The Drone War

One of sci-fi's most enduring prophesies is finally coming to pass -- the Drone War. Visionaries from Wells to Orwell to Lucas have long predicted that warring surrogate machines would someday take the humans' place in a new kind of conflict with enormous political implications as military technology evolves. Battles by machines are entirely different -- socially, politically and culturally -- from anything in the history of warfare, as we are seeing in Afghanistan.

There are plenty of human casualties in the Afghan conflict -- though few among Americans -- but the fight seems especially significant in terms of technology and military conflict.

The Predator spy plane and other unmanned drones and gunships (along with satellites, thermal imaging devices, X-ray scanners, etc.) not only search for the enemy, but fire guided missiles, drop powerful oxygen-sucking hyperbaric bombs, and guide bomb strikes from afar. There is no war in recent human history that involved so few humans, at least on one side of the conflict. The most staggering statistic out of Afghanistan might be that the first American combat casualty died nearly three months into the "war."

Before Afghanistan, conventional military wisdom held that a war can't be won without substantial numbers of ground troops. Even as the Afghanistan campaign began, pundits flooded cable talk shows asserting that air power alone wasn't enough, that there would be substantial human sacrifice. Both Desert Storm in Kuwait and Iraq and the Kosovo conflicts involved the growing used of so-called "smart" laser-guided weaponry, deployed with varying degrees of reliability. But those conflicts also involved either the use of enormous numbers of soldiers on the ground and were controversial in terms of the bomb's precision and effectiveness.

The Afghanistan campaign is a very different kind of fight. Early reports suggest the civilian casualties may be lower than in any other large-scale military operation in modern history. Although dangerous and complex for the military on the scene, it's hard to imagine a conflict more remote to the majority of Americans, asked to go about their business as usual.

Orwell's "Drone Wars" come very much to mind here. So does Sir Arthur Clarke's machine warfare and AI military stories. A handful of human soldiers guide and direct the increasingly sophisticated technological arsenal that has devastated the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda networks with stunningly few U.S. military casualties and American civilian casualties beyond September 11 and the anthrax attacks. The Taliban and their terrorist friends seem to have been totally unprepared for this variety of war, such a stark contrast to the Soviet's ill-fated invasion of Afghanistan just a decade ago.

It seems only a matter of time before other countries developed their own surrogate weaponry, and the idea of the high-tech Drone War -- machines warring with one another -- moves to the next level.

Winston Churchill repeatedly asked his countrymen for brutal sacrifices in World War II. In the new kind of American war, political leaders ask citizens only to keep shopping and traveling.

Military historians like John Keegan have recently argued that the devastating toll of warfare in the 20th Century makes conventional conflicts increasingly less likely. Once a means of expanding territory and amassing wealth, the brutish wars of the 20th Century have rendered both objectives hard to attain. Even before Drone Wars, artillery and aerial warfare along with nuclear weapons suggested that wars can't really be won in the conventional sense any longer; even the victors will suffer unacceptable losses. But drone warfare radically alters the equation. Technologically advanced civilian populations -- just as Orwell foresaw -- can send their technological surrogates off to battle one another while humans stay home to wait for the outcome.

A war without sacrifice is definitely a 21st century idea. Why should citizens of any country hesitate to wage such a war if they have the machinery? War has recently seemed so terrible that civilized societies view it as a last resort. But American history is crammed with technological innovations that are neither discussed nor much thought out. Drone Wars might not appear so terrible. They might even become irresistible.

Comments

FIRST POST!

[Anonymous Coward]

FP biznitch!!

ARGH!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

More lame socio-political crap from the mind of JonKatz! A man so full of shit the odor of his stories is palpable through my monitor.

There WAS a substantial investment in ground power

[Mr. Foogle]

Before Afghanistan, conventional military wisdom held that a war can't be won without substantial numbers of ground troops. Even as the Afghanistan campaign began, pundits flooded cable talk shows asserting that air power alone wasn't enough, that there would be substantial human sacrifice.

I hate to point this out .. but the Afghanistan campaign was, in fact, won with a large investment of ground troops. They just weren't American troops. Air power may have been the key to get the Alliance moving, but the war was in fact won by the Alliance, not US airpower.

a seperate review

[Anonymous Coward]

The slashdot drinking game.
Requires:

Several friends.
An entire day to waste drunk.
Numerous servings of the alcoholic beverage of your choice. Beer would be safer than hard stuff, because you'll be

drinking alot.

Often, we see the same things day in and day out on slashdot. Why not use
it as an excuse to get drunk?

Rules:

1.Start around 9am, EST, when it's reasonable to assume hordes of
slashdotters will have gotten to work and begun wasting the day trying to
get first post on their company's fat pipe. (If you can actually drink at
work, post where you work. I'll send my resume)
1a. If you can't get all your friends together for an all day
binge, start at night with the oldest article.

2. Play ends when everyone has passed out, puked, or surrendered. Last one
drinking wins. Play shall be suspended if anyone is rushed to the hospital
for alcohol poisoning.

3.For every article with grevious spelling or grammatical errors on the
front page, drink a shot.

4.For every front page broken link, drink a shot.

5.For every JonKatzBot article, drink two shots.
5a. Read the article.
5b. Drink a shot for every appearance of the phrase "coporate
republic"

6.Drink a shot if the first post on a new article is remotely on topic.
6a. Drink another shot if it gets modded up to +5 funny
6b. Drink Two shots if it gets modded to +5 interesting or
insightful.
6c. If someone has moderator points, and blows them all on modding
the first poster up, then that player need not drink, no matter how unfair
the moderating.

7. Drink a shot for every link to goatse.cx
7a. Drink a shot for every ASCII version of the goatse.cx pic
presented in the comments.

8. Drink half a shot for every comment that mentions either:
a. Natalie Portman
b. Beowulf Clusters

9. Drink a shot for every offtopic comment involving the sexual escapades
of any slashdot staff.

10.Drink a shot if the slashdot fortune was generated with a script.

11. Drink a shot for every poster who has a porn site link in their sig.

12. Drink a shot for every sig that mentions anonymous cowards.

13. Drink a shot if someone has their UID in their sig, or mentions it.

14. Drink a shot for any comment that has been moderated to hell (IE,
moderated more than 7 points total)

15. Any player who has Karma greater than 26 gets to skip the first drink
15a. greater than 40 skips 2 drinks
15b. = 50 skips 3 drinks
15c. less than -1, one drink penalty
15d. less than -8 two drink penalty

Have fun!