State-sponsored defense spending of the kind the US government engages in is safe from being replaced by the private sector, ever. The cost is astronomical. Individual units like carriers, submarines, and bombers cost hundreds of millions up to several billion. The author of the article (and maybe the book?) don't make this distinction.
Instead, these private mercenaries raise the possibility that non-state actors of great means could accomplish minor military objectives using small amounts of conventional force. And I doubt very seriously that American private military firms can take action without the tacit approval of the someone in the United States government.
I'm much more worried about the possibility that these firms are being paid with laundered tax dollars to accomplish objectives that I don't know about or wouldn't approve of. See the Iran-Contra affair.
Most modern wars are fought using little more than ground vehicle mounted weaponry[1]. There's even a war named after the trucks that both sides used[2].
The weapons acquisition program strategy of the US is defined as much by the defence industry as by the needs in the wars the US is actually involved in. You see US soldiers buying their own weapons, and even on a larger scale you have things like the US buying Toyotas off show-room floors to take to to Iraq[3].
This is because modern wars aren't really wars. When was the last time America fought a war against an enemy whose weapons were designed and manufactured in any significant way by the enemy? When was the last time America fought a war against an enemy with remotely comparable military strength?
The reason that "real wars" aren't fought any more is the weapons we have (nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, ships, planes, etc.) and the weapons our potential opponents have as well as experiences in the world wars together convince everyone that open war is absolutely undesirable. We build and maintain advanced weapons for the explicit purpose of not needing to use them.
The weapons accession strategy has much to do with maintaining the ability to manufacture advanced weapons to use against an advanced enemy so that we can continue to prevent such a war.
That's exactly the point. Proxy wars are how things have worked since WW2, and now they are getting even more complicated because they often involve non-state actors. This is what modern wars are.
To claim they aren't really wars is ignorant and kind of insulting to the people that fight in them.
No one is claiming that private armies will take over the anti-state deterrence.
"In the end, though, Mr McFate tends to overstate his case. Private armies may indeed play a role in failed and failing states, but it is unlikely that modern mercenaries will become more important than the standing armies of NATO or China soon."
And that should be obvious, too. Mercenaries aren't supported explicitly by any state, so they only fight where they're guaranteed to win, and they tend to be prosecuted for offenses official soldiers will not be prosecuted. They're not covered under most of the Geneva conventions, either.
Also, most of the people being labeled mercenaries these days aren't mercenaries. There's a big difference between people you hire to fight a battle and people you hire for base or convoy security.
The problem with the big weapons systems is that they really need other nation states to fight with, and the biggest systems require dominance of the area to function.
Carriers are being challenged by hypersonic missiles that keep them offshore. Those billion dollar bombers have incredible capability, but advances in things like drone technology threaten their ability to operate in the long term. I think we've already reached the point where there aren't any credible opponents to have a big tank battle with.
Technology may be a great equalizer. Between nuclear proliferation and the advent of lots of tiny sensors and computers for low cost, operating a standing army will get difficult.
Instead, these private mercenaries raise the possibility that non-state actors of great means could accomplish minor military objectives using small amounts of conventional force. And I doubt very seriously that American private military firms can take action without the tacit approval of the someone in the United States government.
I'm much more worried about the possibility that these firms are being paid with laundered tax dollars to accomplish objectives that I don't know about or wouldn't approve of. See the Iran-Contra affair.