Sci-Fi Author Joe Haldeman On the Future of War 241
merbs writes: Joe Haldeman wrote what is hailed by many as the best military science fiction novel ever written, 1974's The Forever War. In this interview, Haldeman discusses what's changed since he wrote his book, what hasn't, and what the future of war will really look like. Vice reports: "...The Vietnam War may have ended decades ago, but our military adventuring hasn’t. Our moment can somehow feel simultaneously like a crossroads for the technological future of combat and another arbitrary point on its dully predictable, incessantly conflict-laden trajectory. We’re relying more on drones and proxy soldiers to fight our far-off wars, in theaters far from the conscionable grasp of homelands, we’re automating robotics for the battlefield, and we’re moving our tactics online—so it seems like an opportune time to check in with science fiction’s most prescient author of military fiction."
I've always said (Score:5, Interesting)
It sounds crass and nasty. But if we have manned engines of war fighting other unmanned enginnes of war, there is no point.
Because everyone else will catch up. It won't always be unmanned on people, all will eventually have dronish devices.
Be cheaper to run simulations and the best one wins.
Re: I've always said (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: I've always said (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Saudi is sucking up, and driving down oil prices to reboot? the US economy, and delay 'we cant pay and your loans are trashed' situation where US companies MUST declare non performing loans as Kaput.
The Saudis are forcing OPEC to keep producing oil because they have the cash reserves to operate at a loss for a good while and are trying to drive the US oil producers-who rely on fracking-out of business. The problem with that strategy is that fracking is becoming more efficient, which lowers the break-even point. Basically the Saudis are playing the long game in order to try and shore up their monopoly status.
Re: (Score:3)
That's 2007 thinking, and likely incorrect.
1 - The Saudis have already lost the battle to preven
Re:I've always said (Score:5, Funny)
Giant robots fighting giant robots is its own reward.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a movie poster of it hanging in my video room. I have it for the same reason that one of the senior execs at Cadillac has a picture of the Cimmaron hanging in his office, lest we forget...
Re: (Score:2)
Well Said :-)
Re: (Score:2)
With deference to TWX above, I think you mean "giant robots punching giant aliens is its own reward".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
War is not about killing people
The fact that we had daily body counts in Vietnam kinda argues against that.
Plus you seem to be arguing that humans don't enjoy killing each other? It's what we do best.
Re:I've always said (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that we had daily body counts in Vietnam kinda argues against that.
No, that just shows that journalists needed something to talk about. Regularly reported body counts weren't driven by the military, they were ordered by politicians pandering to the media.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that we had daily body counts in Vietnam kinda argues against that.
No, that just shows that journalists needed something to talk about. Regularly reported body counts weren't driven by the military, they were ordered by politicians pandering to the media.
Hard to argue when you use the same points I would use to prove my point. Your thesis is that Americans didn't want those body counts, and they were forced upon us?
I was pretty young at the time, but a lot of people I talked to at the time could recite the body counts at will, and took them as proof we were "putting it to those "gooks"". Sorry, some of the folks down at the legion talked that way.
Hell, we even baited the VC by taking an area killing off a whole bunch, then moving off to let them come
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus you seem to be arguing that humans don't enjoy killing each other? It's what we do best.
Uh, no, it's not. I don't believe there's any other predator that can live with so little violence with the kind of population densities humans manage in our cities. That's why we took over the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus you seem to be arguing that humans don't enjoy killing each other? It's what we do best.
Uh, no, it's not. I don't believe there's any other predator that can live with so little violence with the kind of population densities humans manage in our cities. That's why we took over the planet.
Did you see my list of American wars of the 20th century?
Re: (Score:3)
Plus you seem to be arguing that humans don't enjoy killing each other? It's what we do best.
A world population that has doubled in my lifetime says there must be at least one thing we do better.
Did you see my list of American wars of the 20th century?
List away. The percentage of human deaths which were a result of violence was lower in the 20th century than in any century prior.
Re: I've always said (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I talked to a Viet Nam vet about this and he laughed at me. He claimed the round made a real mess of anyone it hit.
Re: (Score:2)
The classic criticism of the M16 is that while it is accurate at long range, light and handy but the bullies will not kill somebody hiding in thicket for example or behind a brick wall because they won't penetrate bodies of wood or brick walls that the big brutal AK47 round will simply smash through. You can equip the M16 with a high tech armour piercing bullet that will perform as well in terms of penetration as the bog standard AK47 round but then you can equip the AK with a similar round and it will still outperform the M16 in terms of penetration.
If you read the book Black Hawk Down, they note instances where a target would be shot multiple times in the torso, but because the soldiers were issued rounds designed to penetrate body armor the rounds would pass right through the target. If they missed major organs the Somalis (a lot of whom were high on khat) were able to keep on fighting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the M16, that was with the M4, which has a shorter barrel and therefore the bullet exits the barrel at a lower velocity. This leads to less of the tumbling effect upon entering a body which was exhibited by the round used in the M16 and M16A1. Further, the M16A2 and beyond uses a heavier bullet that also doesn't exhibit as much of the tumbling effect.
The Battle of Mogadishu was in 1993. The M4 wasn't adopted by the US military until 1994. The Delta Force members there, along with the SEALs, may have been armed with M4 prototypes but more probably with carbine versions of the M-16A2. But the Rangers and other support personnel present at the battle were most certainly armed with M-16s, not M-4s.
Re: (Score:3)
This leads to less of the tumbling effect upon entering a body which was exhibited by the round used in the M16 and M16A1.
Arrgh. All bullets tumble on impact, doing a 180 flip. This is why, barring fragmentation or expansion of the bullet or spalling fragments from striking a bone, a long, narrow bullet has a larger permanent wound cavity than a short, fat one. COL Martin Fackler's research at the Wound Ballistics Laboratory of the Letterman Army Institute of Research has demonstrated this clearly.
Re: (Score:3)
The much vaunted tumbling effect of the M16 is for the old round and does not necessarily apply to the newer loads (e.g., the SS109). Also, the tumbling isn't that big of a deal (though it does broaden the wound path slightly), but the original round had a thin canelure which resulted in it breaking during the tumble due to stresses and the fragments enabled creation of a larger permanent wound cavity.
However, the tumbling requires some feet of penetration to occur, it doesn't tip on its side as soon as it
.223 calibre highly lethal (Score:3, Informative)
That's why the M-16 was invented. It isn't powerful enough to kill. It is a 22 caliber. The rifles at the time didn't cause enough suffering.
The M-16 was *more* lethal than the .30 calibre rifles that preceded it, M-14, M1 Garand. Although .223 calibre don't make the mistake of thinking its anything like the .22LR you may have plinked at soda cans with. Its a high velocity round, much faster than it's predecessor's .30 calibre rounds. So that gets it closer with respect to energy delivered to target. However the admittedly cruel thing that makes the .223 deadlier is that it is less stable than its .30 calibre predecessors. It doesn't drill a cle
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of the M-16 was to increase the number of rounds that a solider could carry. It wa
Re: (Score:2)
Nixon committed a war crime in 1969 when he made it the standard rifle for the U.S. Army. He should have been put in prison for that.
war is not a criminal act as such that is not a reason to put him in jail but as we are talking about Nixon there are plenty of others.
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of people have been put in jail and hanged for war. Starting a war is a crime against the peace. More people go unpunished than punished, but it's still a crime.
Re: I've always said (Score:4, Informative)
Nixon committed a war crime in 1969 when he made it the standard rifle for the U.S. Army. He should have been put in prison for that.
The weapon first entered service in 1963 in Vietnam. You should be blaming McNamara, in Kennedy's administration, who ramrodded the damned thing through before it was properly field-ready. There were a number of issues - lack of chromed barrel, change in powder type, no cleaning kits, etc - which decreased it's efficiency and reliability in the field. It was in those early years between 1963 and 1969 that the most issues were reported.
By 1967, the weapon was significantly improved with the M16A1 variant, and by 1969, when the weapon was standardized, it was a good, reliable weapon, according to field reports. Because of earlier problems, though, a lot of servicemen continued to be wary of the weapon.
You can blame Nixon for a lot of things, but the M-16 debacle wasn't one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
The point of war without killing people is identical to the point of war with killing people. You are pitting the industrial might and resources of 1 side vs another. If people aren't dying it just means that resource is no longer critical to the outcome (at least not directly).
That said any symmetrical war will result in the killing of people on both sides as an objective. Kill the people and they won't be building or controlling the drones.
Re: (Score:2)
The point of war without killing people is identical to the point of war with killing people.
Do not agree at all. While there are different "reasons" given all the time, the unassailble fact that humanity is in everlasting war means either we are doing what we like to do (my thesis) or we are the very definition of masochists, forever drawn to something we hate to do.
I'm certain that once we achieve symmetry to the point of machines killing machines, we'll quickly figure out a new reason and way to kill each other.
Re: (Score:2)
"war is what happens when two bad leaders can't get past their differences and reach a compromise they drag their populations into their petty personal spat"
I take it that you're not a historian?
Re:I've always said (Score:5, Informative)
the unassailble fact that humanity is in everlasting war
sophomoric drivel
Really Okay first thing you have to do is prove that war is a rare punctuation of the normal condition, peace and harmony. Then prove we don't like it.
war is not an ongoing process
SRSLY? Here's a listing of US wars just the 20th century: Some overlap due to turn of century..
Yaqui war - 1896-1918
Phillipine-American War - 1899-1902
Moro rebellian - 1899 - 1913
Boxer Rebellion - 1899 - 1901
Crazy Snake - 1909
Mexican border war - 1910 - 1919
Bannana War Negro Rebellion - 1912
Nicaraaugua occupation - 1912 - 1933
Bluff War - 1914 - 1915
Bananna War Haiti occupation - 1915 - 1934
Bananna War Sugar - 1916 - 1918
Dominican Republic occupation - 1916 - 1924
World War 1 - 1917 1918
Russian Civil War - 1918 - 1920
Samsum Turkey - 1922
Posey War - 1923
World War 2 - 1941 - 1945
Korean War - 1950 - 1953
Lebanon - 1958
Bay of Pigs 1961
Dominican Civil War 1965 - 1966
Vietnam War 1965 - 1973
Zaire - 1978
Lebanese Civil War - 1982 - 1984
Grenada - 1983
Tanker war when Iraq was a ally - 1987 - 1988
Panama - 1989 - 1990
Gulf War 1 - 1990 - 1991
Iraq No Fly - 1991 - 2003
Somalia 1992 - 1995
Haiti - 1994 - 1995
Bosnia - 1994 - 1995
Kosovo - 1998 - 1999
And to bring it to the present
Afghanistan- 2001 to present
Iraq as enemy 2001 - 2011
Pakistan Drone strikes 2004 - present
Ocean Shield 2009 - present Libya - 2011
ISIL - 2014 - present
So "sophomoric" or not, I'm right.
And your thesis that it's all leaders, sorry, it isn't - we elect them, and our young folks are quite willing to go to fight and die and kill- except for some notables who ironically in their older years, want to use war as an economic stimulus.
This isn't an anti-war screed, I'm nowhere near a pacifist. All I'm doing is stating a pretty simple truth. We love this shit. Otherwise we wouldn't do it so often or so well, or with so little opposition from the populous.
Re: (Score:2)
humans have really poor social skills
a true leader of its people will do everything to keep them out of war, because nobody wins wars, everybody loses, it's just a question of who loses worse
Re:I've always said (Score:4, Informative)
"nobody wins wars"
LOL HOLY SHIT
You really believe that, don't you?
Entire countries exist today because they won wars.
Re: (Score:2)
nobody wins wars, it's a simple fact. nobody emerges from a war unscathed. infrastructure is destroyed and resources are depleted for everyone. everyone gets hospitals full of injured veterans. the question is who loses worse
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
nobody wins wars, it's a simple fact.
The US emerged from WW2 in rather good shape. But if you are going to take the position that if one person is harmed, everyone loses. That's a personal take on a large scale event.
Re: (Score:3)
humans have really poor social skills
a true leader of its people will do everything to keep them out of war, because nobody wins wars, everybody loses, it's just a question of who loses worse
I believe that there are 13 former British colonies that would like to know how exactly they didn't win that war for independence, or the rematch to stay that way several years latter. They are quite sure that they are no longer British subjects and are wondering what happened if they did not win exactly?
Re: (Score:3)
And the entire native population of the the Caribbean islands and of Carthage would like to know exactly how they didn't lose. Oh, wait, they were completely exterminated, so we can't ask them.
Re: (Score:2)
And they didn't lose a single life in the process? No property was damaged? No 'consumables' (like weapons, chemicals, food etc) were used? Really?
Oh right - they did lose lives and property. So they lost, arguably less than the British though. We're back to the OP's point - war: everyone loses, it's just a question of how much.
Re: (Score:3)
And they didn't lose a single life in the process? No property was damaged? No 'consumables' (like weapons, chemicals, food etc) were used? Really?
Oh right - they did lose lives and property. So they lost, arguably less than the British though. We're back to the OP's point - war: everyone loses, it's just a question of how much.
What your ignoring is what they gained which most everyone including themselves is valued as worth more, freedom, liberty amoung the intangables as well large amounts incredibly valuable land, free trade and lower taxes in the concrete.
Re: (Score:3)
Well arguably a very short while later their precarious victory devolved back into a civil war to finish resolving the debate that remained from their victory.
So what did we "win"? By winning the war of independence? Self determination? K... what does that mean? I wouldn't say the US is particularly better governed than say the UK. The UK ended slavery before we did. The UK has universal healthcare. The pound is still worth more. If it wasn't for WW2 and having a neighbor pummeling their industrial ba
Re: (Score:2)
nobody wins wars, everybody loses, it's just a question of who loses worse
I believe I've seen this debating technique before: "Quick, shift the goalposts and maybe nobody will notice me getting my arse handed to me by the parent".
Re: (Score:3)
My thesis is that humans are a violent species, and that they enjoy killing each other
If that was true, everyone would be out killing all the time, or at least trying.
In actual fact, relatively few people are murderers, and it's not just fear of being caught.
Re: (Score:3)
let me get this straight Mr Chamberlain [wikipedia.org]
So Chinese and the Japanese couldn't come to a compromise in ww2 about whether or not China had a right to exist and own land/resources that Japan wanted. Are you saying china should have what, given them half of Asia and executed their people as a compromise rather than go to war? Trying to compromise with people with extremist views and demands is wrong and should not be done. And some thing just cannot be compromised on in good conscience.
Or maybe your right, maybe
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
what war is ISIS currently involved in?
Re: (Score:2)
If we aren't killing people, what the hell is the point of war?
war is nothing more than a spat between leaders who don't have the social skills to work out their differences, they force their citizens to participate.
Another alternative would be hand-to-hand combat between the leaders themselves. It sounds grotesque but it's far more civilized than dragging the populations into it.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah but you do that and we will start electing wwe wrestlers and no one wants that.
hell they are probably the only people other than rappers that would be worse that the politicians we already have
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
scary, isn't it? I could imagine that happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Keeping other people away from the stuff we want them to leave alone or we want to grab. War for the sake of killing people alone is almost always "ethnic cleansing".
Re: (Score:2)
And usually ethnic cleansing is for the same reason. "They're on our land." or "We want their women." See the book of Joshua for a good example.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't that a Star Trek episode?
Re: (Score:2)
If we aren't killing people, what the hell is the point of war?
Destruction of enemy's infrastructure? Disruption of another country's economy for political (or economic/mercenary reasons)? This could still be achieved with fully automated combatants on both sides since the cost of doing so (an arms race) also has an economic impact (remember the cost of Reagan's Star Wars on the Soviet Union.)
Be cheaper to run simulations and the best one wins.
I think I saw/read a Sci-Fi story just like that (the name is on the tip of the tongue, but I cannot remember).
Might want to check this out... (Score:3)
Michael Moore "Where to invade next?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Can't trust Michael Moore. (Score:5, Insightful)
Michael Moore "Where to invade next?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I really like controversial movies that make a statement, even ridiculous or logically flawed ones. They are a springboard for debate and discussion, and even the bad ones can help clarify our thoughts. Exactly *where* is his argument wrong? And so on. ...but they have to be sincere and truthful.
Michael Moore edited and remixed dialog in "Bowling for Columbine" so that people appeared to say things that they didn't actually say. It was done so badly and so blatantly (ie - it's so blatant and pervasive that he can't claim it was accidental), that he lost all credibility.
It's really a shame. I like his earlier works, and Columbine was a ripe subject for political statement, but you just can't gin up a fight by putting words in people's mouths.
You have to show what they *really* said, and in enough context so that their intended meaning comes through.
Sadly, I don't watch Michael Moore works any more. You just can't trust him.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you have citations for this? I'm not trying to be snarky here; this is a genuine question. I watched Bowling for Columbine about half a life-time ago and didn't pick up on any of that; I would be interested to see if it is the case, but not so interested as to acquire and rewatch the entire movie looking for bad editing.
Re:Can't trust Michael Moore. (Score:4, Informative)
Do you have citations for this? I'm not trying to be snarky here; this is a genuine question. I watched Bowling for Columbine about half a life-time ago and didn't pick up on any of that; I would be interested to see if it is the case, but not so interested as to acquire and rewatch the entire movie looking for bad editing.
For the record, I snark at people who are snarky. Honest questions and differences of opinion that *don't* cast personal aspersions are warmly welcomed.
I apologize, I actually thought this was well known.
There are lots of dissections of the film on the net, but the clearest one I read at the time posted Charleton Heston's speech side-by-side with the video dialog. It's available here [hardylaw.net].
Specifically, Moore cuts and pastes quotes from two of Heston's speeches together, giving the impression that he said both of them in the speech immediately after Columbine. Heston has lavender shirt/tie in one speecn, and white shirt/red tie in another. Moore covers this with a cut scene of a billboard between the video clips, while the narration is seamless.
More specifically, the "cold dead hands" quote from Heston was not made at the speech after Columbine. By seamlessly editing that quote into the supposed speech, he paints Heston as heartless and uncaring.
And as a further note, and I'm doing this from memory of the movie, Moore asks a lot of the convention holders whether they should have cancelled the event out of respect for the Columbine shooters. He gives the distinct impression that the convention was held in callous disregard for the feelings of the affected Columbine families.
In point of fact, *this* is what Heston (NRA president) actually said in that speech:
I also want to applaud your courage in coming here today. Or course, you have a right to be here. As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that.
But it's fitting and proper that we should do this. Because NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means that whatever our differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united, especially in adversity.
And I remember personally, while seeing the movie, noting that the convention (Charlotte, NC) was around 1,500 miles, from Columbine, and wondering how far away does something have to be to not cancel a convention.
Google for Bowling for Columbine Truth [hardylaw.net] and such like, there's lots of expose's about it.
Moore was simply going for emotional appeal, and lost his integrity doing it.
Confusing Denver and Charlotte (Score:2)
Charlotte was where Heston was when he made the "cold dead hands" quote, hence my confusion while viewing the movie.
The convention was actually in Denver, and this was stated in the movie, but I picked up on the Heston quote rather than the voiceover.
This wasn't clear in my response above, but it still raises the question:
How long is appropriate to wait, and how far away is far enough?
Re: (Score:3)
With respect, Heston was famous/infamous for that quote before the movie so anyone that did not know that before watching it on first release was living under a rock - I think it he was even quoted on the Simpsons long before Columbine. It's obvious that he's got footage from several appearances of Heston from previous years, he's noticably younger, and there is really nothing to suggest that the viewer is
Can trust Michael Moore to be what he is (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I checked your links, but what Moore did seems like reasonable editing for a film. He wasn't trying to imply that the two speeches were the same one, and didn't alter the meaning of what was said. At worst it's a little badly edited and cut down for brevity in a film that is trying to make a point, not provide a platform for some kind of debate.
I see few other posters have piled in with ad-hominems, but very little criticism of the movie. At most it seems to focus on a few minor points that don't really aff
Can you list any reasons? (Score:4, Interesting)
I will say, though, that I disagree with you that a tragedy like Columbine should have some sort of geographical limit to its impact. We live in a connected world, and for better or worse one of the impacts of that is that such tragedies affect the world (or at least the first world) more or less simultaneously. I think the days where you can claim "oh, that happened miles (or thousands of miles) away, it shouldn't impact us" are long gone.
I disagree with you completely on that point.
John Cleese believes [youtube.com] that the purpose of solemnity is to enforce control: control over people, over their actions, and over their natures.
Cleese got a lot of shit from making fun of the life of Christ, and that was half a world away and 2000 years ago(*). Because he wasn't solemn about it.
We hear weekly about bombs going off in India or Syria, a cop shoots an unarmed black man every week in the USA (on average), and of late there's an endless string of "baby found dead" stories in the news.
Must we live in a continual state of solemnity?
This is how people get controlled, how their behaviour gets corralled and guided. Comedians are quick to point out that humor is the best way to get us past a tragedy, but I've often wondered whether there's anything special about humor.
Not having the convention because of some unrelated incident is simple emotional control.
Can you give me any rational reasons why I should change my behaviour over... well... anything?
(Rational meaning: not based on emotion.)
(*) And was the first person to say "shit" on British television, the first person to say "fuck" at a British funeral (Graham Chapman's)
Re: (Score:3)
The difference is that Cleese wasn't the head of a pro-crucifix organization. Attacking Heston is not about solemnity, it's about fighting back against the gun nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't. His lies are part of a very long running smear campaign against Moore funded by the GOP.
Actually, I'm not part of that movement, but would be interested to hear what they have to offer.
Do they pay well? Do you have a link?
Re:Can't trust Michael Moore. (Score:4, Interesting)
To add to this, he made a movie against evil capitalism, yet lived in a large mansion in a whites only gated community, and had all the post-production work done in Canada because it's cheaper there.
He is a sham, and there is nothing he says that has any value anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
He makes movies in the USA - but I'm just repeating you.
A couple more authors? (Score:2)
Tom Kratman and David Drake have written superb stories, which explore why we have wars. Drake especially explains that when we have nothing to fight over, nothing to fight for, we'll make the stupidest excuses to fight. As Haldeman says, "We live in an unstable and dangerous environment, and we like it. We don’t want to change it."
Re: (Score:2)
The best military science fiction is still "Bill, the Galactic Hero".
Re: (Score:2)
Starship Troopers?
Re: (Score:2)
Your opinion is not relevant, The corporations that make weapons are very happy with this state of affairs.
the mission scope is the world (Score:3, Interesting)
it just goes and on. mission creep isn't just a problem, it is the essence of the mission
what it really is is law enforcement
in a way there is a "war on murder" and a "war on rape" that will never end and never be won, so it is with terrorism
of course, that's law enforcement: it's never about ending the problem, it's about keeping the cockroaches in check
the problem with the conflicts of today is who is enforcing the law. ideally the law should be the states where the cockroaches congregate. but those states are broken and helpless. in fact, that is why the cockroaches congregate there. so we have to go in and enforce, because otherwise the cockroaches breed, proliferate, then take the battle to our shores. it's either drone strike a shitbag in yemen, or take him down in manhattan. those are our choices
so you think about tactics. the best approach. and the best approach is to strengthen and stabilize these broken states. give the cockroaches no place to breed
i didn't say that was easy. but at least that game has metrics and a finite scope. a huge, difficult scope, but finite
as opposed to open ended forever mission creep
education, infrastructure, good governance, security. expensive, long term, beset with setbacks, grey areas, and uncertainty
yet better than just endlessly drone striking jihadi dirtbags in the sand forever. that will never end unless we stop the conditions that breed them
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
it's not really that way in practice.
in most places USA is involved there was essentially just a coin flip about what side to support - extremists of one tribe or extremists of another tribe. and then after the coin flip is done USA will act as a provider of hellfire strikes done on dubious reasons at times(basically trusting intel from the side USA chose as ally).
also, if it was about being police or upholding the law then there would need to be at least an attempt at trying to arrest the perps, which does
Re: (Score:2)
This is pretty much what Eisenhower was talking about. It doesn't really matter what side we're on as long as we're selling them the weapons, bonus points for selling to both sides.
Unstoppable robot bounty hunters to end war (Score:2)
Imagine if you had a robot bounty hunter that could capture any person safely and bring them to court at the UN. You wouldn't need war at all. If you could capture Bin Laden and bring to trial no afghan war. If they were tough enough you wouldn't even need offensive weapons. The only reason you need to kill is to protect your life.
Re: (Score:2)
What happens when, say, Cambodia sends one of these machines after Henry Kissinger? Or will this war-ending technology only be available to 'the good guys'?
that would be a neat trick if the UN was running the machines
He also wrote a song around the same time... (Score:3)
"A War For The Ratings" by Joe Haldeman
We used to finish dinner early; run to the TV
So's not to miss the footage of the war on NBC --
Then switch our sets to CBS, watch Walter Cronkite say
"Now let's see what happened in Viet Nam today."
The sound of spinning chopper blades it made our pulses race;
The flames of burning villages brought smiles to our face;
The smoking ash, the napalm splash, the rattle of M-16's --
The tanks and bombs and planes and guns and other great machines
So come on Mr. President, let's draft a million more
And kindly ask the Arabs if they'd like to fight a war.
Another fifty thousand dead, that's not too much to pay
To have a war on Channel Four at seven every day.
The news on television now is really pretty pale;
Who wants to see another politician go to jail?
Or specials on pollution, or inflation, or VD --
They just don't give the public what it really wants to see.
My heart leaps up when I behold a bomber in the sky;
I love to watch the bad guys as they fall and bleed and die.
I thrill to see our soldiers kill the other boys in green --
You can almost smell the smoke and blood a-comin' from the screen.
So rally round the flag, boys, let's draft a million more
To go and grease the Middle East, to start another war.
Another fifty thousand dead, that's not too much to pay
To have a war on Channel Four at seven every day.
Someday soon I hope to tune the news on NBC
And see that old Khomeini's ass a-hangin' from a tree;
On Sixty Minutes watch our soldiers slogging through the mud
And see the streets of ancient cities run with Arab blood.
And if the Russians raise a stink and holler "Vietnam!"
Well, what the hell, they'd never have the guts to use the Bomb.
(At least I hope they wouldn't, 'cause they tell me this is so:
That radiation fills your TV picture full of snow.)
But come on, boys, let's make some noise, and draft a million more --
The price of gas alone's enough to start a Persian war.
Sponsored by GM and Ford and Dowe and Chevrolet --
Our personal war on Channel Four at seven every day.
"Best military science fiction novel ever written" (Score:2)
Close call, but try Starship Troopers instead.
Re: (Score:3)
Close call, but try Starship Troopers instead.
They are equally good. They just have different scopes. Starship Troopers focus is on why a soldier fights, while The Forever War focuses on what can happen to a soldier when fighting. They also reflect 2 different societies: one where the soldier is not only celebrated but serves as the core for society (ST), and one where the soldier is alienated and returning to a world they no longer recognize (TFW-this was also the experience for many Vietnam War vets). There are some interesting parallels in that
Re: (Score:2)
Close call, but try Starship Troopers instead.
They are equally good. They just have different scope (...)
That was a great answer, thank you :)
Don't get me wrong, i greatly enjoyed TFW and think it deserves a rightful spot on the military sci-fi hall of fame. But i consistently see Starship Troopers regarded as the best in the genre and listed on pretty much every top 10 sci-fi list to boot. - with good reason, i might add.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what other mil-SF the OP has read. I really wonder how much. Before I read Haldeman's TFW, I read Heinlein, Drake, Moon, Laumer, and Harrison. Perhaps that jaded me, but all those authors are both better writers and had truer depictions of the military.
I'll admit, if I want lighter scifi reading, I'll grab Starship Troopers (haven't read any others of Heinlein's work). If I want scifi that makes me think and feel, I'll grab The Forever War. I enjoyed Scalzi, really like Campbell, was kind of disappointed with Steakley and Armor. That's about the extent of my experience with military scifi. And I disgree, I think TFW is a pretty accurate depiction of the military and those in it in the context and time period of Vietnam. I don't feel that it reflects
Re: (Score:2)
I would say that our treatment of veterans, as a society, has improved but still has a long way to go. Within the military its self there are some pretty major problems. The army actually created special units to try and help vets where they could get specialized treatment and either be rehabilitated or medically separated. Instead some commanders placed over those units have taken it as license to kick out as many troops as they can through chapter 10 discharges. That specific type of discharge leaves a ve
Mexican Drug Cartels are pattern for future "war" (Score:2)
I think war, in a broader sense is capable of being practically eliminated.
Depending on what definition you use, I think in our lifetimes we might see the red
1972, not 1974 (Score:2, Informative)
Joe Haldeman was not the first writing about modern wars and drones. The Hungarian kid-scifi-sitcom cartoon "Mézga" has episode "Superbellum" which depicted that in 1972. Actually making fun of US-Soviet cold war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB4aOvYd0DQ&t=20m5s
War, not war (Score:3)
The other aspect of proper warfare is occupation. Without that, an attack is merely destruction of either people or property. It might achieve a certain, intended, goal - especially for a domestic audience baying for blood. But as a long term, inter-country conflict, without an occupation to produce long-term changes in the mindset of the "enemy" population, it fails.
Re: (Score:3)
With respect to the remote weapons operators, using drones and unmanned vehicles to "fight" a war doesn't count as warfare. The reason is that the country persuing this route has no skin in the fight. It is not risking its own people (while putting the population: military and civilian, of the target state at risk).
Tell that to the civilians who were too close to or were mistaken for military targets and killed. By employing these methods you are putting considerable resources into an actual war. Left unchecked these devices could easily kill thousands or millions - after all why couldn't the drones carry nuclear weapons? The people who these are being used on have skin in the fight and the skin does not have to be symmetrical for it to be war.
The other aspect of proper warfare is occupation. Without that, an attack is merely destruction of either people or property. It might achieve a certain, intended, goal - especially for a domestic audience baying for blood. But as a long term, inter-country conflict, without an occupation to produce long-term changes in the mindset of the "enemy" population, it fails.
Thankfully this is true today, provided you dont just slaughter them
War is function of fiat money since Nixon (Score:2)
I guess /. is short of Sun Tzu readers... (Score:3)
What more is there to say? The fundamental problem with the US is that we lack excellence and elegance in our entire apparatus of foreign policy and the military. Even with clear targets -- like Iraq in wars one and two -- we could not manage to win without doing battle, and we are failing over much of the world right now.
Of course, we (Americans) live in a country with a large military-industrial complex, with an enormous shadow government funded by organized crime (primarily the importation of drugs that have carefully been kept illegal for decades) that has been around so long that it has turned the money-laundered corner into legitimacy, and with a substantial fraction of elected public officials who think that the world is 6000 years old and is going to end in a battle with Satan Himself any day now (and another substantial fraction of elected public officials who mysteriously exit public life far, far richer than they entered it). In such a system if we aren't fighting a government, taxpayer subsidized war for buth and treauty nearly all of the time, be it a "war on drugs", a "war on the commies", a "war against ISIS", a "war against Carbon Dioxide", our corporations simply fund new politicians that will start one, manufacturing facts and portraying them convincingly to the masses as required.
In a sense, war is the secondary consequence of a failure of diplomacy and the political process. That isn't to say that it isn't effective -- naked force, successfully applied, is responsible for most of the structure of the geopolitical world in which we live. But there have been a few small successes that suggest that we may be able to eventually transcend war and surpass even Sun Tzu's highest degree of excellence. If it is good to achieve one's political, economic, and social goals without doing battle in a conflict between two powers, it is surely better to achieve those goals without doing battle on a global basis. As Sun Tzu also says:
The best way to fight all wars would be to keep all nations intact by winning them with diplomatic, social, and economic weapons, by fighting them so that everybody wins. This is the best way to sap the will to fight. This is the highest skill.
In modern times, this has never been truer. The US could at any time win any war or any battle. We have nuclear weapons and technological advantages that are truly unstoppable by any other nation, quite possibly by any other confederacy of nations working together. But we cannot win those battles, or wars, leaving the nations we fight intact, so we refrain from using our full power in almost all conflicts. We have also learned what Sun Tzu probably did not know -- that to win a war against a determined enemy, it is sometimes necessary to exterminate them, and we (thankfully) haven't the stomach for this. In wars of this sort, one must be prepared to fight for lifetimes of not-quite-war, of cold war, until the world changes and enemies become friends and allies without force.
Truly, this is right up there with the highest skill.
rgb
Re: (Score:2)
The best way to take out ISIS without many troops on the ground
is to tell their neighbors to clean up the neighborhood. This isn't our fight, it's their fight.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, perhaps if the US stopped doing its very best to destabilize and incite those groups
then they could? not that ISIS has neighbor states, any more than US rednecks have neighbor states.
http://antiwar.com/blog/2015/06/19/state-dept-iran-supports-terror-for-backing-anti-isis-militias/
http://www.ibtimes.com/irans-support-can-eliminate-isis-middle-east-iraq-1971803
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-iran-became-the-middle-easts-moderate-force-12451
However, of course, that would take a little critical th
Re: (Score:2)
not that ISIS has neighbor states, any more than US rednecks have neighbor states.
what does that even mean? ISIS is in other peoples countries. Let them clean up the mess, they have motivation and they are right there. We are on the other side of the world and even our presidential candidates have no clue as to what is going on.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really asserting that the US can be a positive influence in the middle east? All evidence is that we just make everything worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Try to kill ISIS from the air. What a novel idea.
Re: (Score:3)
saddam hussein was our friend when it was convenient
ghadaffi was our friend when it was convenient
noreiga was our friend when it was convenient
we turned on all of them
Re: (Score:2)
"How could anyone have known?" that going into a country without provocation and killing a bunch of people would piss them off. That firing every conquered soldier and politician would bolster the resistance. That holding elections in Shi'ite majority Iraq would hand the country to Iran.
The magnitude of the looming failure was pretty obvious. The men who planned the war were either stupid or didn't care about these particular results.
Do not let them off the hook by saying it was all just a big crap sho
Re: (Score:2)
Without provocations? Were you born after 2000? Saddam was doing everything in his power to provoke the US, he was much like Kim Jong-un is now. You must be quite young, or quite blind to think there was no provocation.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be confusing 2002 with 1990. Either that or your skin is too thin for handling a world spanning empire.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly how does the US support ISIS in your mind? Citations please, as I have a feeling your response will otherwise be full of conspiracy theories.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but both book and movie are pretty good for all that.