Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Swiss Guards at the Vatican popped in my mind.

 Jihadin wrote:
Swiss Guards at the Vatican popped in my mind.

I think that's more an honor detail then an actual mercenary thing, but I'm just guessing.

Started off as a mercenary thing and went to a Honor Detail I'm thinking.

flamingkillamajig wrote:Perhaps this is a dumb thing to think about but i think it should be considered to an extent. The U.S. has a presence all over the globe and bases around it already, we have the most high tech army on earth to my knowledge and we have a huge amount of debt we need to pay off.

I mean currently the way i see it is having so much of a military without getting anything out of it is a gigantic waste and it doesn't help the U.S. is in debt. So if a country that we are either neutral with or on good terms with needs military help and it serves their interests (but not really the U.S.'s interests though not against the U.S.'s interests) and we happen to be nearby we could help them out for a fee. Kind of like the U.S. loans out parts of its army for a rate decided on how costly the equipment used is or certain hazard pay. A lot of nations have plenty of money but lack a large enough military in case something came around to bite them in the *ss or if it needs help against criminals or terrorists to keep the peace.

The general idea is kind of like mercenaries except from a country with certain guidelines.

I might think up another few possibilities. I'm sure huge chunks of the world lack the military technology or resources to maintain or use this stuff themselves so i can see how they might want to have an army out of nowhere when they need it most.

Anyway if this idea is stupid then tell me but i think it's a decent general idea that could be broadened out a bit.

This idea is very stupid.

Here's why:
1. The US isn't even remotely in debt the way you think it is.
2. The US military's oath of service does not cover foreign nations.
3. The US military would quickly run out of volunteers due to the nature of the job.
4. The military is a resource that needs to be kept on hand and available, not stretched thin and expended. If the US started allocating its defense resources to other countries, then it would leave itself vulnerable where its own interests are concerned.
5. Does the US really need to make even more enemies? Particularly for being the strong arm of foreign affairs they're otherwise not even involved in?
6. What happens when a neutral country uses US troops to attack a country the US is friendly with? Or even a country that is not allied with the US, but it allied with a country the US is allied with? You create a snarl of political ties akin to the pre-WWI conditions.
7. If a country has enough money to hire foreign mercenaries, then it has enough money to fund its own army, unless you assume that the foreign mercenaries are cheaper than the homegrown soldiers. In effect, turning the US army into the outsourced migrant workers of the military-industrial complex. Which is a crazypants idea considering the US pays more for each of its soldiers than any other nation on the planet. In other words, it would cost every nation far more to rent the US army than their own.
8. Pretty sure the US constitution says "oh Hells no" to this idea.
9. Almost positive the UN Convention on Mercenaries says "oh Hell no", and while I do not think the US ever signed off on the agreement, just about every country you're probably thinking would make use of the rent-a-army service did, so there goes your market.
10. Seriously, you think the American public would stand to see their soldiers -their families- sent to die for some other country for no reason they could understand? Good luck with that.

 Ouze wrote:

 sebster wrote:
despite mercenaries being common in history, there's never been an instance of a government renting troops out to a foreign power.

Not to be a pendatic jerk, but technically... the Swiss used to do it, yes?

Yes, and not only for the Holy See. Swiss Guards were the go-to bodyguards for European courts, as they were considered very loyal and professionnal. At the Tuileries, they fought on nearly to the last man despite their position being absolutely impossible.

Also, possibly, the Légion Étrangère could fit the bill. The initial purpose of the Légion was to organize a sort of 'institution of exile' for the undesirable of Europe, and the troops were composed of foreign nationals under French officers.

Hell... fething... no.

I agree with what Azazel said.

And THAT didn't even hurt one bit.

 azazel the cat wrote:

This idea is very stupid.

Here's why:
1. The US isn't even remotely in debt the way you think it is.
2. The US military's oath of service does not cover foreign nations.
3. The US military would quickly run out of volunteers due to the nature of the job.
4. The military is a resource that needs to be kept on hand and available, not stretched thin and expended. If the US started allocating its defense resources to other countries, then it would leave itself vulnerable where its own interests are concerned.
5. Does the US really need to make even more enemies? Particularly for being the strong arm of foreign affairs they're otherwise not even involved in?
6. What happens when a neutral country uses US troops to attack a country the US is friendly with? Or even a country that is not allied with the US, but it allied with a country the US is allied with? You create a snarl of political ties akin to the pre-WWI conditions.
7. If a country has enough money to hire foreign mercenaries, then it has enough money to fund its own army, unless you assume that the foreign mercenaries are cheaper than the homegrown soldiers. In effect, turning the US army into the outsourced migrant workers of the military-industrial complex. Which is a crazypants idea considering the US pays more for each of its soldiers than any other nation on the planet. In other words, it would cost every nation far more to rent the US army than their own.
8. Pretty sure the US constitution says "oh Hells no" to this idea.
9. Almost positive the UN Convention on Mercenaries says "oh Hell no", and while I do not think the US ever signed off on the agreement, just about every country you're probably thinking would make use of the rent-a-army service did, so there goes your market.
10. Seriously, you think the American public would stand to see their soldiers -their families- sent to die for some other country for no reason they could understand? Good luck with that.

Number 3 is the only one I disagree with. About 30 000 Canadians volunteered to fight in the Vietnam war. Some people are just drawn to the idea of fighting in a warzone, regardless of the flag or ideals they are fighting under. I'm sure even today there would be no lack of people volunteering for a quick, profitable tour, as long as its not obvious that they are fighting a losing war.

This is a horrible idea, I'm not even going to start listing the reasons because one would think they're obvious enough - but apparently not because this thread exists in the first place.

Sickening.

1. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;(b) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and(e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation: (a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at: (i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.
— UN Mercenary Convention[

The idea of being captured by another foreign power while your in "Mercenary Mode" will be quite a eye opening experience. Saying your a US citizen is not going to save you

I remember a few on here who mention being in the first Gulf War. After the conflict ended Kuwait was willing to pay each soldier/marine/sailor/airman a thousand dollar each. Colin Powell said "NO" before Bush Sr did. We are not mercenaries while serving either active duty or active reserve/guard duty. What you do after your commitment of eight years is over is not my concern.

 azazel the cat wrote:

7. If a country has enough money to hire foreign mercenaries, then it has enough money to fund its own army, unless you assume that the foreign mercenaries are cheaper than the homegrown soldiers. In effect, turning the US army into the outsourced migrant workers of the military-industrial complex. Which is a crazypants idea considering the US pays more for each of its soldiers than any other nation on the planet. In other words, it would cost every nation far more to rent the US army than their own.

I'm surprised by that point, I always heard that the US army was (on average) quite low paid when compared with nations like Canada and Australia? Admittedly that was all second hand griping and just chatting and what not that I was hearing, so probably not the greatest source

Google "pay chart, US Military, 2012" Look for base pay. Once there. The left side as you look at the chart is the rank. Top of the chart going left to right is "Time in Grade" which is years in service.

Az is talking about the equipment we use. IE Body Armor, weapon plus attachments, training, and everything else to keep a soldier alive

The other thing I was just thinking of was that the US does attract a price for the use of its armed forces, but that price (future loyalty, stable region for US businesses) is a hell of a lot more valuable than any cheque could be.

 Ouze wrote:
Not to be a pendatic jerk, but technically... the Swiss used to do it, yes?

I believe that Swiss authorities would hire out their forces yeah. It was me vaguely thinking of that which led me to put 'almost never'

I think the germans did it for the british during the revolutionary war (german hessian mercenaries). I remember hearing in history class it was a common misconception that british soldiers mostly fought for the loyalists in that war as they would not fight their own citizens.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
I think the germans did it for the british during the revolutionary war (german hessian mercenaries).

Looked it up and right you are. I always thought they were private citizens. Thanks for that.

I remember hearing in history class it was a common misconception that british soldiers mostly fought for the loyalists in that war as they would not fight their own citizens.

What?

 sebster wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
I think the germans did it for the british during the revolutionary war (german hessian mercenaries).

Looked it up and right you are. I always thought they were private citizens. Thanks for that.

I remember hearing in history class it was a common misconception that british soldiers mostly fought for the loyalists in that war as they would not fight their own citizens.

What?

Supposedly most of those redcoats vs. yankees that you see in films is mostly bull sh*t and the revolutionary war was in many ways a civil war i'm pretty sure. Hessians were hired help. I remember hearing british soldiers didn't want to fight colonists because they were still sort of considered british citizens. I mean an american soldier shooting down american citizens even if they were trying to fight them would be hard to think of. Then there's that statistic which states that most fresh recruits purposely miss a target because they don't want to kill somebody. Something like about 75% of people shoot off into the wild blue yonder or act like they're doing something because they can't bear to take a human life. Add to that rebels often would look just like citizens and Bam! they can't stand killing them.

So yeah i think supposedly the hessians fought a lot of the revolutionary war in america. Of course the colonists saw the use of hessians as a treacherous act by the british and hated them even more for it.

Well, I'm not a history expert, but my understanding is that in the revolutionary war, damn near as many Americans wanted to stay British as didn't.

Because we aren't Prussia. They were mercenaries like that. Do you know what their culture led to? We've already worked hard to abolish that sort of militaristic mindset in the countries we've occupied.

I think the OP has been playing Xcom again

I dread the GPS guided missile when I go after the LRG UFO's. Like I really dread encountering a guy with an RPG that knows what he is doing