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.
Michael Moore "Where to invade next?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
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
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.
"A War For The Ratings" by Joe Haldeman
We used to finish dinner early; run to the TV
So's not to miss the footage of the war on NBC --
Then switch our sets to CBS, watch Walter Cronkite say
"Now let's see what happened in Viet Nam today."
The sound of spinning chopper blades it made our pulses race;
The flames of burning villages brought smiles to our face;
The smoking ash, the napalm splash, the rattle of M-16's --
The tanks and bombs and planes and guns and other great machines
So come on Mr. President, let's draft a million more
And kindly ask the Arabs if they'd like to fight a war.
Another fifty thousand dead, that's not too much to pay
To have a war on Channel Four at seven every day.
The news on television now is really pretty pale;
Who wants to see another politician go to jail?
Or specials on pollution, or inflation, or VD --
They just don't give the public what it really wants to see.
My heart leaps up when I behold a bomber in the sky;
I love to watch the bad guys as they fall and bleed and die.
I thrill to see our soldiers kill the other boys in green --
You can almost smell the smoke and blood a-comin' from the screen.
So rally round the flag, boys, let's draft a million more
To go and grease the Middle East, to start another war.
Another fifty thousand dead, that's not too much to pay
To have a war on Channel Four at seven every day.
Someday soon I hope to tune the news on NBC
And see that old Khomeini's ass a-hangin' from a tree;
On Sixty Minutes watch our soldiers slogging through the mud
And see the streets of ancient cities run with Arab blood.
And if the Russians raise a stink and holler "Vietnam!"
Well, what the hell, they'd never have the guts to use the Bomb.
(At least I hope they wouldn't, 'cause they tell me this is so:
That radiation fills your TV picture full of snow.)
But come on, boys, let's make some noise, and draft a million more --
The price of gas alone's enough to start a Persian war.
Sponsored by GM and Ford and Dowe and Chevrolet --
Our personal war on Channel Four at seven every day.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
saddam hussein was our friend when it was convenient
ghadaffi was our friend when it was convenient
noreiga was our friend when it was convenient
we turned on all of them
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
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)
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
The other aspect of proper warfare is occupation. Without that, an attack is merely destruction of either people or property. It might achieve a certain, intended, goal - especially for a domestic audience baying for blood. But as a long term, inter-country conflict, without an occupation to produce long-term changes in the mindset of the "enemy" population, it fails.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
All military actions after Vietnam were undertaken in function of oil or Lithium (paid by reserve currency (= Dollar)). eg Lithium mines in Afghanistan were contracted to the nation that buys increasingly bonds of USofA treasury - China (bonds are the assurance that the printed money is "approved" (translation of latin "fiat")).
What more is there to say? The fundamental problem with the US is that we lack excellence and elegance in our entire apparatus of foreign policy and the military. Even with clear targets -- like Iraq in wars one and two -- we could not manage to win without doing battle, and we are failing over much of the world right now.
Of course, we (Americans) live in a country with a large military-industrial complex, with an enormous shadow government funded by organized crime (primarily the importation of drugs that have carefully been kept illegal for decades) that has been around so long that it has turned the money-laundered corner into legitimacy, and with a substantial fraction of elected public officials who think that the world is 6000 years old and is going to end in a battle with Satan Himself any day now (and another substantial fraction of elected public officials who mysteriously exit public life far, far richer than they entered it). In such a system if we aren't fighting a government, taxpayer subsidized war for buth and treauty nearly all of the time, be it a "war on drugs", a "war on the commies", a "war against ISIS", a "war against Carbon Dioxide", our corporations simply fund new politicians that will start one, manufacturing facts and portraying them convincingly to the masses as required.
In a sense, war is the secondary consequence of a failure of diplomacy and the political process. That isn't to say that it isn't effective -- naked force, successfully applied, is responsible for most of the structure of the geopolitical world in which we live. But there have been a few small successes that suggest that we may be able to eventually transcend war and surpass even Sun Tzu's highest degree of excellence. If it is good to achieve one's political, economic, and social goals without doing battle in a conflict between two powers, it is surely better to achieve those goals without doing battle on a global basis. As Sun Tzu also says:
The best way to fight all wars would be to keep all nations intact by winning them with diplomatic, social, and economic weapons, by fighting them so that everybody wins. This is the best way to sap the will to fight. This is the highest skill.
In modern times, this has never been truer. The US could at any time win any war or any battle. We have nuclear weapons and technological advantages that are truly unstoppable by any other nation, quite possibly by any other confederacy of nations working together. But we cannot win those battles, or wars, leaving the nations we fight intact, so we refrain from using our full power in almost all conflicts. We have also learned what Sun Tzu probably did not know -- that to win a war against a determined enemy, it is sometimes necessary to exterminate them, and we (thankfully) haven't the stomach for this. In wars of this sort, one must be prepared to fight for lifetimes of not-quite-war, of cold war, until the world changes and enemies become friends and allies without force.
Truly, this is right up there with the highest skill.
rgb
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
Close call, but try Starship Troopers instead.
They are equally good. They just have different scopes. Starship Troopers focus is on why a soldier fights, while The Forever War focuses on what can happen to a soldier when fighting. They also reflect 2 different societies: one where the soldier is not only celebrated but serves as the core for society (ST), and one where the soldier is alienated and returning to a world they no longer recognize (TFW-this was also the experience for many Vietnam War vets). There are some interesting parallels in that in both cases the soldiers aren't dumb cannon fodder but are specifically selected for intelligence and physical ability. They both also touch on the impersonality of war. In ST the comparison of the cap launcher to a gun (capsules lined up like rounds, fed into a chamber, and shot out) is very apt as the soldiers are essentially aimed at a target, shot at the target like the living willing bullets that they are, and allowed to do what they do (ie, cause lots of targeted damage). In TFW we see soldiers that are used as cogs put into a machine that has a specific purpose, and when one cog breaks it is quickly discarded and another one gets pulled out of the box and stuck in its place. Again this is a direct response to Haldeman's experience in Vietnam, where most soldiers were drafted, placed into a combat unit with no one they knew, and when killed or wounded simply replaced with another draftee. The cold heartlessness of this process is reflected in the way that soldiers were selected and used by the military in TFW.
Of course, ST is the more "upbeat" of the two, and reflects their author's own view towards war: that war is a necessary evil (Heinlein) and that war is just plain evil and mostly unnecessary (Haldeman). Both books are excellent in their own rights, but it is perhaps telling to note that, according Wikipedia, Scalzi wrote the foreword for the most recent printings of TFW and that Heinlein called it "may be the best future war story I've ever read!". I am really looking forward to seeing how they adapt the film version. If they keep to the theme of the book it could be an excellent movie, kind of along the lines of a scifi Platoon. If I don't leave the movie depressed but slightly optimistic with humanity I will be disappointed.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil