New Battlefields

Here's a recent headline I found interesting:

Unmanned Military Drone Briefly Grasps Senselessness of War

The source of the quote, as you may have guessed, is The Onion, but that doesn't make it any less interesting to ponder.

Back when I was a teenager protesting the Vietnam War, a popular saying -- and bumper sticker -- was, "Suppose they gave a war, and nobody came?" It was also the title of a movie.

Many of us who might have been drafted to fight in that unpopular war preferred either to claim conscientious objector status or to leave the United States and head for Canada (I was lucky and the draft ended the year before I became eligible). Now, however, we can begin to glimpse a different kind of war.

Using a combination of satellites, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and rolling, crawling, walking, or hopping ground fighters, it may become possible within the next few decades for nations (or even non-state actors) to attack their enemies and/or defend themselves with no humans on the battlefield. Would that make such a war less objectionable to citizens?

There is another possibility we need to consider, though, which was suggested by Bertol Brecht, who originally gave us this:

"Suppose they gave a war, and nobody came? Why then, the war would come to you!"

Brecht's quote is somewhat humorous, but it's dark humor and for good reason -- mainly because it may be true. An unpopular war in which no civilians agree to participate still could result in a conflict that involves them directly.

Almost three years ago, we offered this gloomy scenario:

Molecular manufacturing will allow full mechanization of field warfare. Rather than improved human soldiers, we will see revolutionary new approaches to attacking and defending. This may seem to offer the potential for saving many lives, but in reality it could do the opposite.

Automated or remote-controlled weapons, rather than removing humans from the field of battle, instead may make it easier to take the battlefield to the humans. Although these new weapons may shift the focus of conflict away from conventional battlefields, new battlefields will have to be developed, and many of them will overlay civilian populations.

If none of us come to war, will war come to us instead? Perhaps so, but then, according to The Onion, there is a final hope we can hold -- that the machines themselves could someday begin to grasp the senselessness of war.

Maybe, though, we shouldn't rely on that, and should seek instead to prevent wars ourselves.

Mike Treder

Comments

[Andrew]

Your last sentence reminds me of this article (http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11670918), which stunned me by the following statistic: One study has shown that over the past 15 years military victories have resolved only 7.5% of conflicts, while negotiations have prevailed in 92% of cases.

[John B]

I'd love to see that (strangely unlinked) study's methodology. Perhaps there might be some, um, hidden assumptions in there (to give 'em the benefit of the doubt...)

I don't trust bare, contextless & detail-free stats. They're FAR too easily manipulated.

-John

[Tom Craver]

I presume that for military victory, they're just counting the instances where one side totally routed the other side.

The false implication is that negotiations would have happened without violent conflict. Often negotiations are only possible after one side becomes afraid they'll ultimately lose.

[Brian Wang]

People concerned about life extension should vote online to get Amex to fund this project.

As of Aug 28, 2008 at 4:52pm PST, the life extension project is 21st on the list of projects with 1500 nominations. The current top projects have 3000 to 3900 nominations. There are four more days of voting. More of votes are needed to ensure that the life extension project makes the top 25. The next round of voting will need to see at least three times the current rate of votes to ensure a victory.

American Express is going to fund the winning projects with $2.5 million:

* $1,500,000 for the winning project
* $500,000 for the 2nd place project
* $300,000 for the 3rd place project
* $100,000 each for the two remaining finalist projects

The 12 member Advisory Panel will evaluate the projects in conjunction with American Express to determine which projects progress to the Top 25 voting round. A winning project must first make it into the Top 25 and into the Top 5. Then, it must receive the most votes of all the projects.

If you are an american express cardmember or just a US resident you can vote to support an Aubrey de Grey life extension project which is in the running for $1.5 million from American Express.

The advisory panel is here
Voting ends September 1st, take a second to vote now.