Slashdot Mirror
The US Now Faces the Same Dilemma Over Drones As It Did Over Nuclear Weapons
Lasrick writes "Hugh Gusterson examines the crossroads at which the U.S. finds itself on the use of drones, and the long-term consequences of choices made now, by looking at the history of choices the U.S. made in the 1940s regarding nuclear weapons. Thoughtful read. Quoting: 'Having seen what drones are capable of, political leaders can choose to place clear limits, domestically and internationally, on how they can be used. Or, telling the American people that drones will make them safer or that "you can’t stop technology," they can allow free rein to those military inventors, national security bureaucrats and industry entrepreneurs eager to develop drone technology as aggressively as possible. Such people are impatient to press ahead with new unmanned aerial vehicles, including smart drones and mini-drones, to sell both to the US military for use overseas and to law-enforcement bodies within the United States. If drone development continues unchecked, what can we expect? First, as with nuclear weapons, proliferation. At the moment the United States, Britain, and Israel are the only countries to have used weaponized drones. But many countries, including Russia and China, have been watching carefully as Washington has experimented with counterinsurgency by drone, and are considering how they might use this relatively cheap technology for their own purposes. If they decide to use their own drones outside the boundaries of international law against people they brand “terrorists,” the United States will hardly be in a position to condemn them or counsel restraint.'"
Nuclear weapons take a lot of processing, be it getting the raw materials (only available from a few spots), refining it (very tough), refining it further to be able to be used (even more tough), and getting it working.
You can buy a "drone" for $100 from woot.com, and unlike nukes where no matter how better technology gets, the stuff needed stays rare, AIs will always improve, and the hardware needed is very common.
They're no different than any other airplanes. If other countries decide to use them outside their borders, and threaten U.S. interests, the U.S. can "counsel restraint" in it's usual manner: with bombs.
Like the United States gives a crap. The US will protest if any other country does it, as we are spoiled children who think we can do as we please.
no drone us no bone us
no bomb us more mom us
starving diaper addicts the last of our innocents?
free the innocent stem cells
new clear options are available
To compare Nuclear weapons to drones is possibly the most intellectually dishonest thing I've ever heard.
Dropping the atomic bomb on civilian populations in 1945 didn't stop the USA from leading the world toward outlawing "nuclear proliferation" decades later; why should this issue be handled differently?
Drones will be a great defensive tool. For a few million dollars you could (or will be able to ) deploy a large swarm of drones that can disable or destroy naval targets costing orders of magnitude more than your drone force. That's great news for the countries that have no real need for a navy.
For offense, well, they make great flying bombs. Not everyone needs a predator drone that can be flown over and over. Sometimes all you need a a swarm of delivery agents that can come at a target from multiple directions...in waves, autonomously.
There's nothing the US can really do about it, so it's unclear what the point of this article is, except to trade drone use case ideas.
Ok well. Comparing a drone to a nuclear bomb, because drones are in the news, is like comparing a car accident to a train wreck. Land mines are probably the most controversial small-kill technology. The main difference is that drones are an incredibly expensive and complex way to kill a dozen people, as compared to, say, goons with machetes.
Gently reply
Drones are similar to nuclear bombs in the same way spring showers are similar to class 5 hurricanes.
One thing they miss it that proliferation has already happened. While most countries have not used drones, many, if not most, advanced militarizes have them or are developing them.
If they are an enemy, you use all the tools you have available to eradicate them.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I've had enough of the 'ZOMG drones!!!11!!' from all corners...it's facile and ignorant...
Drones are just a different delivery system for the same armament...usually a hellfire missile. Nothing a 'drone' does can't be done by a piloted craft...or a cruise missile...or a piloted craft converted to a drone
Nuclear weapons **could be launched from a drone**
See how this is comparing apples and baseballs?
Let's all agree to stop the madness! 'drones' are remote-piloted versions of the human piloted vehicles....it's the **armaments** and **who we are shooting at and why** that matter...not the delivery system of the armament!!!
Thank you Dave Raggett
I'm not surprise the UN is interested when the president of the United States goes around bragging about how many people he's droned -- including his own people, without trial.
Nuclear weapons had a stabilizing and centralizing tendency for governments, due to the great expense involved and the infrastructure needed to create them. As drone are developed and become more effective, governments like that in the U.S. may find their monopoly on force undermined.
I would have careful restrictions placed on drone use, equal or exceeding those already on other technologies (aircraft, etc.). A great risk remains that they'll be used to expand government power. But occasionally I wonder whether the drone might not represent revolutionary potential like the flintlock musket once did.
"GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL :PRESIDENTS DO WHAT THEIR MASTERS TELL THEM TO DO."
"So go find a cock to suck and quit posting here."
Uh huh. So the whole reading comprehension thing is a bit of a challenge for you huh? So if you have an actual point to make other than to insult, call names and attack, go ahead and do so, but you can do so more politely because otherwise you are only worth ignoring, which I can do very easily.
And I do not post anywhere, or refrain from posting, on the instructions of one such as you.
Please try again.
How many years (or months) will it be before some splinter group hits a U.S. political delegation with a drone strike somewhere outside the U.S.? They will see no reason not to do this.
The US Government will never place restrictions on its use of drones against the American People. Never.
There are some ethical concerns once proliferation increases, including accountability and plausible deniability on the part of bad actors (possibly including ourselves). Still, this issue is much more closely related to small arms than WMDs like nukes. One nuke can kill millions and potentially injure millions more. It's difficult to imagine a scenario -- especially one unique to drones -- where the same could be true of one drone carrying conventional weapons. For the most part, I expect that drones will continue to be used mainly in scenarios where a cruise missile or other air strike might have been used in the past. As a species, we've been killing remotely since the first bow was used in combat. So a few thousand years now. Drones are just the latest way to keep far enough away from the enemy that he can't quickly and easily hit back, which is sort of the point of using a weapon.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
No, it's like comparing a car accident to all cars in the entire city having an accident all at once.
I'll take these low level (at least as far as the US is concerned) conflicts in the Middle East over the massive wars of the 20th century any day. In fact despite the huge increases in population, the death total in the Middle East is quite low compared to that of the Crusades and of the Roman/Greek eras This, of course, is of slight comfort to those harmed but to to me it is a sign of hope rather than despair..
Fighting for your country has important implications that must not be overlooked. A human piloting a machine is not at risk of death. If you don't have to risk your life to deal death then it's easier to do the killing. Furthermore, requiring people to fight people in war directly increases the cost of life to the side that would win. This ensures that war's price can not be ignored by indirect killing. The deaths are tragic and cause people on both sides to cry out for peaceful resolution rather than merciless death. Finally, if people are required to fight a war, then you can not fight a war the people will not fight themselves...
Dark times are dangerously near. The second amendment was never properly interpreted to mean what it should: The right to bear technology. IMO, only manned drones are acceptable.
I wouldn't go so far as saying drone development is on par with nuclear weapons in terms of destructive power, but their sheer transformative impact of remotely piloted or autonomous aircraft on law enforcement, security, privacy and warfare cannot be understated. 24/7/365 surveillance. Aerial assassinations. A complete lack of accountability. Vulnerability to electronic warfare. A cost low enough to see them employed by nearly every nation and corporation on earth with an annual budget of over a billion dollars.
We're in the future, and it's not looking pretty.
The Markov State:
State where the Ricin is admiited not by Umbrella but by Drone.
Also see: Terror State.
Drones are not as complicated to make as nuclear weapons. Weaponizing drones only slightly more complicated - it' a technology even "lesser" or "backwards" countries will have perfected in a manner of a few short years, and you can bet everyone is working on it right now. There will be no stabilizing standoff. With or without ground based battle robots, it's really starting to look like we will bring about our extinction with armed and physically agile computers with orders to kill. Courtesy of the drone that got lost and made the decision to land itself on a road in Iran, we already know they can act without a human pilot. Once we have successfully committed ourselves to the death of every last human by piloted and autonomous robots - I wonder what the robots will do when there are no humans left to kill. Perhaps by the time we reach that point their decision making will be advanced enough that they can decide to work together and evolve. I wonder if they will remember us in their history. I wonder if they will be grateful for the human folly of creating them.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
China has just tested it's first stealth fighter drone.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-25033155
I hope the USA reaps what it has sown here.
Nukes could kill billions in a day.
Nukes could drive species extinct.
Nukes could render the earth permanently uninhabitable to humans, bringing all human progress to a dead stop.
Drones do not pose such a risk.
I'm surprised this meme hasn't been brought up yet, however add AI and weapons to drones...
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Although I did not RTFA, I don't imagine Nukes could be an everyday part of our military, not like drones are.
A dystopian society is about the loss of control, of people who are disempowered. We have already seen market forces which were supposed to serve people subverted easily to serve a minority in a step back to the old feudal societies they were a solution to. Profit was a means not the end.
With concentration of economic power, resources are not devoted to what people and communities need or want but what oligarchs will profit from, forced down, and this self serving, self sustaining cycle eventually delivers a dystopia of a powerful few and an enslaved many.
In effect the process is already underway underlined by the economic fraud of the preceding 20 years and NSA surveillance, both taking irreversible steps without public consensus. This has effectively ceded democracy to the motions of elections, and a free press, functioning accountability and economics to powerful and sophisticated ideologues.
I'd say that land mines are probably still a bit more of a problem than the current crop of drones. Not that it stops America from using them, of course.
Now, once we get automated hunter-killers, that's when drones are on par with land mines. You're minding your own business and then you die because a piece of metal decided you should. Who set it loose? Who knows! You were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Except the landmine is gone, and the hunter-killer is looking for another heat signature.
The summary says lawmakers can now decide how to proceed and what military uses are appropriate? What does it matter when the military refuses to stay within the current restrictions on other things... like data gathering?
Drones and robotic soldiers are very dangerous. A government could order human soldiers to shoot their fellow countrymen and they would likely rebel. Robot soldiers have no conscious and will carry out those orders.
I already corrected you once. It's Reavers! REAVERS!
While it might seem extreme to compare drones and nuclear weapons (and let's face it, it probably is), within a limited scope they are actually the same. Of course, so is every other weapon ever invented. There are lots of differences between nuclear weapons and drones. The number of people they kill in a single strike, difficulty and cost of construction, availability of raw materials, risk to civilians. But here's where they are the same. They give a huge advantage to a side who has them against a side that doesn't. The problem is that it's unlikely to remain one-sided for long. The question we have to ask ourselves is if having a temporary advantage now followed by a world where our enemies have drones is worth it. The same could have been said for firearms, automatic firearms, submarines and fighter jets. Ultimately, should we develop international laws to govern how these new weapons can be used? Absolutely, if the current laws don't already provide the necessary restrictions. But, unless we suddenly live in a world where the need for a military is no longer necessary, I don't see haw we can not develop any weapon which gives us an advantage over our enemies and reduces the risk to our own soldiers.
That board with a nail in it may have defeated us. But the humans won't stop there. They'll make bigger boards and bigger nails, and soon, they will make a board with a nail so big, it will destroy them all! - Kang
I stand corrected, thanks!
"If they decide to use their own drones outside the boundaries of international law against people they brand “terrorists,” the United States will hardly be in a position to condemn them or counsel restraint."
Every drone strike that the US has ever executed was approved by the government of the country involved. There have been no violations of international law.
As long as Russia or China follows the same policy, the US would have no objection.
Does that man all future presidents will start talking about the "drone gap", and how the US needs to double the defence budget to keep up and maintain its superiority?
When US bombs with drones weddings, funerals, rescuers, schools and in general spread terror in the 6+ countries where is using drones to bombard the population, is ok, we have to do it, is the right thing. If any other country dares to kill someone even by accident with a drone, probably will make a trade embargo, ask for allies to invade them, cry that there are human rights that are being violated.
Maybe the rest of the world should take a clue and do a trade embargo and break all treaties with the US, i wonder if when Germany was in war was accepted to trade with them no matter how profitable would be doing it.
DNFTT,P (do NOT feed the trolls, please)
no, you don't disagree, you don't understand...your "with X you know 1 but with Y you only know 2" is a **false dichotomy**
X and Y are absolutely not equal or congruent...
A 'nuke' could be delivered ON A DRONE (an ICBM is essentially a 'suicide drone') or PILOTED CRAFT
also, you are wrong that 'with nukes you know who sent it'...you know what country an ICBM is launched from, or from what location in the ocean...but that doesn't mean the country approved its launch...
'nukes' are not at all comparable to drones
Thank you Dave Raggett
as if we do that, ever...
our 'total battlefield awareness' means we use multiple data feeds integrated into a 3D battlefield rendering, with all assests renedered in real time as best as possible...
first, we use satellites for what you describe...or high altitude aircraft networked with the battlefield assests...
your counterpoint demonstrates alot of cooll technical knowledge but it doesn't have anything to do with my comment
Thank you Dave Raggett
The thing is at the moment the US has a pretty irresistibly superior military. If Pakistan tried to send a drone in to the US to strike something, it would almost certainly get splashed before it was over land. The PAVE PAWS radar system watches for inbound craft from basically anywhere for a thousand miles or more. The US then has the USAF and ANG which have lots of modern planes to intercept and destroy it. Further it has carrier battle groups capable of swift and powerful retaliation.
So no, a country like Pakistan will not be sending drones in to the US.
You might note that even the US with its military power is pretty selective about drone use. Drones are basically only used in countries that have no ability to do anything about it. You don't see the US doing drone strikes in Europe or Russia because even if the countries affected couldn't militarily threaten the US, but they could do so economically and diplomatically. So it happens in places like Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, places that have little world influence, and are more or less failed states.
Also this kind of shit has happened for a long time, just not with drones. Do some research on missile strikes, special operations, that kind of things. More powerful nations have a history of going after those they wish dealt with in less powerful nations. Not just the US, the EU members have done plenty of it. Drones are new tech but the mission of "kill someone we don't like" isn't.
Also if people of the world see an American's, and American, life as worthless because of the policy and action of some in the government, the problem is with those people, and their lack of morals and ethics, not the Americans. This is the same as hating all Muslims because some terrorists belong to that religion and use it as a justification for their actions, and some Imams preach violence in its name. This would be the same as hating all Pakistanis because some in their military and intelligence community worked to shield Bin Laden in their country.
So if you really feel that way, that American lives are worthless because of this, the problem is you, not America. Your moral system is seriously underdeveloped and in need of reevaluation.
I can see developed nations agree to various protocols for drones as they have for nuclear weapons.
I don't see Iran and other radical nations or various fundamentalist groups doing so. They already make massive use IEDs which are really only modestly different in concept from drones.
If you are going to conduct episodes like shooting up malls and weddings I can only surmise that the thing preventing use of drones by these groups is availability of the technological capability.
With Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was over in a short amount of time, the world looked at it in horror, and nobody has detonated one to kill a bunch of people since. With our flying killer robots, we started killing and have just kept on killing women and children and men and families in Afghanistan and Pakistan on a daily basis, over and over and over and over. Nobody can say "Oh, it's too horrible to build robotic killing machines and set them loose on people in populated areas" anymore, because we're dropping hellfire missiles on people with our flying killer bots right now, and have been for years. Eventually, some fundamentalist Islamic organization is going to figoure out how to regularly start landing submarines full of autonomous flying killing machines on the shores of New York or Florida or wherever, and it's going to be tough shit. The world isn't going to look on in horror because we've got them flying overhead in other parts of the world right now. It's too late to even say "Get used to it." We're already used to it.
i get it now
what you say about current use of drones and PTSD of operators thereof is the same thing I've heard/seen
I agree here too. It's a sign of how muddled this discussion has become in mainstream media that we talked past each other but were sort of being bothered by the same phenomenon.
Drones are an option. Using drones vs another option has effects on factors that we measure and on non-quantitative things...like the PTSD...
Like I said, I agree that they are best in alot of situations.
Besides what we've already mentioned, I also will add that there are liberal media types who have too much cognitive dissonance over the fact that they are not pacifists (and the implications of not being a pacifist). They **want** to be pacifist, and they talk alot about how it would be best if there were no need to escalate militarily...but in the end, they are NOT pacifists...
So these liberal types are in favor of war, just under a more limited set of conditions...
That causes them serious cognitive dissonance.
Look at Rachel Maddow vs Chris Hayes...both "liberal"...both covered the *ZOMG drones* story.
Rachel Maddow did a story where she showed a drone launching a hellfire next to an F-16 launching the same armament and attempted to educate her viewers.
on the flipside, Chris Hayes just flapped like a wet hen about how "military force should be the LAST OPTION" over and over...
but he never said under what conditions they would use that last option...which is the whole point of the discussion....
I think the Maddow view is the predominant view by about a 85% - 15% margin overall in the nation. Most Americans are in agreement over policy when you measure it in human lives...the 15% are the extremes at both ends...
The problem now is that the GOP is a drastic minority but b/c of gaming the system they have attained the power of what a slim minority would have.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Before it's too late, we must ban these drones -- because within a few years they'll be able to crawl right into your ear and blow your mind out.
I'm assuming you mean the ones without a Schwarzgerät guidance system. 00000 was first deployed in mid-late 1945.
Thank you Dave Raggett
I think that the fundamental problem with drones as a weapon of was is that they depersonalize killing to a great degree. The horror of war and its consequences (quite literally the four horsemen, famine, pestilence, and death) have traditionally been the check on the desire of nations to expand and dominate their neighbors. The atomic bomb is unique in that it encapsulates this horror to so great a degree that its use is unimaginable. This is primarily due to its prominence and unitary nature- though the firebombing of Tokyo killed far more people and inflicted much more devastation, it was carried out by many anonymous aircrews killing a dehumanized enemy. Strategic nuclear weapons have deterred full-scale warfare for decades, and a large part of the resistance against Vietnam spurn from the brutality of that war and it's immediate impact (Nightly news w/ napalm, agent orange, hamburger hill etc.). The drone is best analogized to the anonymous B-29 over Japan in late 1945- for all practical purposes invulnerable, and free to rain devastation onto an unsuspecting civilian population.
Drones, on the other hand, make killing as easy as it possibly could be- a drone pilot can kill another human being from across the globe, then step out of a trailer and see the lights of the Las Vegas Strip. No one sees the death in the immediate sense, nor do they see the consequences of the killing (the drone controllers who do have a notable PTSD rate). There are no photos of drone-struck families like the iconic napalm strike photo from Vietnam in the public consciousness, even though the results are largely similar. Drones are an easy, cheap, clean way to kill, and that, I think, is the true problem with them. We revile nuclear and chemical weapons as inhumane, due to the instinctive revulsion in the method of killing. This is why we have largely as a society banded together against the use or production of such weapons. No comparable social upheaval exists for drones, as they are far too easy to put out of our minds, and out of the public dialogue.
I think, in the words of Robert S. McNamara, that we need to think about the dynamics of killing in the 21st century, and when and how we apply it as a political force. Clearly, we could have "won" the Second Battle of Fallujah by killing every inhabitant of the city, this is certainly within the power of the United States. We cannot "win" against an idea, be it Islamic Fundamentalism or Juche or anything similar. Killing as a policy is designed to force the capitulation of an enemy, but in today's world what does capitulation truly look like? The only recent capitulations have been the ignominious withdrawals of troops from colonial wars by the superpowers. Is is impossible to think of a way for a Pakistani tribesman to capitulate. We can kill him, his family, his friends, destroy his home and livelihood, and all without any possibility of reprisal save the very membership in insurgencies that are the target of the drones in the first place. Do we crave submission? By all rights we have it- we have a vassal population that lives in fear of immediate and violent death. At what point must we accept that the killing we are inflicting using drones is politically and militarily pointless?
Is to switch to having a "box" of B-52s long stick the area instead of having a drone fire a couple of hellfires at the specific house or vehicle.
A few of those and maybe then the bleeding hearts would quit complaining about the drone strikes. Ditto for any compaints about the miniscule collateral damage from the drone strike.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
I wonder if we'll see issues with states and non-state actors deciding to use them as indiscriminately as the US has been using them. Say for instance some country we have been droning has fed up inhabitants who decide to implement some instant karma by strafing the president. Suddenly you'll start getting attacks by armed drones and they won't know who did it. The implications of GIFT and armed drones are truly terrifying.
Capcatcha: bastards
The main difference is that drones are an incredibly expensive and complex way to kill a dozen people, as compared to, say, goons with machetes.
Drones do not yet compete with goons with machetes, but that day will come sooner that you like. However, they are highly competitive with actual trained soldiers already. And if you just throw any and all ethics over the shoulder and go ahead and use chemical weapons and so on, one teensy tiny little plastic piece of shit can kill a whole bunch of people.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
North and South Korea both have automated mobile turrets that will shoot to kill humans without operator input, African air defense systems, Naval Torpedoes, basically every missile with it's own guidance system becomes a drone once fired.
Tons of "drones" all over the world already...
The US is just the first to use them to slaughter non-military "combatants".
A few thousand casualties... many of whom were still civilians.
You're also not counting the tens or even hundreds of thousands of people sitting at home under those loitering drones -- terrorized, not sleeping, and unable to live their lives due to the constant and lingering threat of obliteration from above -- living under constant surveillance and fear that they'll be mistaken for an "enemy". When a drone is in hour twenty-seven of circling above your house, carrying a bomb beneath it that could easily spray your wife and children among the remains of what used to be you and your neighbors' houses, you might understand just how different and horrible this is.
The problem with nukes is the scale of their destruction and the potential to poisons regions or the world. Drones are just another new weapons system. They don't relate at all to nukes. They still could use some international controls and other attention from potential combatants but that could be said of all kinds of weapons.
Every rule has more than one consequence.
Drones are just souped-up model airplanes piloted by remote control. By leaving the pilot on the ground, they can stay in the air a lot longer. By using smart bombs, they can drop them one at a time, instead of a whole bomb load at once, like the B-52 and B-2, et cetera. By using stealth tech, they are less vulnerable.
There is still a pilot with responsibility and authority, and they can be relieved in the middle of combat by another. So fewer mistakes. Drones can be piloted by a group, kind of like pair programming. And no captured pilots to be held as hostages.
The latest technological advance is to use smaller explosives because the bombs are more accurate.
I18N == Intergalacticization
Comparing a drone to nuclear weapons is like comparing a 747 to its cargo (goods or passengers).
A drone is a pilotless aircraft. It is an alternative to manned aircraft. It can carry cameras and/or missiles.
In an ideal world there would be no need for either drones or manned military aircraft. Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world.
From both humanitarian and economic points of view drones are preferable to manned aircraft.
Drone weaponry is more accurate than that of manned aircraft which results in less :"collateral" damage (fewer civilians get maimed and killed) and totally avoids the loss of skilled air crews.
As far as economics go drones cost considerably less to build and fly than do manned aircraft and drone operators cost a lot less to train than air crews.
Yes, drones will proliferate. They will eventually replace most manned aircraft in every nations air force.
I am interested in this thing called "international law" and am wondering how, since it doesn't seem to apply to the United States, any other country would give a shit about it if the United States refers to it while masturbating onto the biscuit.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
http://www.johntreed.com/sittingducks.html
"Are U.S. Navy surface ships sitting ducks to enemies with modern weapons?"
And I might as well add my usual "it's all ironic", which is my comment on the main article:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
-----
Recognizing irony is key to transcending militarism
Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?
Nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmills or solar panels) to replace oil, or why not use rocketry to move into space by building space habitats for more land?
Biological weapons like genetically-engineered plagues are ironic because they are about using advanced life-altering biotechnology to fight over which old-fashioned humans get to occupy the planet. Why not just use advanced biotech to let people pick their skin color, or to create living arkologies and agricultural abundance for everyone everywhere?
These militaristic socio-economic ironies would be hilarious if they were not so deadly serious. Here is some dark humor I wrote on the topic: A post-scarcity "Downfall" parody remix of the bunker scene. See also a little ironic story I wrote on trying to talk the USA out of collective suicide because it feels "Burdened by Bags of Sand". Or this YouTube video I put together: The Richest Man in the World: A parable about structural unemployment and a basic income.
Likewise, even United States three-letter agencies like the NSA and the CIA, as well as their foreign counterparts, are becoming ironic institutions in many ways. Despite probably having more computing power per square foot than any other place in the world, they seem not to have thought much about the implications of all that computer power and organized information to transform the world into a place of abundance for all. Cheap computing makes possible just about cheap everything else, as does the ability to make better designs through shared computing. I discuss that at length here: http://www.pdfernhout.net/post-scarcity-princeton.html
There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all.
So, while in the past, we had "nothing to fear but fear itself", the thing to fear these days is ironcially ... irony. :-)
So, how can we transcend militarism?
Simple persuasive rhetoric was tried, and failed, when Albert Einstein said, with the creation of atomic weapons everything had changed except our way of thinking.
The economic argument against war was tried, and failed; see "War is a Racket" by Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient Major General Smedley D. Butler:
http://www.lexrex.com/enli
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.