After land, sea, air and space, warfare had entered the fifth domain: cyberspace. Cyberspace is arguably the most dangerous of all warfares because of the amount of damage that can be done, whilst remaining completely immobile and anonymous.

In a new book Richard Clarke, a former White House staffer in charge of counter-terrorism and cyber-security, envisages a catastrophic breakdown within 15 minutes. Computer bugs bring down military e-mail systems; oil refineries and pipelines explode; air-traffic-control systems collapse; freight and metro trains derail; financial data are scrambled; the electrical grid goes down in the eastern United States; orbiting satellites spin out of control. Society soon breaks down as food becomes scarce and money runs out. Worst of all, the identity of the attacker may remain a mystery. Other dangers are coming: weakly governed swathes of Africa are being connected up to fibre-optic cables, potentially creating new havens for cyber-criminals and the spread of mobile internet will bring new means of attack.

The internet was designed for convenience and reliability, not security. Yet in wiring together the globe, it has merged the garden and the wilderness. No passport is required in cyberspace. And although police are constrained by national borders, criminals roam freely. Enemy states are no longer on the other side of the ocean, but just behind the firewall. The ill-intentioned can mask their identity and location, impersonate others and con their way into the buildings that hold the digitised wealth of the electronic age: money, personal data and intellectual property.

Deterrence in cyber-warfare is more uncertain than, say, in nuclear strategy: there is no mutually assured destruction, the dividing line between criminality and war is blurred and identifying attacking computers, let alone the fingers on the keyboards, is difficult. Retaliation need not be confined to cyberspace; the one system that is certainly not linked to the public internet is America’s nuclear firing chain.

Although for now, cyber warfare has not spiralled out of control, it is only a matter of time, before cyber warfare becomes the most prominent type of attack, and the most deadly because of its scope and anonymity.

*All of my opinions in this blog post were formed through the watching of “The Shadow Company” film, and the Skype call with Allen Bell. All the ideas are also extracted from these two sources, so I apologize if I do not directly mention them at certain points.

Private security in my opinion, is moral and ethical when it is used by the right people. These instances include the protection of People, Places and Things (as Allen bell calls it, ‘nouns’), for the greater good of the community, or by a justified international organization such as the U.N.  It is however unjustified when used in bad intention.

Allen Bell, the CEO of Global Risk presented an enlightening point of view which I feel many people don’t get the chance to witness.  When most people think of private security companies, it seems unethical because of the conclusion they draw from it. It is almost always shed in a violent, abusive light, in which private security companies are cause of death and destruction. In reality, this is often times not the case. Bell elaborated on a project that his company was a part of, in which his company was hired to protect the Dalha Dam in Afghanistan. To date, there have been no casualties on site throughout the duration of this project. This proves that Private security companies can also be beneficial in more than just an arms and weapons way, making it more ethical than it is thought to be. ‘The Shadow Company’ is also a great resource for thoroughly outlining the traditional perspective of private security companies, and unraveling what these companies actually do and why they do so.

Building off this, Private security companies are also highly beneficial to governments in several ways. They provide risk and security management in times of crises, additional military support, and enhanced security and protection. Another way these companies benefit governments, is that as mentioned in “The Shadow Company”, these mercenaries that can be hired through these companies represent no country, meaning that if I were to pass away, it would not be a massive uproar in the home country. Bell specifically brought up the instance of the Ottawa shootings, in which the deceased soldier was mourned for through a massive parade, where as numerous mercenaries who have passed away have not had the same influence. This is a good thing for governments as they are less liable in that sense. Additionally, because these mercenaries are so highly paid, as mentioned in the film, they are more loyal and better equipped for combat.

Adding to the points of not fighting under a particular flag and being highly specialized, this aids international organizations that find it essential to remain synchronized. For example, during the Rwandan Genocide crisis, the U.N sent in Belgian troops which caused a lot of tension in Rwanda because of the divide the Belgians had previously created between the Hutus and the Tutsis, escalating the issue further. If the U.N had chosen to send in a more neutral military support, it would have been more beneficial for the situation. If international organizations were to employ these private security companies, they would be able to create a more neutral foreground when coming into high-tension situations, and no particular country would feel obliged to ‘sacrifice’ troops in combat. Also this way, civilians do not feel like they are being intruded by a certain country or culture, as well as better overall military support.

This transitions into my last point that private security companies reduce the likelihood of self interest. Especially pertaining to international organizations, in many instances of UN humanitarian aid missions around the world, there has been great interference from personal interest, that have been detrimental to certain missions. With the use of private security councils, there would be no reason to not aid a situation that calls for attention. It automatically reduces the tension and debate over who will send how many troops to either protect or serve, creating a more efficient process of protection.

All in all, Private security companies are often seen for their violent side, but do not consider the benefits that Private security companies can actually reap. When used by the right people, such as government or international organizations, Private security companies can not only help with crisis management and military support, but they also protect expensive projects, reduce the likelihood of self interest and so on. Therefore it can be concluded that Private security companies can in fact be justified, moral and ethical.