Comments on: The future of war http://blog.longnow.org/2010/07/27/the-future-of-war/ The Official Weblog of The Long Now Foundation and Friends Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:43:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: SteveM http://blog.longnow.org/2010/07/27/the-future-of-war/comment-page-1/#comment-21715 SteveM Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:48:51 +0000 http://blog.longnow.org/?p=2905#comment-21715 Sadly, the US Defense budget does not contain the true cost of military and homeland security. Discounting the US national police forces, and some service components, but adding in intelligence, military spending in other budgets (NASA, DOE, DOT, SocSec, etc), financed cost of prior wars and prior financed military spending, the US spends well in excess of $1 trillion per year while exporting the means to war and state sponsored terrorism in ever increasing doses. So the deaths in Guatemala, El Salvador in the 1980s were not listed as wars, but 250,000 died anyhow. I think the potential for war is great now - the US would have been in more under Bush Jr if Chaney had his way. And I think that if you live on the Pakistan border, you think there is a US Pakistan war, because civilians are dying in ever increasing numbers. Please no rosy appraisal. There may have been more wars in the 13th century, but swords, spears, and errors would not wipe out humanity the way nukes, weapons grade biologicals and chemicals can. Sadly, the US Defense budget does not contain the true cost of military and homeland security. Discounting the US national police forces, and some service components, but adding in intelligence, military spending in other budgets (NASA, DOE, DOT, SocSec, etc), financed cost of prior wars and prior financed military spending, the US spends well in excess of $1 trillion per year while exporting the means to war and state sponsored terrorism in ever increasing doses. So the deaths in Guatemala, El Salvador in the 1980s were not listed as wars, but 250,000 died anyhow. I think the potential for war is great now – the US would have been in more under Bush Jr if Chaney had his way. And I think that if you live on the Pakistan border, you think there is a US Pakistan war, because civilians are dying in ever increasing numbers. Please no rosy appraisal. There may have been more wars in the 13th century, but swords, spears, and errors would not wipe out humanity the way nukes, weapons grade biologicals and chemicals can.

]]> By: cinndave http://blog.longnow.org/2010/07/27/the-future-of-war/comment-page-1/#comment-21297 cinndave Fri, 06 Aug 2010 07:14:46 +0000 http://blog.longnow.org/?p=2905#comment-21297 Some very contradictory messages in the links. The New Republic is right: the world is more peaceful and war is becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of cause of death. Globalization and free trade promote peace. The more countries do business with each other, the more they stand to lose by waging war. <br><br>Luc Leblanc: China's military is modernizing very quickly. Their military budget is typically 3 to 5 times larger than what they say it is. I don't know about a supercarrier, but they are building a better air force, including a stealth fighter similar to the F-22 using secrets they have stolen.<br><br>As for Japan, they went into stagnation because they had a massive bank failure in the 90's similar to today. The difference? They didn't bail out their banks, so the country stalled for 15 years despite interest rates being near 0% ever since. Bless Barack Obama for learning from that. tangent over.<br><br>I'm getting a little tired of futurists saying that wars will be fought with robots. They won't. It will be the USA and a few wealthy nations using robots in very specialized roles same as they are today, while our enemies just keep using and sacrificing humans. Life is cheap to them anyway. UAV's won't have a role much bigger than they already do either. They often fail, crash, and require dangerous missions to recover sensitive material. Some very contradictory messages in the links. The New Republic is right: the world is more peaceful and war is becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of cause of death. Globalization and free trade promote peace. The more countries do business with each other, the more they stand to lose by waging war.

Luc Leblanc: China's military is modernizing very quickly. Their military budget is typically 3 to 5 times larger than what they say it is. I don't know about a supercarrier, but they are building a better air force, including a stealth fighter similar to the F-22 using secrets they have stolen.

As for Japan, they went into stagnation because they had a massive bank failure in the 90's similar to today. The difference? They didn't bail out their banks, so the country stalled for 15 years despite interest rates being near 0% ever since. Bless Barack Obama for learning from that. tangent over.

I'm getting a little tired of futurists saying that wars will be fought with robots. They won't. It will be the USA and a few wealthy nations using robots in very specialized roles same as they are today, while our enemies just keep using and sacrificing humans. Life is cheap to them anyway. UAV's won't have a role much bigger than they already do either. They often fail, crash, and require dangerous missions to recover sensitive material.

]]> By: Luc Leblanc http://blog.longnow.org/2010/07/27/the-future-of-war/comment-page-1/#comment-21204 Luc Leblanc Wed, 28 Jul 2010 10:42:31 +0000 http://blog.longnow.org/?p=2905#comment-21204 I don't understand the big fuzz surrounding China. The country is nothing but a Communist dictatorship. They need the army to maintain social order! If China is to engage in a war, they will need to move troops away from many hotspots. When you got Tibetans and Uyghur ready to form a fifth-collum of millions, starting a war is a peril by itself.<br><br>Besides, the whole "U.S. in Peril" scenario is nothing new. Anyone remembers Japan in the '80? With their electronics, Zaibatsus and their mutant sararimen ready to work 25 hours/day, 8 days a week? They went the way of the Dodo when the bubble popped a decade later. I think China might take the same road. I might be wrong; please inform me when China will have a homemade nuclear aircraft carrier and we will discuss all of this (The U.S. Navy got a dozen of them).<br><br>This being said, the operation "Cast Lead" is a perfect example of the war of the future when pin-point accuracy can be used in real time. If my numbers are correct, the Gaza population only suffered 0.1% of deaths over their whole population (militants and civilians included). This is an amazing number compared to any offensive made during World War II. So this will be the wars of the future; fast, clinicaly precise and fought at distance via video monitors. I don't understand the big fuzz surrounding China. The country is nothing but a Communist dictatorship. They need the army to maintain social order! If China is to engage in a war, they will need to move troops away from many hotspots. When you got Tibetans and Uyghur ready to form a fifth-collum of millions, starting a war is a peril by itself.

Besides, the whole “U.S. in Peril” scenario is nothing new. Anyone remembers Japan in the '80? With their electronics, Zaibatsus and their mutant sararimen ready to work 25 hours/day, 8 days a week? They went the way of the Dodo when the bubble popped a decade later. I think China might take the same road. I might be wrong; please inform me when China will have a homemade nuclear aircraft carrier and we will discuss all of this (The U.S. Navy got a dozen of them).

This being said, the operation “Cast Lead” is a perfect example of the war of the future when pin-point accuracy can be used in real time. If my numbers are correct, the Gaza population only suffered 0.1% of deaths over their whole population (militants and civilians included). This is an amazing number compared to any offensive made during World War II. So this will be the wars of the future; fast, clinicaly precise and fought at distance via video monitors.

]]> By: vanderleun http://blog.longnow.org/2010/07/27/the-future-of-war/comment-page-1/#comment-21202 vanderleun Wed, 28 Jul 2010 04:52:26 +0000 http://blog.longnow.org/?p=2905#comment-21202 We accept your pre-apology for it being "somewhat U.S.-centric" and look forward to the day when it is China centric. We accept your pre-apology for it being “somewhat U.S.-centric” and look forward to the day when it is China centric.

]]> By: Zander http://blog.longnow.org/2010/07/27/the-future-of-war/comment-page-1/#comment-21192 Zander Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:33:00 +0000 http://blog.longnow.org/?p=2905#comment-21192 In the high-tech combat category I think there could be a nasty reconning when other nations begin using robot warfare against the US. A determined high tech manufacturing country like China could achieve very dramatic results with robotic warfare... <br><br>Another point brought up in PW Singer's Wired For War that I still think about is how tele-presence changes the targets in lawful combat. We usually think about it in terms of how lethal it is in other countries. However if a soldier who operates a Predator drone were to walk out of his control trailer in Nevada and go to the mall with his family that evening in uniform, he is a legal wartime target. In the high-tech combat category I think there could be a nasty reconning when other nations begin using robot warfare against the US. A determined high tech manufacturing country like China could achieve very dramatic results with robotic warfare…

Another point brought up in PW Singer's Wired For War that I still think about is how tele-presence changes the targets in lawful combat. We usually think about it in terms of how lethal it is in other countries. However if a soldier who operates a Predator drone were to walk out of his control trailer in Nevada and go to the mall with his family that evening in uniform, he is a legal wartime target.

]]> By: Roy McDonald http://blog.longnow.org/2010/07/27/the-future-of-war/comment-page-1/#comment-21191 Roy McDonald Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:51:40 +0000 http://blog.longnow.org/?p=2905#comment-21191 It seems likely that the US and China will wind up in conflict at some point this century: two highly successful social systems with conflicting values like "human rights" vesus "social order", and democracy versus central planning. Considering how rapidly technology and manufacturing capacity are advancing in China, by the time this happens the US may be not only 3x smaller in population but with weaker weapon systems, too. I'll predict we avoid outright war but that the Chinese model gets pushed a lot of places the US doesn't want it, going way beyond Taiwan, because China holds economic AND military power advantages when push comes to shove. It seems likely that the US and China will wind up in conflict at some point this century: two highly successful social systems with conflicting values like “human rights” vesus “social order”, and democracy versus central planning. Considering how rapidly technology and manufacturing capacity are advancing in China, by the time this happens the US may be not only 3x smaller in population but with weaker weapon systems, too. I'll predict we avoid outright war but that the Chinese model gets pushed a lot of places the US doesn't want it, going way beyond Taiwan, because China holds economic AND military power advantages when push comes to shove.

]]>