Slashdot Mirror
War: What Can Technology Do For Us?
Both the first Bush and the Clinton administrations, from Desert Storm to Kosovo, advanced the idea of conflict with little civilian loss and few casualties of our own. But thousands of American civilians are already dead in this conflict, greater civilian losses than in any war in U.S. history. Still, the military analysts, network pundits and Pentagon officials are going to great lengths to point out that Taliban and fundamentalist fighters are skilled and determined, that this conflict will be long and difficult, that our expectations should be kept realistic. And bin Laden is a surprisingly agile enemy. He not only grasps America's most vulnerable points, he understands "spinning," using video-imagery and satellite transmission to get his side of the story out. This is something Saddam never began to grasp.
But are our expectations realistic? Are we once again overrating our own technology, and underestimating less sophisticated cultures and populations? Most Americans have been prepared for years to place enormous faith in a range of new technologies that are supposed to make us the most powerful military force in world history. Sophisticated technologies devastated the Iraqi military in Desert Storm. While their results were more controversial in the Kosovo action, there remained little American loss of life. The bloody action in Somolia showed us yet again that technology is not effective if it can't be used for political or military reasons. And Panama and Grenada resembled police actions more than military conflicts.
In this new war, though, it seems clear that American forces will be involved in some sort of ground fighting on Afghanistan's murderous terrain, and that would mean a battle more reminiscent of Vietnam than Kuwait.
What can technology do for us? Can GPS targeting systems really place bombs that accurately? Can intelligence analysts in the U.S. instantly track raw data without leaving their offices? Can civilian populations really be protected? Can thermal imaging and satellite surveillance see into caves or track small units in mountainous terrains? Can government computers follow money around the world? Will our soldiers' tech-equipped vehicles, equipment and weapons give them an edge over the the Russians, who were chewed to bits in their conflict with Afghanistan guerrillas, but whose equipment was comparatively primitive? Have we actually developed a new mix of tech-supported human and machine warfare that is deadly, flexible and effective?
From reading the papers and watching the generals on TV, we see confidence from the military that the answers to most of these questions is yes. But the people reading this have a much better than average grasp of these tech issues. Do you agree? What can tech do for us -- or not do -- in this supposedly new era?
What about the 6,000 innocent people killed in the WTC and Pentagon attacks? You Hippie! We aren't just bombing every village and marketplace in Afghanistan. It was 3 weeks of intelligence gathering and sharing that gave us the logistical military sites of the Taliban and bin Laden that we're hitting. You ASSUME we're just bombing everything! You ASSUME wrong!
Readers were stunned to learn that Jon Katz, "controversial" columnist at the declining website slashdot.org, posted an article that questioned the use of technology.
The article in question, titled "War: What Can Technology Do for Us?" shocked any remaining readers by suggesting that technology may, in fact, not be a panacea for the ills that plague humanity.
Slashdot.org refused to comment when contacted. A reply was received by Katz, however the text of Katz's reply is unfortunately too lengthy to reprint.
When Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, we responded not by becoming independent from fossil fuels but by establishing a permanent military presence in Islamic holy lands. Even then we were warned by ibn Laden of the consequences of our actions. Even now he is saying that America will not be safe until we leave their holy lands. He has factually and impassionately stated both the problem and the only acceptable solution. He hasn't even the slightest fantasy of taking over America. He just wants us to leave them alone. Sounds simple to me. However, both Papa Bear Bush and Little Bear Bush are oilmen whose pockets are lined by the richest corporations. How many more Americans will these two gentlemen (a term I use loosely) sacrifice with their greed-driven ideologies?
I am disappointed in Little Bear Bush for lying to us once again. During his speech (9/11 or 9/12), he stated that we will use every tool at our disposal, including diplomacy. Time and again, the leaders of the Taleban have stated their desire to speak with us, which fits the dictionary definition of diplomacy. Time and again, Bush and company have rejected the Taleban's proposals. Bush's idea of diplomacy is apparently as screwy as his handle on compassion.
On a side note, we may be witnessing the beginning of an Anthrax outbreak. This is poetic, considering that most Americans are "following the flock" with meaningless flag-waving and spouting of rhetoric.
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
"In this new war, though, it seems clear that American forces will be involved in some sort of ground fighting on Afghanistan's murderous terrain, and that would mean a battle more reminiscent of Vietnam than Kuwait."
The terrain in Vietnam was not the problem... the terrain in Afghanistan was not the problem for the Russians in the 80's. People seem to forget the in 'nam the Russians were supplying the North with arms and the same in Afghanistan- we were supplying the Afghans with arms to keep the Russians out.
So the difference is that this time the Afghans don't have a super-power backing them. They can't hide in holes forever, eventually they will have to come out and face consequences for their actions. I have no doubt that a 40+ nation coalition can march into Kabul very quickly, I doubt the Taliban are going to put up much of a fight.
That said I also want to comment on Mr. bin Laden's little video conference. So he can use a camera and a satalite -- SO WHAT??? He killed 7,000 people and American's are suddenly going to be sympathetic because he showed up on TV? In case you haven't heard 90% of Americans support this action, since when did 90% of this nation agree on ANYTHING???
bin Laden is hiding in his cave scared stiff because he had no idea what he was going to bring upon himself with this attack, if he isn't then he's far stupider that I give him credit for.
The Anti-Blog
Bin Laden is not worth the label of a person. He is an animal that needs to be extinguished. Simple enough.
I can't stand you hippies going on TV, saying how we're just killing innocent civilians. We could just drop a 100 megaton nuke and this war would be over in about 10 minutes. But we aren't doing that, we are trying to be as precise as possible, and maybe we are being too nice, because fuckin Bin Laden obviously didn't care about innocent civilians.
I just wish all you fucking hippies would go to China, and see how much you like it there. Go ahead and go protest there. And if you don't get run over by a tank or shot in the head, then feel free to come back here.
Don't forget Atlantis, U.F.O.s and Silly Putty!
Oooh! And Microsoft. You're always supposed to aim some dig at Microsoft around here, aren't you?
And yes, it does show how well-programmed you are. But to drag a timely quote out of my ass, G.I.-Joe always told us that, "Knowing is Half the Battle!"
-Fantastic Lad; --"YO, Joe!"