312 CHAPTER EigHT ■ War and Strife
then, the politics of NATO expansion highlight the nonmaterial bases of interstate rela-
tions between the successor states of the former Soviet Union and the former Warsaw
Pact member states.
In sum: a changing view of International security
Traditionally, international security has meant states’ security and the defense of states’
territorial integrity from external threats or attack by other states. This was because
only states could master the technology of mass killing; as a result, interstate war proved
the most intense (in terms of deaths- per- unit- of- time) threat to life and property. Over
time, this definition has broadened to include intrastate conflicts as well. In both situ-
ations, conflicts arise not only over control of territory but also over control of govern-
ment and ideas. Although major interstate wars, such as the last century’s two world
wars, concentrate destruction in time, intrastate vio lence has resulted in just as much
or even more destruction. It has become progressively less likely that the destruction
civil wars cause can be contained within their states of origin. Instead, now more than
any time in world history, civil conflicts may involve regional and international actors.
This idea has been the major focus of this chapter.
But a new trend is occurring: the outsourcing of security from nationals in uni-
form to private security firms and robots.^35 Companies with such deliberately obscure
names as Blackwater (currently known as Academi, but now a part of Constellis Hold-
ings), Sandline International, BDM, COFR AS, and Southern Cross are new actors in
security. G4S based in London is one of the largest, operating in 120 countries and
having more than 620,000 employees. These contracted private companies perform
diverse tasks: servicing military airplanes and ships, providing food for armies, de-
mining, protecting high- profile officials and their families, guarding and interrogat-
ing prisoners of war, training troops, and sometimes carry ing out low- intensity military
operations on a client’s behalf. Their “soldier” employees— the mercenaries of the
twenty- first century— come from all over the world, from the Ukraine to Fiji, Australia
to Chile and South Africa. Many are former government military personnel. They serve
in locations from Sierra Leone to Sri Lanka, from Bosnia to the Demo cratic Republic of
Congo, from Iraq to Af ghan i stan to South Sudan and Kenya.
The use of semi- intelligent or guided robots in war, as in the case of drones (previ-
ously discussed), is another form of “outsourcing” that offers a similar benefit to private-
security contracting: casualties will not be human beings who are representing the
state as nationals.
Today, the logistical, legal, and ethical prob lems emerging from each type of out-
sourcing remain unclear. Are private contractors merely mercenaries acting out of pecu-