From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>
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.