Amazon.com Widgets

Should mercenaries be considered necessary as means of solving conflicts in the 21st century?

  • I believe they should because they can fight battles that we are not directly involved in.

    For example, Syria. The whole event in Syria did not directly affect us but we wanted to help without endangering our own troops. Or ISIS. We use air strikes but no military personnel because we don't want to lose any men. With mercenaries, they would fight for us and it wouldn't kill any of our forces

  • Mercenaries mitigate the need for conscription due to the fact that they are much more useful than someone fighting just because someone else said so.

    Mercenaries are usually ex-military who want to make more cash. For 200,000 a year they are more than motivated to work for their wage. They are usually better equipped to handle harsher situations and are built just as strong as their military counterparts, if not stronger in most cases. They are able to pick up the slack when the military needs it and also wage war where the military can't. Why wouldn't we use them?

  • Mercenaries mitigate the need for conscription due to the fact that they are much more useful than someone fighting just because someone else said so.

    Mercenaries are usually ex-military who want to make more cash. For 200,000 a year, they are more than motivated to work for their wage. They are usually better equipped to handle harsher situations and are built just as strong as their military counterparts if not stronger in most cases. They are able to pick up the slack when the military needs it and also wage war where the military can't. Why wouldn't we use them?

  • Contract soldiers know what they are getting in to, so if a nation wants to hire them, they should be able to.

    Countries already use mercenaries, or what amounts to mercenaries. Companies like Blackwater are contractors that are armed and in foreign conflict. Sometimes, private forces are better equipped and trained, so they can be more capable of handling difficult situations.

    Posted by: SpikyKenneth
  • The use of mercenaries in the past have been essential for the preservation of freedom, and their need is ever more essential today.

    Taking a look at 20th century history, you see that mercenaries fought fascists in Spain, Japanese aggression in China, and communist expansion all over the globe. It was only after the addition of communist Russia and China that the U.N. outlawed the use of mercenaries, despite their own use of troops from satellite states in African and South American conflicts. In fact, today we still face socialist and communist revolutionaries, Islamic fascists, and narco-terrorists around the globe, and America can't afford to police the world like we used to.

    Posted by: AutomaticKenny
  • Although mercenaries are problematic, they are volunteers, and preferable to drafting unwilling people.

    Even when a cause is just, such as preventing genocide, the countries with the most resources to fight may also have a lack of young men and women willing to risk death to prevent it. Permitting mercenaries allows an individual who is willing to fight, but whose country lacks the resources to intervene, to take part in a just war.

    Posted by: MaliciousShirley34
  • I think, in certain situations, the use of mercenaries is probably necessary, due to the limited resources that a country might have access to.

    Some countries do not have the military resources needed to protect their citizens or assets. Also, if the military is not given permission to run certain types of ops, other means are needed to assure that a job gets completed. We cannot always follow the rules when it comes to military conflicts. Sometimes, we have to think outside of the box, and use what we have available. One concern I do have is that mercenaries are funded by large amounts of money, so, are they going to go with the highest bidder every time, regardless of the stakes?

    Posted by: R04chIsi
  • Yes, because in some cases it releases the government from having to send troops.

    Mercenaries serve the useful purpose of doing dirty, but necessary work that our and other governments would prefer not getting involved in. If we can avoid sending in our troops to face possible death, injury, capture, or even torture in certain far off nations, why not discretely use mercenaries willing to risk their lives for a paycheck?

    Posted by: NettN355
  • Mercenaries are a main tool of the military.

    Mercenaries are used for the things that the military can't do. There are some jobs that require the special touch that our soldiers don't have clearance for. And war is in embedded in our DNA, that's how we control world population. And as a solider said from WWII said, "So long as there is man, there is war."

  • yes

    these men are seen as easily disposable so why shopuld we send sons of america that have no disire to go to war when we can pay these brave souls to do it

  • Mercenaries have never done anything right

    There have been many mercenary groups throughout history, most notably the Clone Army, and we all know how that turned out. If we rely on them then they are going to kill us all and probably kill 30 children like Anakin Skywalker. If we worry about them killing everyone then we should just not let any mercenaries come.

  • Mercenaries have never done anything right

    There have been many mercenary groups throughout history, most notably the Clone Army, and we all know how that turned out. If we rely on them then they are going to kill us all and probably kill 30 children like Anakin Skywalker. If we worry about them killing everyone then we should just not let any mercenaries come.

  • No, they shouldn't be

    One would like to hope that in the 21st century we've evolved past a bunch of roaming hired guns willing to cast morals aside and do what they have to do for a paycheck. That isn't always the case, as we've seen, but if we're ever going to function as a global community we need to be able to resolve conflicts without such.

  • The use of mercenaries is not a means of resolving legitimate conflicts, and their use enables countries with standing armies to pursue illegal strategies, while avoiding official blame for them.

    Mercenaries are not a proper means for resolving legitimate conflicts between nations. A nation with the means to hire mercenaries could use those same funds to raise legitimate troops for their standing army. The only motivation for such nations to use mercenaries is the desire to avoid public condemnation for actions that would be clearly illegal if performed in an official capacity by troops of the nation in question.

    Posted by: SlashRoss
  • Mercenaries should not be considered as a means of solving conflicts in the 21st century, because a standing army has more of a vested interest in the outcome.

    Mercenaries should not be considered as a means of solving conflicts in the 21st century. The United States of America maintains a standing Army (Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard and National Guard), and conflict resolution is their job. A standing army has a vested interest in the outcome, and is more loyal to our interests.

    Posted by: jackprague94
  • Hired guns are never a good solution.

    When people go into a conflict with a vested interest that involves their freedom, the safety of their family, their own security, or other principles of self preservation then they go in with a much better foundation to fight for the right reasons. Those who go into armed conflict with their sole vested interest being a paycheck are much more likely to exceed in cruelty and criminality any other soldier or civilian in the conflict.

    Posted by: MariaR
  • Mercenaries should not be used because it makes waging war too easy, too clean, and too pain-free for the citizens of wealthier countries.

    Most democratic countries hate going to war. Going to war means sending their young citizens out to kill or be killed. It is a messy, unpleasant activity that our leaders must avoid unless there is a serious threat to the safety of their people -- or they risk being rejected as leaders.

    The use of mercenaries in place of "citizen soldiers" by industrialized and/or democratic nations would have two effects.

    First, the use of mercenaries means that the wealthier a nation is, the more mercenaries it can hire, and so the more likely it is that they will "win" whatever military conflict is in play. This stacks the deck heavily on the side of the wealthy nations -- AND on the side of totalitarian nations whose leaders are willing to plunder their country and drain it of its resources and wealth in order to win conflicts.

    The second reason is perhaps even more important, although it may seem a somewhat brutal viewpoint at first glance. War SHOULD be hard on the citizens. If people view war as something being fought "out there" by mercenaries, and all they need to do is pay higher taxes, where is the disincentive to start wars? There is none.

    Posted by: CI3Iike
  • Mercenaries in the military is more regressive than progressive.

    Mercenaries should be a thing of the past. They were hired centuries ago to help in conflicts, but today there is no justification for developed nations to be hiring killers. The hiring of mercenaries does nothing more than promote the "war" culture.

    Posted by: RayEar
  • Mercenaries are destructive and I prefer more constructive means for resolving conflicts.

    Conflicts can only be resolved through proper discussions. In today's world, politics and economics play important roles and most issues arise due to differences in these two fields. Peaceful negotiations, rather than employment of mercenaries would be a preferable way to resolve conflicts. After all the trouble the world has gone through to establish peace, we do not need mercenaries.

    Posted by: SumoRoge
  • Mercenaries should not be depended on as a means of solving conflicts in the 21st century.

    While the use of mercenaries can be effective in certain situations, one only needs to look at the overall goals of a mercenary versus a soldier. A mercenary ultimately is out to make a buck, so self-preservation is key. On the other hand, a soldier is out to serve his country, even at the cost of his own life. This key difference in goals is why mercenaries should be depended on for solving conflicts. It leads to more trouble than its worth. We only have to look at our American history to see how much success the British had in using Hessian mercenaries during the Revolutionary War. Instead, we should look at creating a hybrid special forces that is in between a regular soldier and Delta Forces caliber. This hybrid force would be more effective in combating the unique challenges of 21st century conflict.

    Posted by: elizabeths

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.