|
Idle thought today, why are mercenaries illegal? I understand that there were laws and acts imposed by various governments and such. But I want to understand why they made hiring mercenaries illegal.
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:17 |
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Here in the socialist wonderland of Canada (at least in Toronto), the whole city is one school district, and I'm pretty sure the funding gets equalized, but there are also good schools and 8 hour per day prison schools. Even back in Moscow, there were schools that were the school for some subject or other. There are some schools like that in the US. In the last city I lived in the was a "magnet" high school for STEM and there was another one that attracted arts and theater students. Chillyrabbit posted:Idle thought today, why are mercenaries illegal? I understand that there were laws and acts imposed by various governments and such. But I want to understand why they made hiring mercenaries illegal. Because if you ask Machiavelli they are lazy and cowardly. At least that's what I learned after grading 40 papers about The Prince today. space pope fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Nov 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:Idle thought today, why are mercenaries illegal? I understand that there were laws and acts imposed by various governments and such. But I want to understand why they made hiring mercenaries illegal. Wait, they are? Then what makes "private military contractors" different from mercenaries?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Wait, they are? Then what makes "private military contractors" different from mercenaries? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Mercenary_Convention#Definition_of_a_mercenary quote:1. A mercenary is any person who: This was originally written in 1989, and African conflicts are foremost in the mind of the people who framed it. People who study privatized force have been talking about how useless the definition is ever since. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Nov 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:By definition, this is a mercenary: Now I'm interested, would a German mercenary from the 17th century fall under those criteria? Skimming the definition it looks like they would count more like normal soldiers by our modern definition of "mercenary".
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Now I'm interested, would a German mercenary from the 17th century fall under those criteria? Skimming the definition it looks like they would count more like normal soldiers by our modern definition of "mercenary". Also note the use of the phrase significant private gain in 2b. You have to be payed well, that's part of the definition. Seriously, this is good for a certain kind of war from the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and, like, nothing else. Edit: I am very bad at the 20th century, though, so if I'm wrong bewbies or Koesj or someone can correct me. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Nov 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:Idle thought today, why are mercenaries illegal? I understand that there were laws and acts imposed by various governments and such. But I want to understand why they made hiring mercenaries illegal. My understanding is that the situation is in fact the opposite. It was not that mercenaries became illegal. It was instead that with the creation of the Geneva Conventions and other rules of war, the special status of "a soldier serving in a national army, in an international conflict between signatory states" came into existence, with certain particular rights to fair treatment as a Prisoner Of War, and certain duties to be subject to those rights. Mercenaries and categories like insurgent fighters were simply not included in this, which means they basically have the same status they've always previously had - the side that captures them can deal with them however they want (within limits). The Mercenary Convention is a separate thing pledging to not recruit or use mercenaries, signed only by a much smaller number of countries, excluding most of the major power houses like the UK, US, France, China, Russia... Some countries have national laws prohibiting their citizens from becoming mercenaries. Note that the above is just my understanding, and so probably wrong, and it would be great if I were corrected. Fangz fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Nov 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Wait, they are? Then what makes "private military contractors" different from mercenaries? In theory, their intended missions differ. Contractors provide security details for VIPs, protect facilities, train troops, and perform other similar missions. Although these tasks may lead to combat (i.e. if a convoy under PMC protection is attacked), contractors aren't actively seeking combat. Of course, they might accidentally or "accidentally" end up fighting a more involved war. Consider the activities of Russian mercenaries in Syria. Mercenaries, on the other hand, are men explicitly hired perform the kinds of tasks that regular uniformed troops might perform. So they conduct raids, take part in offensive operations, and generally fight as conventional (or unconventional) soldiers would. The performance of Executive Outcomes and Sandline International in Angola and Sierra Leone are good examples of private soldiers being used in this manner. The distinctions are really unclear, especially since they deal with fuzzy things like intent. Not to mention the fact that individuals and companies can jump from one role to another (or even perform both simultaneously). Chillyrabbit posted:Idle thought today, why are mercenaries illegal? I understand that there were laws and acts imposed by various governments and such. But I want to understand why they made hiring mercenaries illegal. Why would you want to make mercenaries illegal? Accountability and discipline is probably the biggest reasons. Mercenaries usually aren't subject to the same disciplinary standards (ex. the UCMJ) as regular troops are. In theory (and perhaps in practice), this means mercenaries are more likely to conduct human rights violations to those outside their unit (see the Nisour Square killings) and even to those inside their unit (Blackwater/Xe/Academi/whateverthefuckitisnow had several instances of employee-on-employee harassment and assault). Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Nov 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:In theory, their intended missions differ. Thanks! Gave me some more information and answered my question. Trying to google it turns into a weird debacle of people arguing personal armies vs national armies and kings and such.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Was there much of a threat of coal fires being started? Or was the main concern just penetration into the crew/machinery? I do not recall reading of any serious fires started, during combat, in coal bunkers. As it happens, the protected cruisers saw very little actual combat, so the concept didn't get a lot of testing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Can anyone tell me if the infamous Dazzle camo was actually effective? It's certainly very striking, but I never knew whether it did its job properly or not. e: VVV yeah, that one. Inspired some really neat art, especially by Edward Wadsworth, but I've no idea if it was combat-effective. 
corn in the bible fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Nov 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:Can anyone tell me if the infamous Dazzle camo was actually effective? It's certainly very striking, but I never knew whether it did its job properly or not.  You mean this thing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:Can anyone tell me if the infamous Dazzle camo was actually effective? It's certainly very striking, but I never knew whether it did its job properly or not. It's meant to make manual rangefinding annoying and difficult. Ships in long-range gunnery battles need to accurately predict the speed, bearing, identity and so on, of the ship they're fighting. If I, a man at a computer, can look at photograph of a be-dazzled ship taken from ~100m and still be disoriented, then it works fine in a North Sea squall. The idea is that ships are fairly hard to camouflage because they make a wake, the horizon changes colours, and and certain things like smokestacks and masts are pretty distinctive. Dazzling the ship doesn't hide it, but now you don't know whether its HMS Glowworm or HMS Gloucester, and you also can't tell if it's running towards you or running away. Whereas conventionally, you could feasibly evade detection for a while, but the enemy ship would spot you eventually and identify you as "HMS Fairy in Hot Pink Morning Camouflage" or whatever, and then make an informed decision. Slim Jim Pickens fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Nov 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:Can anyone tell me if the infamous Dazzle camo was actually effective? It's certainly very striking, but I never knew whether it did its job properly or not. From all I've read it was very effective at stopping U-boat attacks. The goal wasn't to make the ship invisible, it was to make it difficult to keep track of a particular point on the ship so its bearing and speed could be computed. This in turn made it difficult to aim a torpedo at it properly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
It is an absolute bitch to paint on model kits however 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Similarly, trying to disguise vital information about your tank/ship with paint is pretty neat. Sherman Firefly that's feeling a bit self-conscious about not fitting in:  Bismarck pretending to have lost weight: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Inquiry: Going by Hey Gal's posting of the treaty definition of a mercenary...Where do the Pontifical Swiss Guards stand? They're not really nationals of the Vatican City State (though they carry Vatican passports, they lose em when they leave the Swiss Guard), they're Swiss. They're apparently paid very well, basically at pay rates in excess of the Italian Army if I read right. And so on. Basically, how the heck are they legal, in international law terms?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
Spacewolf posted:Inquiry: Going by Hey Gal's posting of the treaty definition of a mercenary...Where do the Pontifical Swiss Guards stand? Don't they (and the French Foreign Legion) have a very specific exception for them in those treaties?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:It's meant to make manual rangefinding annoying and difficult. Ships in long-range gunnery battles need to accurately predict the speed, bearing, identity and so on, of the ship they're fighting. If I, a man at a computer, can look at photograph of a be-dazzled ship taken from ~100m and still be disoriented, then it works fine in a North Sea squall. In addition to this, range finding is done through stereoscopy, meaning that a seaman is seeing two different images of the ship in each eye, and he has to adjust his optics until the two images combine. That's a hell of a lot harder to do when it's all weird jagged lines.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 04:47
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Spacewolf posted:Inquiry: Going by Hey Gal's posting of the treaty definition of a mercenary...Where do the Pontifical Swiss Guards stand? Their main duty isn't fighting I think? Like they are paid to protect the pope and you can argue that any fighting that occurs isn't a result of their actions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:Their main duty isn't fighting I think? Like they are paid to protect the pope and you can argue that any fighting that occurs isn't a result of their actions. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago You know, I do like reading bits from the newspaper excerpts from time to time, but the organization of the articles gives me a minor headache. I don't know if they're any better in terms of delivering important and relevant content, but modern newspapers have definitely gotten a lot better at designing legible layouts. Still worth it occasionally, though. "[b posted:ROCK THAT MOSES SMOTE[/b]"]"The rock that Moses smote in the wilderness has been found, and the camp of the Israelites definitely located. Such is the substance of a long statement made by Dr. C. M. Coburn, Archaeologist to the World's Bible Conference, at Baltimore, last night...  Incidentally, to any German posters in this threat - are there any German newspapers doing something similar to what the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator are doing, republishing their archives? If so, do their stories have any notable contrasts or similarities with what the British newspapers of the time are reporting?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:Their main duty isn't fighting I think? Like they are paid to protect the pope and you can argue that any fighting that occurs isn't a result of their actions. That's just what the Church wants you to think. They're just biding their time for when this whole "unified Italy" thing falls apart so they can recreate the Papal states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:That's just what the Church wants you to think. They're just biding their time for when this whole "unified Italy" thing falls apart so they can recreate the Papal states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 08:19
|
|
|
The papal miter isn't the missile? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:The dome opens to reveal the missile silo beneath The LK-12-49 "Sonrise" Church-launched missile is a fearsome weapon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 08:25
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:The papal miter isn't the missile? The pope is the missile 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:This is either honest or he's loving with them, but it may have saved Cocteau's life, since this was the Swedish army in 1685 and they appear to be harder on desertion than my 1620s Saxons are Nothing out of the ordinary here, talking absolute bullshit is a well known Irish defence mechanism. HEY GAL posted:I know a German who is anti-Union, but I think that's because of his love of outlaw country music from the 1970s and when he thinks "centralized government" he thinks of his own experiences as a young man in East Germany. I have seen the Naval Jack used more than once in Germany as a symbol of rebellion and it makes me feel awkward as hell, but I am pretty sure it came in through motorcycle culture or country music. Every time I see this flag at a Cork match I cringe 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 09:45
|
|
|
Tomn posted:You know, I do like reading bits from the newspaper excerpts from time to time, but the organization of the articles gives me a minor headache. I don't know if they're any better in terms of delivering important and relevant content, but modern newspapers have definitely gotten a lot better at designing legible layouts. It's not a newspaper, but our federal archives made this for the anniversary. It includes movies and sound recordings from the first world war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 11:20
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:Can anyone give me a rundown on how and why NATO and Warsaw Pact weapons development differed during the Cold War? I essentially grew up hearing a lot about what my dad used when he was in the army, and how he spent that wonderful year or so, but never compared to anything Western (except when it came up on TV and was immediately dismissed as "American action film bullshit"). Short answer to that is that equipment follows doctrine and both side developed their doctrines along their experiences in WWII, then kept refining them as technology marched on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 13:09
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:Similarly, trying to disguise vital information about your tank/ship with paint is pretty neat. These are really neat! Was this official, or something individual units/ships did on their own initiative? Are there other examples of military designers going "gently caress it, we can't hide it, let's at least make it look like something else".
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
One guy on Quora said that dazzle camo and camo in general has a lot to thank to cubism (making modern art finally useful). Before that, you used shapes to define objects more clearly. Cubism as such took it the other way around and blew people's mind. Some of those people were very much interested in blowing up other people rather literally without having the same inflicted on them, so they got some artists on board and got them to painting. Some more questions about stuff and poo poo 1. So what was ACW really about? Did 'Lincoln" lie to me? Is Cracked.com a secret Lost Cause apologist? 2. I can't find a link, but one guy had an article where he stated that soviet doctrine really helped him in wargames and that said doctrine was "plan axis of attack, launch massive artillery barrages on likely targets, rush the axis-es, if any of the axises get bogged down in fighting, switch troop to another one, etc". In an unrelated note, I would so play UAR in Flames of War Arab-Israeli supplement, but drat that's expensive. 3. What happens to the guns, armor and ammo of a killed soldier? 4. Did the Germans have a really strange/WWI casualty clearing system in WWII that was really inefficient? Why the hell did they do that? 5. What can you tell me about war in north Africa not being clean? Plus, I never understood how "fighting from IFV" is supposed to work. Is it supposed to be like a glorified drive by? For some time, I imagined that IFV infantry work by debussing and IFV providing long range support, but then Combat Mission and Wargame dissuaded me from that motion, since infantry should not fight in places where IFVs range becomes a bonus. And in cities IFVs are as dead as tanks, anyway. 6. Also, with the new fashion of outfitting APCs with autocannons, how can you reliably tell the difference between APC and IFV?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 15:13
|
|
I'd really love one of the Naval History goons to do a breakdown on the fleets of the Spanish-American war. I really love the look of the pre-dreadnaught stuff but I can barely find much stuff about them  .
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
JcDent posted:
Unequivocally Slavery. Nothing about the Confederacy or US politics in the decades leading up to the civil war makes sense unless you realise that the Slavery issue was at the core of all tension.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Unequivocally Slavery. Nothing about the Confederacy or US politics in the decades leading up to the civil war makes sense unless you realise that the Slavery issue was at the core of all tension. Basically. When people say 'state's rights!', they generally don't take the next step; 'state's rights!' to what? Once you ask that question, the answer is 100% slavery. If you look at the Confederate constitution, it's basically the US Constitution with a bunch of white people are better and slaves are slaves thrown in. And then you get stuff like the Cornerstone Speech. Vice President of the Confederacy posted:Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Unequivocally Slavery. Nothing about the Confederacy or US politics in the decades leading up to the civil war makes sense unless you realise that the Slavery issue was at the core of all tension. It is rather telling that literally the only major difference between the constitution of the confederation and the union is that the confederation does not allow the states to abolish slavery (and also term limits I guess)
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
The fact that the ACW is about slavery is set in stone if anyone reads anything about Jacksonian Democracy and the major issues that were present within the politics of that particular era. The Missouri Compromise, the 2nd Missouri Comprise (both of which were proposed and then broken by southern politicians), Indian Resettlement, the controversies concerning 'Fifty-four Forty or Fight!' and the Oregon Question and, primarily, the annexation of large parts of Mexico after the Mexican-American, were all directly related to the question of Slavery and were all responsible for the tension that was created between the North and the South. Edit: Also I would recommend reading about the Carolina Nullification crisis as well because it has striking parallels with the ACW as well. Tekopo fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Nov 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
One of Confederacy's big complaints was that escaped slaves could go to northern states and wouldn't get sent back. They wanted the federal government to go into these states and return them at the government's expense. So they were perfectly happy to have a big, powerful federal government as long as it was pro-slavery.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Once you ask that question, the answer is 100% slavery. There were lots of significant socioeconomic schisms between north and south that had little to do with slavery: the Nullification Crisis came reasonably close to ending with insurrection due to federal tariffs and their regional effects. Fear of the growing population and thus political power of the north threatened not only the practice of slavery, but also the semi-feudal agricultural economy that the power base of the south lived in. The south was terrified of the new wave of industrialists in the north, as they predicted somewhat correctly that they'd turn into an aristocracy in their own right (plus some amusingly ironic concerns about worker conditions). And so on, we could go on like this for a while. Slavery and its primary socioeconomic effect of concentrating wealth and power in the hands of an extremely small group of people are certainly the most significant cause, and this by quite a lot. That said, it was absolutely not "100% slavery."
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:17 |
|
|
Well, the Nullification crisis built upon the Tariff of Abominations, an attempt by southern politicians to pretty much put the Adams administration into a bind, which completely backfired when the tariff they proposed (and which they thought would get voted down) actually passed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 16:15
|
|