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."
It sounds crass and nasty. But if we have manned engines of war fighting other unmanned enginnes of war, there is no point.
Because everyone else will catch up. It won't always be unmanned on people, all will eventually have dronish devices.
Be cheaper to run simulations and the best one wins.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
it just goes and on. mission creep isn't just a problem, it is the essence of the mission
what it really is is law enforcement
in a way there is a "war on murder" and a "war on rape" that will never end and never be won, so it is with terrorism
of course, that's law enforcement: it's never about ending the problem, it's about keeping the cockroaches in check
the problem with the conflicts of today is who is enforcing the law. ideally the law should be the states where the cockroaches congregate. but those states are broken and helpless. in fact, that is why the cockroaches congregate there. so we have to go in and enforce, because otherwise the cockroaches breed, proliferate, then take the battle to our shores. it's either drone strike a shitbag in yemen, or take him down in manhattan. those are our choices
so you think about tactics. the best approach. and the best approach is to strengthen and stabilize these broken states. give the cockroaches no place to breed
i didn't say that was easy. but at least that game has metrics and a finite scope. a huge, difficult scope, but finite
as opposed to open ended forever mission creep
education, infrastructure, good governance, security. expensive, long term, beset with setbacks, grey areas, and uncertainty
yet better than just endlessly drone striking jihadi dirtbags in the sand forever. that will never end unless we stop the conditions that breed them
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
To add to this, he made a movie against evil capitalism, yet lived in a large mansion in a whites only gated community, and had all the post-production work done in Canada because it's cheaper there.
He is a sham, and there is nothing he says that has any value anymore.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
I will say, though, that I disagree with you that a tragedy like Columbine should have some sort of geographical limit to its impact. We live in a connected world, and for better or worse one of the impacts of that is that such tragedies affect the world (or at least the first world) more or less simultaneously. I think the days where you can claim "oh, that happened miles (or thousands of miles) away, it shouldn't impact us" are long gone.
I disagree with you completely on that point.
John Cleese believes that the purpose of solemnity is to enforce control: control over people, over their actions, and over their natures.
Cleese got a lot of shit from making fun of the life of Christ, and that was half a world away and 2000 years ago(*). Because he wasn't solemn about it.
We hear weekly about bombs going off in India or Syria, a cop shoots an unarmed black man every week in the USA (on average), and of late there's an endless string of "baby found dead" stories in the news.
Must we live in a continual state of solemnity?
This is how people get controlled, how their behaviour gets corralled and guided. Comedians are quick to point out that humor is the best way to get us past a tragedy, but I've often wondered whether there's anything special about humor.
Not having the convention because of some unrelated incident is simple emotional control.
Can you give me any rational reasons why I should change my behaviour over... well... anything?
(Rational meaning: not based on emotion.)
(*) And was the first person to say "shit" on British television, the first person to say "fuck" at a British funeral (Graham Chapman's)