« Shoot the Messenger |
Main
| Space Truth Stranger Then Fiction »
January 24, 2005
Bush's Robot Army
Posted by Dana Blankenhorn
I've been re-reading the last in Harry Turtledove's Worldwar series, called Homeward Bound, and I'm once again struck by the similarities between the U.S. military in Iraq and the Lizards of the story.
The Lizards (not to give the story away) invade Earth i 1942, at the height of World War II. They have the weapons of 2000, Earth has what it had. The overall theme of the piece (which has now run into its seventh 500-page book) is human ingenuity vs. reliance on technology.
I don't know what they're thinking with this latest battle robot. (The picture, which I'm confident betrays no military secrets, is from the BBC.) But I'm pretty certain we're going to have some captured, disabled electronically and then grabbed under covering fire. The wireless link between the operator and the bot is the weak link.
And what happens then?
What happens is that the enemy has its own robots, pre-mounted and ready to fire, not just machine guns, but really nasty stuff.
This is what happened to the Lizards. Desperate men copied their tech, turned it on them, even improved it. In Turtledove's world this was a force for liberation. In our own world? This is not a political note.
Or, as Asimov wrote, quoting Schiller, "Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain."
Comments (4)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: 802.11 | Futurism | Moore's Lore | Science | Security | personal | war
- RELATED ENTRIES
- › The Legend of Dennis Hayes
- › Evolution Changes Its Mind (Again)
- › Welcome to 1966
- › What Must Craigslist Do?
- › No Such Thing as Free WiFi
- › The Internet As A Political Issue
- › Google Images Ruled Illegal
- › Fall of Radio Shack
Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for over 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the "Interactive Age Daily" for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age, and dozens of other publications over the years.
1. Jesse Kopelman on January 24, 2005 07:14 PM writes...
True, but true of every military innovation. What weapons do we have today that could not, if captured be used by someone else? The use of captured enemy artillary has played a heavy role in military history since the days of the catapult. Also, how is wireless the weak link in SWORDS? Isn't that like saying wireless is the weak link in a mobile phone? As for the "really nasty stuff," officially the US has foresworn the use of NBCs at a tactical level.
Permalink to Comment2. Lindon on January 24, 2005 10:01 PM writes...
You guys really really need to read William S Lind. ( http://d-n-i.net/lind/lind_archive.htm ). The missing bit isn't even technology its morals...fourth genration war is what is being waged in Iraq, only one side is doing it(and winning easily) the other is waging 2nd generation war..and predictably losing. Lind quoting Kaiser Wilhelm II: "You know, we didn’t lose at Jena because we were no longer the army of Frederick the Great. We lost because we were still the army of Frederick the Great, but war had changed"...much more at the link from Lind, a leading conservative mil. strategist. In short this new device will make *no* difference at all.
Permalink to Comment3. Jesse Kopelman on January 26, 2005 05:40 PM writes...
Lindon, I think you're wrong. Things like remote control weapons bring a whole new element into warfare. It is not that they are better at killing the enemy (they are not) it is that they add another layer of abstraction to the thing. It is a lot easier to commit attrocities, when one doesn't have to do it in person. Also, it makes it a lot harder to be a guerilla when there are no live troops to harrass. Lind's comments are right on, but your interpretation is not. The use of remote control changes everything about how war is conducted, especially from a moral point of view.
Permalink to Comment4. SongZilla Blogger on February 6, 2005 03:47 AM writes...
The robot is a symbol of why America should not chose to enter non-essential wars. The other side will give their life just to detonate a bomb: that takes the ultimate conviction. America, in contrast, likes remote control: fire and forget, heat seeking missles, wars that never touch our own soil, and drones and robots to fight for us.
As we've shown many times, you can overrun a country quickly with military power and technology, but then what? There is no victory or lasting change without the winning hearts and minds of the people.
Shades of Vietnam. Napalm and bombing runs will win the war. But they did not, and we did not.
If a people are willing to give their life for a cause where we are not, we lose: conviction rules the day, as it should.
If we can convince people of a change, we (the change) win. As it should be.
Military technology and power is the most undemocratic of forces - and near to our hearts: an unheathly condition for the marketers of Democracy.
Permalink to Comment/Eric