Hacker News Reader

Comment by walleeee | Hacker News Reader

> Might we see the nation-state get replaced by a web of competing mercenaries, each of which effectively serves as a protection racket for their customers?

How do you envision the deprecation of the nuclear-armed nation state unfolding? The USSR had a unipolar world outside to stabilize and manage its disintegration. How is this accomplished in a multipolar context, with tensions inflamed by intensifying scarcity, competition, environmental instability, etc?

Serious questions, not a derogatory comment

View on HN

I'm not too worried about loose nukes or nuclear terrorism. Every major nuclear power other than China incorporates PALs [1] into the design of their nuclear weapons. Without a centrally generated & authenticated code, they don't function. The PAL is designed such that disabling it requires dismantling the nuclear weapon, which means you need to have the know-how to build nukes in the first place to re-enable it.

This, incidentally, is why Ukraine gave Russia back its nukes after the fall of the Soviet Union. Without the codes in Moscow's possession they were just radioactive waste.

I do expect a number of smaller conventional conflicts to break out in the transition, because that's what always happens when a hegemon loses its monopoly on physical force. It's going to be a bloody few decades, but not the end of humanity.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link

A PAL system can be just a combination lock. The people who gain access to the weapons themselves might also gain access to the codes and components necessary to arm them.

Who's to say there is a pot of gold at the end of those bloody few decades, with the climate crisis ramping up and natural resources dwindling. We certainly willed the prosperity after the Second World War into existence, by getting better at cannibalizing our natural resources, unsustainably. I would expect the cannibalization of what's left to continue, with pockets of the world doing better for a while, the rest doing worst. I would also expect these pockets to increasingly not be able to share the benefits of innovation with the rest of the world.

Given that Chernobyl is located inside the Ukrainian border, “its nuclear waste” doesn’t seem like that good of an argument as to why they should have gotten rid of them, given recent events.

I would imagine that this would first manifest itself in smaller countries. For example Mali employs the Wagner group out of Russia as a supplement for its Army. And I believe they are used by other countries as well.

I don't see nuclear-armed nations using private companies, but possibly being the source of troops and technology. Really I don't see U.S. citizens joining mercenary groups, quality of life is too good. I would imagine 2nd world nations like Russia, Iraq being the main source of these troops, backed by cheap advanced armaments from China.

> I don't see nuclear-armed nations using private companies

Russia is using Wagner Group in Ukraine. Does that count as a private company?

Sure it does. The Russian government is paying Wagner members and leadership on a contract basis.

Is your argument is the fact that Wagner operations seem to be closely tied to the whims and wishes of the Russian government? Thats true for all Russian companies. Gazprom is exactly the same.

USA are pretty good at using private firms for the contract work outside of their borders.

The USA has nukes and employs military contractors.

Yep, Wagner is basically the Blackwater of Russia. We taught them well.

US mercenaries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_(company)

One issue with mercenaries is that they're not subject to military laws and will be hang if captured. Like it happens with few american citizens captured in Ukraine by DNR.

Better known as "private security firms". High risk. Great pay. Two-fingers up to the volunteers \ vets.

> Like it happens with few american citizens captured in Ukraine by DNR.

The American and UK citizens captured by Russia and it's proxies have been regular Ukrainian soldiers subject to military law and protected by the Geneva Convention, but that doesn't matter because Russia and their proxies are ignoring international law (and not just where it comes to treatment of prisoners.)

I always assumed the mercenaries were mixed with volunteers into Ukraine's foreign legion.

It's not just the multipolarity you have to consider. I actually think that's fairly resolvable for something like loose nukes as basically every stable power has an interest in catch-alls for such things.

But the U.S. the EU and China are all facing internal shifts in thinking about how they relate to the rest of the world. And that's a true wildcard.

Those swings, coupled with multipolarity create a very dynamic system that I think is impossible to predict. When a country may stick its thumb in the eye of international treaty simply because it satisfies a belligerent domestic constituency and that alienates a relatively equal strength power, that's a very volatile situation.

there's no reason that things need to unfold such that a nuclear armed state exists one day and then doesn't the next.

It could easily evolve from regulatory capture, increased influence of large corporations in governance, capture of public discourse by corporate sponsored narratives, and eventual de-facto private control of government. You'd end up with a nation with a nuclear force exists on paper but in fact the corporate interests were in control of that entity.

In fact, of the preceding 5 conditions I would say 4 are already either done or in progress.

Which condition do you figure is the weakest link?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com