Stephen, name calling doesn't become you and is beneath what we readers have come to expect of the standards of this blog. If it recurs, I will be unsubscribing.

-Jim

Jim-

What are you talking about? There was no "name calling" in that post.

Jim --

Our rather loosely enforced editorial policy around name-calling is that we don't go in for personal attacks, particularly in heated comment threads. I say it's loosely enforced because I've allowed a few exceptions along the way, as when one reader likened me unto an "asshat" and another accused Stephen of being "white."

I'm not sure I agree with Stephen's assessment in this case. Near the end of the movie Patton, the great general bemoans a coming age of push-button war in which "nothing is glorified, nothing affirmed." Not really all that different from what Mike said, above. Assuming the real George S. Patton uttered some roughly equivalent sentiments at some point in his life, I would nonetheless be hard pressed to allow that he was either "leftwing" or a "chickenhawk."

So I think Stephen makes an unwarranted leap when he assumes that reservations about this sort of thing belong solely to the left.

On the other hand, in the same movie, Patton also says,"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for HIS country!"

Which is awfully sensible, and sounds a lot to me like Stephen's point. (Patton was a complex guy, at least as portrayed in the movie.)

However, that's neither here nor there on the name calling.

On that charge, I hereby issue Stephen with an official Speculist "Whoa, Dude." By way of reference, these reprimands come in four flavors:

1. Dude.

2. Whoa, Dude.

3. Dude. Seriously.

4. Knock it off, Dude.

These are largely non-binding, but of course the reprimand is now part of Stephen's Permanent Record.

Jim:

It is true that we rarely name call at The Speculist. I decided to use the term "left wing chicken hawk" here to make a point.

Of course I strongly disagree with the commenters "DF" and "Mike." I imagine that few Americans of either party would agree that using technology to reduce the risks to our soldiers is a bad idea.

The term "chicken hawk" is used by some on the left to describe people who support combat even though they've never served in combat. Their hope is that by discounting the opinions of everyone who supports combat who's never served in combat there will never be "legitimate" popular support for combat.

My point in adopting the term here is to point out that those who are not presently risking their lives in combat have little standing to object to efforts to reduce the risks of combat.

I'm sure you disagree, but I intend to continue reading your comments anyway.

This type of weapon is already of limited value. What makes you think you can define and control the combat zone in today’s running street battles? These things could be neutralized in a New York minute.

The upcoming movie The Kingdom (http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/thekingdom/) probably (I’m speculating here) shows a little more reality of what a ‘battlefield’ is like. How do you envision this being in any way effective?

//

Steve:

Take a look at the video at the bottom of this post.

Notice how these units could be used together. I suspect that they could be very effective.

I'm pretty much with Stephen on this one. Likely, this will reduce our battlefield casualties significantly. Whether it will make us more or less likely to go on the offensive isn't clear.

What seems clear to me, however, is that this will further weaken our moral will to do the right thing in the face of personal risks to ourselves. I can see it now: anti-war protests frothing at the mouth at the first soldier dead in an important war--carrying signs that read "Impeach the traitor who ruined America by killing one soldier!"

Stephen,

I'm afraid I have to endorse Phil's "Woah, Dude!" here.

I can understand both the intent of the original and the elaboration in your comment above, and I sypathise with your frustration. However, we have come to rely on you in this forum for an even-handed perspective addressing the facts of a topic as presented, granting such personalities as may be involved the benefit of the doubt.

As you may remember, I work in a position that puts me in daily contact with the 'trigger pullers' and I contribute directly to the defensive integrity of an official facility. I also have, on two occaisions, for two different services, taken the oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic". I am, however, not "presently risking [my] li[fe] in combat". By the criteria above, should I choose to offer negative commentary regarding the capability, utility, or ultimate intent of this or any other "effort to reduce the risks of combat", I, too, would qualify for the "chickenhawk" label. I don't think such a broad brush is a particularly useful tool.

To the readers:

Another tacit policy of the Speculist is that we seldom examine the ongoing evolution of military hardware and software. The reasons for this conscious lack of attention to what otherwise is a particularly innovative and influential sector of technology largely (in this author's sole opinion, at least) boil down to the fact that conflict and combat run counter to our generally-preferred optimistic take on human nature and the potential for deliberate improvement of the human condition. One, hopefully obvious, exception to this self-imposed editorial stance is the continuing evolution of the means of "high-intensity interpersonal crisis management" in the direction of greater specificity, reversability of effect, and greater safety for those whom we designate to employ them. Conversely, as the evolution of increasingly capable (semi-) autonomous non-human agents appears to bring closer the specter, beloved of Science Fiction writers for the last 86 years (see Cepek's "R.U.R") and of religious teachers for over a thousand years before that (see "golem", among other concepts), that our creations might someday willfully harm us or our intentions, we Speculists will continue to assess the liklihood of such an event and to suggest ways that such an event might be avoided or its liklihood and effects mitigated.

I hope that such discussions my be held in the spirit of respect, optimism, and objectivity that has been hallmarks of this blog.

-El Jefe

"This is what a leftwing chicken hawk looks like. "

That's name calling, Stephen. And it makes any other points you might have been trying to make irrelevant, because you've made it plain that you're not prepared to discuss the matter in a civilized fashion, since you're willing to personally slam anyone who disagrees with you. Further, you've involved your personal politics, which I frankly didn't need to know.

There is a great deal to discuss with these types of machines, but no useful dialogue on them will be achieved by personal attacks.

Still reading, obviously.

-Jim

D:

You're right. It seems that our tolerance for troop losses goes down the more technologically advanced we become.

We don't let the fact that we get spoiled to good things keep us from persuing good things. Humans never have. It's a a fundamental trait.

One Epigram, two issues, one post:

“If man realizes technology is within reach, he achieves it. Like it’s damn near instinctive. - Matoko Kusinagi, Ghost in the Shell

1. The fundamental flaw with remotely piloted systems like this (or more precisely, one of the fundamental flaws) is that it assumes that the present technological advantage of the United States against its enemies can be maintained.

These things will be a pretty severe menace when someone cracks their remote control communications. Imagine for a moment that someone is sneaky enough to just monitor the machine until it is driven into its maintenance depot, then take over and shoot everyone in the depot.

2. I think machines like this probably are destined for the battlefield. Given how starved for people to carry rifles the military already is, it's probably inevitable.

The fact that from a moral standpoint, there's little difference between a remotely operated gun platform and a remotely triggered IED is probably not at all relevant to people in the field being shot at. There will be changes in the underlying politics, though. I can't imagine they'll be good changes. I can't imagine politicians will be less likely to wage war when nobody whose family votes is at risk.

I'm also concerned that by putting the person pulling the trigger further and further from the person being shot, that remotely operated gun platforms like this make ideal systems for oppression. How much easier is it to find people willing to play oppression, the video game than to actually do it? I don’t know. Lots, would be my guess.

So, I'm guardedly enthusiastic for this machine in that it may save soldiers' lives - for pete's sake, I know people serving in the Iraq war. I'm much less enthusiastic about how this technology will change political responsibility for war in general. In an anti-terrorism action, this isn't so much an issue. But the technology won't go away when this matter is at an end.

I'm concerned about these things. But as I said, I think the rise of such machines is more or less inevitable.

So I suppose time will tell.

-Jim

Jim,

Since you and I took at least our intermediate-level formal ethical instruction from the same faculty (if not always from the same individuals), I'd be very interested in understanding how you come to the stated conclusion:

"The fact that from a moral standpoint, there's little difference between a remotely operated gun platform and a remotely triggered IED is probably not at all relevant to people in the field being shot at."

Please elaborate in light of the following evident differences between the two:

1. Concealment v. advertisement


2. Area (volume) of effect v. specified target


3. likelihood and extent of collateral damage and / or fratricide

A distinctive and obviously-marked, formally-adopted item of military hardware, operating openly in conjunction with identifiable military personnel in a manner that targets, to the maximum extent possible, individual opposing combatants, verifiably (the feeds from the SWORDs three video cameras can, and likely will for some time to come, be recorded for review) and precisely doesn't compare well with a hidden explosive or, for that matter, with a number of potential alternatives from our arsenals (e.g. non-precision artillery fires, helicopter and fixed-wing close air support, or even the employment of armored vehicle mounted weapons).

-Mike

Jim:

I'll address your last comment first... "in a civilized fashion"

"The fundamental flaw with remotely piloted systems like this (or more precisely, one of the fundamental flaws) is that it assumes that the present technological advantage of the United States against its enemies can be maintained."

Wrong. It assumes that it's better in any engagement to lose equipment than people. If another country adopts a similar system to fight us we'll have a battle of robots. That would be progress.

"Imagine for a moment that someone is sneaky enough to just monitor the machine until it is driven into its maintenance depot, then take over and shoot everyone in the depot."

Right. Network security is important.

"from a moral standpoint, there's little difference between a remotely operated gun platform and a remotely triggered IED"

Wrong. You're comparing the morality of an IED which kills indiscriminately with a device that stays completely within the control of a human operator and kills with pinpoint accuracy.

"remotely operated gun platforms like this make ideal systems for oppression."

Perhaps. But this is also an ideal system for oversight - both in real time where commanders could be with the pilots issuing orders, AND via Memorex.

Now I'll address your comment from yesterday morning.

The Speculist is NOT a political blog. However, the writers of The Speculist DO have political opinions. The writers of The Speculist CAN and WILL express political opinions from time-to-time. Some of our opinions will be shared by most of the readers of The Speculist. Some of our opinions will be less popular.

Our readers are free to agree with us, disagree with us, or ignore us. But that's it. There's no complaint department. We have no supervisors to reprimand us, suspend us, or fire us.

But again, you have the right not to be subjected to our opinions on politics or anything else. You exercise this right by browsing elsewhere.

Wow.
Or, I guess "Whoa."

It can't be only combat vets who get to weigh in, the civilians - Congress & the President - control the Defense dept. in this country. Or at least they're supposed to, lately (40 years) it's mostly the latter and not so much the former.

However, as a combat vet I can say that my personal security in the battle space was a big deal, not just to me but to my unit. And not just because I'm a good guy and my buddies didn't want to see me mort. But because I had a specialized skill set that took at least two years to create- i.e, expensive and time consuming. So- to the same degree my unit and skills were useful in their military context, it was valuable to protect the nation's investment in me.

I subscribe to the postulate that military action is and should be an extension of the political process and the political will of a nation/state.
It's going to be very difficult, impossible I'd say, to discuss military advances without being political. Nations may become obsolete- but they aren't yet. And in the first world nations, military status is very much a result of the political side of the multiple personality that is the modern nation.

Now- DF & MIke miss the point.

Stephen gets DF right in that he's inferring some sort of honor from the face-to-face, hand to hand, weapons are balanced duel sort of combat. I say bullshit on that. If my engineers (and tax dollars) are smarter than your engineers and tax dollars and I get to deliver a laser guided bomb on you or your tank or even your airfield- boo-hoo. I win- you lose. And that's the point- that's as it should be.

DF goes further however, and suggests that our unwillingness to duke it out and die is why we can't win. Phil gets that one right - and Patton did say it in all the recognized accounts- you don't win by dying for your cause (certain divine persons aside where death was the point). Saying that a lack of desire to die is the same as a lack of willingness to die is...flawed. Or more accurately, that a desire to live and the desire and will to win are inconsistent is ridiculous.

I think Mike and DF are both suffering from survivors' guilt. Others fought and died so they didn't have to- and they feel guilty. Instinctively they want to make war violence neutral or equal opportunity so that they can assuage that guilt and their insecurity and guilt (lack of gratitude) for living in a wealthy first world military superpower- which also happens to have shirked or forgotten the finer art of state craft and diplomacy. But even that last is just plain tough- he's not the President of the those who agree with him- he's the President of the United States.

Stephen-
We have leveled cities. And though we've only nuked two, I'd argue that reasons for not doing so more often are far more complex than we're good guys with enough self control to not do what we could just because we can, nor that the potential motivation based on the reduced personal risk (or perception of same) is something we have chosen to skip. Yet.

Mike & DF didn't say - and there's no reason to think they would- that humiliation of the enemy is a bad idea. I'm sure there are lefties who believe that. But not that many.

And the use of the descriptor "chicken hawk" by the left- at least the articulate, reasoned and intelligent left (my normal experience) - is aimed derisively not at those who support combat but never served. The derision is aimed at those who speak with the kind of Patton-esque bravado and commanding spirit, and who actively avoided serving. There's a difference. The former implies that only combat vets can only ever rightly support combat- clearly a ridiculous proposition. The latter may imply that combat vets in particular are better able to form and understand the philosophical and emotional issues of combat, but the real motivation is partisan political gamesmanship. And because the US is dominated by just two parties, it becomes partisan political gamesmanship of the worst and most useless kind.

The ethical debate referenced is one we should have in this country. But we probably won't, settling instead for a pseudo-debate that is really a clash of personalities, ie, fashion and talking points.

Steve
The Kingdom looks good (and the buzz is encouraging)- but it is Hollywood. A different kind of battlefield. From what I've seen - too Hollywood to be an accurate depiction- though it may inspire or evoke accurate feelings and thoughts. (what the best art does).

D Vision- the first to make the leap here, though it's in the air in the current US: somehow the technological advances have made Americans more squeamish about casualties. I don't buy it.
For most Americans, what has evoked revulsion (authentic and other) to American casualties is the cause- the motivation or reason for the war.
There are pacifists who just want all war and aggression and violence to be seen as evil and avoidable- but mostly even the authentic revulsion is political gamesmanship. They just don't "support the war". (Whatever that means) (and here's a national debate we should be having that should be led by combat vets, except that most of us don't give a hoot long enough to succeed or thrive in the political arena.)
The technological advances are coincident to the increased aversion- but not generally the cause.

Jefe- if I stretch just a little, I could infer that optimism and politics are the counters that motivate the Speculist to avoid military discussion. Perhaps it's just my conviction that military actions are only an extension of the political actions- political goals by other means.

And whether any flavor of technological advance or capability really alters the political will remains to be seen. Nations (and other organizations or entities before that) seem willing to kill "others" when they are or are perceived to be a threat. And the definition of "other" seems unlikely to be revised based on technological advance. Hasn't happened yet, anyway.