
of hiring the merc unit and the % of the
payment that must be posted as a completion
bond with the bonding authority (Mercs Guild
approved financial institution).
FYI:
The real world UN is debating the concept of
using professional soldiers for peacekeeping
and other UN interventions. The arguments for
it include a higher standard of training and
professionalism, fewer "ax to grind" forces with
inter-racial or religious issues (merc forces are
often mixed race and staunchly irreligious), and
a loyalty only to their employer not some other
outside power (a BIG problem in peacekeeping
ops). I think the GZGverse calls out for this kind
of use for Mercs and I think it would even make
good sense in the real world.
Ultimately, IMV, Mercs are like "working-girls".
The fact they exist says our world isn't a perfect
place. But they can be very professional and do
a good job within their field and get paid well in
their chosen* profession. A lot of times we
dump on people for having such occupations,
but the occupation exists to fill a viable market
niche and we should perhaps be fixing our own
carts (the environment that creates this niche)
rather than beating on the people who try to
make a living filling it.
* I'm well aware that undoubtedly some mercs
and many "working-gals" don't intentionally
choose their field. It's what they end up doing
and they often want out but various reasons
keep them in their respective trades often to
their detriment.
However, that's a divergent line of thought. I
just think there is an obvious place for contract
service military professionals (and note they do
tend to be very loyal to their paymasters and
fight very hard because they might lose their
bondability and hence lose out on the secure
and large scale jobs). They're often a better
option than a military riddled with internal
dissention, factionalism, racial and ethnic
clashes, etc.
I suspect there are days Pres. Musharef (sp)
wishes he had a bunch of Mercs instead of the
guys he has to depend on.... less likelihood of a
Coup with bonded professionals.
Tomb.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Barclay
Instructor, CST 6304 (TCP/IP programming for the Internet)
kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca
http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/CST6304
http://stargrunt.ca/tb/CST6304
-----------------------------------------------------------