> into precise violent force without the need for some significant portion of the population tacitly approving by participating This has existed for years in t

> into precise violent force without the need for some significant portion of the population tacitly approving by participating This has existed for years in the form of "foreign legions". Arguably French foreign policy in Africa would have been quite different without the FFL. > Fifty years ago you could convert cash into indiscriminate violence with bombing campaigns, you still needed the people if you wanted to invade instead of just destroying None of these developments in "intelligent" weapons has moved beyond the "destroy" category. You still need boots on the ground to have any hope of building personal relationships in counterinsurgency and "nationbuilding". > corporations sitting on cash could wage war on each other or other nations We have already seen non-state entities wage "war" on other countries. It hasn't changed the fundamentals of international relations. Either (a) the "host" country condones the actions, at which point the actions are an act of war against the victim, or (b) the "host" cooperates in taking action against the non-state actor, or (c) the "host" is so weak that the non-state entity is the de facto "state". I don't see a realistic case where this behavior spreads beyond the very weak "states" in which it has already happened - functional states will not surrender their sovereignty to companies.