- Reaction score
- 7,581
- Points
- 1,160
Time Expireds underlying point is a good one.
But I don't find the morality as disturbing as the practicality. If conflict ever becomes the realm of "automaton vs automaton" then it will have reached the level of the WWE. We already are concerned that society is divorced from the people fighting for it. There is a fairly tentative connection between the warriors and the parent society in the West as it is.
If that link is ever broken completely then the people in society will have no "dog in the fight", no "skin". They will be nothing more than spectators in the stands with no adverse consequences for failure.
As war becomes more automated, allowing soldiers to kill greater numbers while incurring fewer casualties, the net tendency may be for society to see war as a more "supportable" option against the "thems" of this world. I believe that tendency would increase if the opposing teams were nothing more than remote controlled tin-cans.
However, I also believe the problem would solve itself. Just like any well run match of "the Old Firm" (Papist Celtic and Proddy Rangers) when the result on the field is unsatisfactory the discussion moves to the stands and then the blood really starts to flow.
Osama's mob really did just that. They took the fight to the stands because they couldn't win on the field.
Edited to remove Freudian Slip.
But I don't find the morality as disturbing as the practicality. If conflict ever becomes the realm of "automaton vs automaton" then it will have reached the level of the WWE. We already are concerned that society is divorced from the people fighting for it. There is a fairly tentative connection between the warriors and the parent society in the West as it is.
If that link is ever broken completely then the people in society will have no "dog in the fight", no "skin". They will be nothing more than spectators in the stands with no adverse consequences for failure.
As war becomes more automated, allowing soldiers to kill greater numbers while incurring fewer casualties, the net tendency may be for society to see war as a more "supportable" option against the "thems" of this world. I believe that tendency would increase if the opposing teams were nothing more than remote controlled tin-cans.
However, I also believe the problem would solve itself. Just like any well run match of "the Old Firm" (Papist Celtic and Proddy Rangers) when the result on the field is unsatisfactory the discussion moves to the stands and then the blood really starts to flow.
Osama's mob really did just that. They took the fight to the stands because they couldn't win on the field.
Edited to remove Freudian Slip.