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."
War with no killing is called Diplomacy.
Michael Moore "Where to invade next?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
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.
War with no battles is Diplomacy. There are still casualties.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
The M16 is powerful enough to kill. It's not powerful enough to kill in nearly all circumstances. If you're fighting an enemy that treats their battlefield-wounded soldiers like you treat yours- expending effort to rescue them and save their lives after they've been wounded, it works just as effectively as a more powerful round that has a greater chance of killing. If anything it's probably better, as the ammunition is smaller and lighter, the recoil is less, and the soldier can carry more rounds. When your enemy doesn't have effective aid stations, doesn't have field hospitals, doesn't have ambulances or helicopters, and can't really take care of their wounded and worse, might even seek glory in death while fighting, using a round that doesn't kill as quickly and might even leave a wounded man capable of fighting after being hit then it's an issue.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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.
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.