Slashdot Mirror
Sci-Fi Author Joe Haldeman On the Future of War
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."
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.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
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 and such like, there's lots of expose's about it.
Moore was simply going for emotional appeal, and lost his integrity doing it.
"nobody wins wars"
LOL HOLY SHIT
You really believe that, don't you?
Entire countries exist today because they won wars.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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 clean hole through a person, the round has a tendency to tumble when it hits a person, doing a lot more tearing and shredding of tissue. As I said, cruel.
.30 cal M-14.
.223's effectiveness against their Vietnamese allies in the war the Russians went to a similar calibre, actually about 0.1mm smaller, in the AK-74 that replaced the AK-47. You only see the .30 calibre AK-47s around because the Russians gave away/sold their huge inventories after the switch, the .30 calibre weapons were considered second tier gear.
Some US Special Forces troops who originally tested the Armalite AR-15, the prototype of what would become the M-16, were a bit skeptical at the smaller calibre at first but after a few engagements were surprised and considered it more lethal than the
After evaluating the
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.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
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