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."

Comments

I've always said

[Ol Olsoc]

If we aren't killing people, what the hell is the point of war?

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.

Re:I've always said

[pushing-robot]

Giant robots fighting giant robots is its own reward.

Re: I've always said

[TWX]

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.

Re:I've always said

[Ol Olsoc]

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.

Re:I've always said

[Bing Tsher E]

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.

Re:I've always said

[sexconker]

"nobody wins wars"

LOL HOLY SHIT
You really believe that, don't you?

Entire countries exist today because they won wars.

Can't trust Michael Moore.

[Okian Warrior]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion