Instead of fighting stupid, senseless wars, each nation should be allocated a certain number of fighting robots, instead of armed forces.
The U.S. needs Iraqi oil to guarantee 'sovereignity' of it's Oil Fiat currency which is the principal (banking) means by which our economy remains
strong if essentially hollow.
The Iraqis (among /many/ others) don't like us. They lack the means or the control of sufficiently deep terrain matrix to declare an open war.
Therefore, each side snipes at the other in OOTW. With escalation across nominal military as much as international boundaries now the preferred means
to spoil a resource which neither side wants to lose dominance over.
This is the essence of what is wrong with war today.
We are not HONESTLY told by our government and our media what is at stake and so we tend to make 'moral' choices rather than ones which reflect a
real awareness of what is stood to be lost.
Did we have such complete data we would likely have no problems with treating the Arabs as Indians when it came to a them-or-U.S. decision.
Not least for two reasons:
1. If the majority of Iraqi's 'just want to live their lives' then an enforced pacification would get them there faster than a contested battle.
Because they could ALL benefit from a system akin to that in Alaska whereby every native gets something like 6-10 grande a year from the Oil
2. If Osama only wanted freedom for HIS lands, only had grievances with U.S. over our imposing ourselves and our way of life on HIS people, he should
have had the cajones to attack The House of Saud directly. THAT is patriotism. This is an economic spoiling attack.
Unfortunately, we are now fighting a desultory conflict by which only the 'unacknowledgement' of the costs-at-present allows both sides to continue
making petty attacks until the VALUE of the future resource is destroyed altogether. And it is into that environment that robots will still have the
greatest effect because they effectively detach the targetable coup factor (hurt YOU not 'it' back) from the 'sporting act' of warfare itself.
Warfare, like vengeance is an action with full validity IF it is served coldly, analytically, without heart or compassion for an enemy. Because it
tends to amalamate resources under a single regulatory dispensation policy which is ultimately better for ALL parties than this petty constant
Each country could then develope them [the robot] in any way they saw fit and, at the appointed time, could meet on a battlefield in a neutral
country, henceforth called The Umpire, and do battle.
I don't agree with the Patton Theory ("Rommel in his tank, me in mine...") for other than sounding like bad science fiction movie-
It supports the notion of elitist entrustment of conflict to 'personal' (singular at any rate) engagement. If you must FIGHT over something of
value to your entire people, then by all means _your entire nation's efforts_ should be put towards victory that no man can say "There but for
I..." was defeats jaws pried open.
The sadness, under the present conditions, is that you can engender greater violence by showing restraint than by stepping on someone's neck and
making it CLEAR that "Whether the fight is over is up to you, but I _will_ hold you responsible for your brother's actions if he doesn't agree."
Which is again where cheerleader voyeurism as insurgent X kills a patrol vehicle or a civillian contractor gets to be more inciteful than can be
Ultimately, war will always come down to the ratio of the haves to the have nots in a given population base and particularly whether the _haves_ are
entertained by spectator blood sport of an incompetent conqueror. Or are so dominated that they choose not to risk losing it all to the actions of
those that engage 'freely' because they truly have nothing to lose.
I know this: If only the dead have seen the end of war. Then we are all truly, as an advanced society, _dead_.
We cannot deal with an ever escalating population and resource crises while continuing to expend great sums on efforts to raise barbarians up as
The winner would be determined by points for: a) appearance, b) weaponry, c) survivability, d) operator skill, e) total kills, f) knockdowns, or
I have always included, in each and every one of my 'go robotic!' endorsements, the belief that non-lethal weapons and the ability to close with
targets showing VIDEO PROOF of their 'hostility' (madness really, trying to kill that which was never alive) would be a very 'humane' consequence
of COE tactics with these systems. I pity and understand the feelings of Marines who simply lose control in a sea of smiling faces whose children
laugh and adults dance and single like monkeys in the street at the sight of an IED obliterating a comrade.
The sad reality being that if you cannot make sure your buddy _did not die for NOTHING_ by catching the man who emplaced and/or detonated that
explosive, then your only hope of survival as much as victory is to impart Such Terror of the consequences of any attack on your person as to FORCE
the 'neutral' civillian populace to take a side with you. Against extinction.
Again, did we make this _clear_ (you are NOT our 'equals', you are a conquered enemy population whose only guarantee of survival is NOT to go
guerilla-combatant), with numbers of men on the ground and a very strict interpretation of the rules and allowances of military governance, Iraq would
be, by now, well on it's way to being another FRG.
We didn't and we're paying the price.
What most people don't understand is that 'the price', just on the face of it (100,000 dollar death benefit atop 60,000 dollars in basic infantry
skills) can be comparitively shopped down by going to a mass production robot. Whose MANY advantages include precision, recorded, kills in the face
of direct fire. The ability to be cannibalized for at least partial investment recovery. And the _certainty_ that it was never alive to begin with.
Thus any fool who plays Don Quixote with one is no more intelligent than some idiot sticking his hand inside a bear cage at the zoo.
Real 'inhuman' killing along the lines of Robot Wars and a lot more fun
The more un-human it becomes, the more efficient it will be. And it will take the shaming of our last 'elite' humanist _organization_ (the inverse
of a Paul Bunyon and Babe or John Henry: join up and we will give you priveleges and position beyond those of any 'normal' person) to deprive war of
it's necessary cannon fodder AND leadership resources.
Because frankly, any ten year old can be taught enough strategic gaming and statistics to be a good robot commander. And no 'soldier' (hunter
killer) personality is going to want to face a threat which lets geeks destroy him, without ever being on the same battlefield.
Of course we could just demand our Leaders or Politicians should fight the wars they want fought and, hey presto! No more wars!
No. The way to hold our leaders responsible for their actions is to make the act of war illegal outside any but own-borders. To explicitly include
the acts of training, arms export OR combat. With a World Court acknowledged Death Penalty for any and all in the chain of command who make the
ultimate mistake of resorting to the most base of foreign diplomacy ploys to gain political currency or distraction from the direct problems and
responsibilities of leadership.