There is a point to warfare. It is to make things so unpleasant for the other side that they have no choice but to submit.
The more we try to computerize warfare and make it antiseptic, the easier it becomes for us to ignore that fact. Admittedly this is effective - when we don't feel the pain of war we are able to inflict more of it - but fundamentally I think it is wrong.
There was a star trek original series episode about this. Two planets who had evolved warfare to the point that it was completely carried out in simulations, and casualties were executed by each respective side.
I believe kirk ended the show with destroying their computers and giving them a moral lecture on the horrors of war...
Comments
There is a point to warfare. It is to make things so unpleasant for the other side that they have no choice but to submit.
The more we try to computerize warfare and make it antiseptic, the easier it becomes for us to ignore that fact. Admittedly this is effective - when we don't feel the pain of war we are able to inflict more of it - but fundamentally I think it is wrong.
There was a star trek original series episode about this. Two planets who had evolved warfare to the point that it was completely carried out in simulations, and casualties were executed by each respective side.
I believe kirk ended the show with destroying their computers and giving them a moral lecture on the horrors of war...
Anyway, your post reminded me of it.
Maybe war will evolve into an expensive, highly roboticised, chess game?
Maybe all war will condense to genocide.
I prefer my version, but I think you might have the edge.
In many ways I feel glad that I live in this age and not the next.