[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're saying that the current US military is decentralized, so that it doesn't matter if some "big chicken" commander gets picked off. Now you're saying it *is* centralized, which gives it some "integration" advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think of it like this: There is no "head" to cut off to kill the body, but since there exists a firm and (99%) unquestioned chain of command, decisions can be made and carried out brutally effieciently. This speed would not likely exist on such a scale without the force behind the US Military.

[/ QUOTE ]

So again, which is it? What happens when that upper layer, where the strategy is decided, is disrupted?

And does this theory indicate to you that the US should strive to further "integrate" the NATO allies? Our collective defence is compromised by depending on these "inefficient" units. Our speed and scale will be increased. Our worship of efficiency must *dictate* that we "integrate"!

Plus, hey, they're free riding. Let's start with canada. We can give them a week to think about it, then we start sending the bombers.

[ QUOTE ]
PMCs could certainly have their own chain of command, but would be unlikely to amass a power equal to that of the US (and required for effective protection).

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? Protection from whom? Would you lose sleep at night if the US only had half as many ICBMs? B2 bombers? Vast amounts of the US defense budget are dedicated to *offensive* resources.

[ QUOTE ]
More over, it's unlikely (not impossible, just unlikely) that given what we know about stress and human nature, that these many and ideologically varied companies could band together to fight with the effectiveness of the US Military.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think companies are "wasteful" now, certainly not when compared with baroque bureaucracies like the US military.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry meant to say "you think the military is wasteful now, wait til the private firms get ahold of it." The idea that once something goes private all the fat is trimmed is silly. Businesses exist to make money, and ignoring manpower and land limitations they'll hamper competition if allowed, sometimes using the same red tape as governments. At any rate, this is largely tangential to the thread

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. Imagine Wal-Mart turning into a PMC. I'm sure they'd just be itching to send expeditionary forces to Iraq. Businesses exist to make money, right? So obviously they'd blow tons of cash on boondoggles, more even than the US military which has no profit motive! What kind of logic is that, exactly?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These "borders" are known as property lines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely you don't think it will stay this way right. HOAs and other organizations will pop up, giving rise to citys, perhaps even states, in all likelyhood nations won't be far behind. People will realize they hold a large amount of power and try to oppress others...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the same old argument; a population will work to gain *real* independence, then immediately forget all about what they wanted and roll over for tinpot of the week.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe we're so messed up physiologically that it's the natural order of things. I wish there was a way to test this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. This is so patronizing and condescending. "I'm not sure I can trust you with freedom, I'll just have to keep imposing upon you." Yes, it's scary. But it's not your right to make such a decision.

Imagine the arguments against abolition. "We can't be sure what the negroes will do, we have no choice but to keep them enslaved."