Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

and you thought Star Wars was a crazy u.s. govt venture!!

what if the problem is that our current soldiers are already to robot-like? only in the defense budget can more spending be the goal. this is truly scary. is the problem that military planners read too many sci fi books/movies or that lawmakers don't read enough?


A New Model Army Soldier Rolls Closer to the Battlefield
By TIM WEINER, The New York Times




Feb. 16) - The American military is working on a new generation of soldiers, far different from the army it has.

"They don't get hungry," said Gordon Johnson of the Joint Forces Command at the Pentagon. "They're not afraid. They don't forget their orders. They don't care if the guy next to them has just been shot. Will they do a better job than humans? Yes."

The robot soldier is coming.

The Pentagon predicts that robots will be a major fighting force in the American military in less than a decade, hunting and killing enemies in combat. Robots are a crucial part of the Army's effort to rebuild itself as a 21st-century fighting force, and a $127 billion project called Future Combat Systems is the biggest military contract in American history.

The military plans to invest tens of billions of dollars in automated armed forces. The costs of that transformation will help drive the Defense Department's budget up almost 20 percent, from a requested $419.3 billion for next year to $502.3 billion in 2010, excluding the costs of war. The annual costs of buying new weapons is scheduled to rise 52 percent, from $78 billion to $118.6 billion.

Military planners say robot soldiers will think, see and react increasingly like humans. In the beginning, they will be remote-controlled, looking and acting like lethal toy trucks. As the technology develops, they may take many shapes. And as their intelligence grows, so will their autonomy.

The robot soldier has been a dream at the Pentagon for 30 years. And some involved in the work say it may take at least 30 more years to realize in full. Well before then, they say, the military will have to answer tough questions if it intends to trust robots with the responsibility of distinguishing friend from foe, combatant from bystander.

Yes, e-dawg

we got drones to fly,
why not drones that patrol as well?

I woke up an realised that I was programmed, the socialised automatic pilot, complete with wings, stuck out chest, a swagger, and the rest is simply cloned thinking, something they got systems engineers dreaming up in their cubbyholes.

AND there's money to be made as well, as long as the American taxpayers keep on paying without question, we will see it.

next after that is nanotechnology...there are already experiments going on with tiny flying insect-like robots that disperse and travel to avoid radar detection, then regroup somewhere and assemble themselves into whatever sensor or weapon they want it to assemble into

most advances in society that we take for granted arise as a by-product of military R&D

That's true, but it is also used as a justification for military R&D.

Same thing could happen with direct research, like, say, Japan, Germany, Sweden, and, oh, maybe some place like Canada, for instance.

I have a friend who makes precision human molds for MRI technology.

Nano tech for medical diagnosis is not a direct result of military research. Maybe there are parallels, but, to say that nano tech is a direct bemefit of military r&d is a stretch.

The day we can do research on anything constructive without a weapons application will be a day we'll have a bake sale for battleships, sure, but the justification for weapons research and development is to keep r&d capability current, as well as fear and not seeing options to massive weaponry.

Is there a limit, and will sanity prevail?

yes yes yes by all means yes

first i said 'most' not 'all'

second i was not saying that as a justification for anything...merely some facts


in the end, technology allows us to kill better, as distasteful as that sounds...precision bombing is better than area bombing because it has less collateral civilian and object damage, for example

most advances in society that we take for granted arise as a by-product of military R&D

My dear Knipster, while I share your concerns about this dilemma,
I don't really see any improvement in reducing collateral damage with recent weapons technology. Thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed or wounded.

Precision bombing has not gotten good enough to avoid substantial collateral civilian damage.

Check out the technology now in use with the AC-130 Spectre gunship, for example.

It depends on where it is used. Cornering desert rats in a desert training base is one thing, but gunning into Fallujah is quite another.

Unfortunately, human intelligence and speed are limiting factors that may never be overcome.

I think that the use of restraint and alternatives to violence along with genuine peacekeeping incursions are the way to reduce suffering. American shock and awe bombing, cruise misseling, stealth shooting war machines are heavily guilty of civilian damage.

But I know that you know this.

The eventual conversion of the usage of military forces into genuine peacekeeping is what and where you guys need to be going.

One instant where this was used effectively was the surgical strikes that took out the Serbian artillery that was raining down on Sarajevo for a long time. But aggressive bombing after that resulted in some heavy collateral damage.

So it is not merely that technology can be developed to such a degree of accuracy that collateral damage will be avoided. We have reached a plateau in that regard.

It is unfortunate that the authoritarian system that exists has no place for dissident types like me, who might be able to make policy and strategy in a more enlightened military-political culture.
It's where I hope that guys like you who are not forced into dissent can make the changes. But the history of the American military, ever since Vietnam, is that the thinkers all leave, forced out by conscience.

So my hope is with you, Knip, and the people who you know.
I mean that in deepest sincerity.

i always respect your opinions jimbo, and value our conversations, but i want to make a few points where you haven't convinced me with your arguments

I don't really see any improvement in reducing collateral damage with recent weapons technology. Thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed or wounded.

i agree the collateral damage has been significant...i was speaking in relative terms, and that technology (in addition to finding ways to kill that doesn't, or at least lessens threat to americans) goes where it goes in the hopes of lessening collateral damage...in WW II, the US brokered an agreement at the outset that would prohibit aerial bombing of civilian centres...this was well before the US entered the war...it worked for a while, but the tit-for-tat game eventually resulted in the german firebombing of coventry, followed by Brit Bomber Command's firebombing campaign in germany...i'm sure you know what firebombing is, but i'll re-state it for anyone else reading...it involved waves of aerial attack, the first wave or two were high explosive bombs designed to break windows and doors of buildings...this was followed by incendiary bombers whose resultant fires were fuelled by the air rushing in through the bombed out doors and windows...most civilian deaths during these raids were the result of asphyxiation rather than the fire, although the deaths from the latter were significant...this continued all through 1944, where 5-10,000 deaths per raid was commonplace, and culminated in dresden in february 1945, where 35,000 were killed (some sources say 80,000...some others in excess of 200,000....from my studies, i lean towards 35,000, which is significant enough)...the revulsion on the allied side was significant, and they ceased the area bombings after that, although it picked up again in japan, and eventually, the A-bomb drops...i finished a paper on this very topic last december, although my profs didn't necessarily agree with me (i got a B)...

the approach taken today is significantly different than that in years past...this is the attempt to reduce collateral damage...although there are still civilian deaths, they do try to limit them as best they can...which obviously, is not as best as many others feel they should, but there it is...i never said technology served to elminate it, i said it served to reduce it

gunning into Fallujah is quite another

the US forces advertized well in advance to the civilian population that the fallujah raid was to occur...many, in fact, left...i cannot speak for why those who remained did so, but it is naive to think the insurgents didn't have something to do with it...other than not attack, i don't see what they could have done to reduce collateral damage other than what they did

I think that the use of restraint and alternatives to violence along with genuine peacekeeping incursions are the way to reduce suffering. American shock and awe bombing, cruise misseling, stealth shooting war machines are heavily guilty of civilian damage

of course the argument goes that in many cases peacekeeping cannot be done until peacemaking has been complete...the ex-yugoslavia example you bring up was a UN Chapter 6 operation (peacekeeping) until it failed and they made it a Chapter 7 operation (peacemaking)...it has since reverted back to Chapter 6...the thing about peacekeeping is that the participants have to invite them in, otherwise it is peacemaking...what the US is doing in iraq would have been a Chapter 7 peaemaking operation had the UN endorsed the US when they went to them...they didn't, which is why the US is calling it pre-emptive self-defence, which is completely legal in accordance with international law, by the way, regardless of what spin i've seen put on it...ok i admit, that's my interpretation and open to debate...i would love a world where peacekeeping is all we do, even though it is much harder to plan and train for than straight conflict...i think what you really mean when you say peacekeeping is operations sanctioned by the international community through the UN...i thought that way about 6 months ago, before i flopped and assessed that this perfect world where countries act in the benefit of all doesn't always exist....france and germany's votes were not about giving inspections more time; they were about their own national goals in europe...after much soul-searching i concluded i supported US operations in iraq, although maybe not for their reasons...but that support is tenuous, and i could flop back the other way some day...i'm really straddling a line on this one...but i wonder, how did you feel about israel's bombing of the iraqi nuclear plant some years ago? personally, i completely understood the need for a country surrounded by enemies who wanted to sweep them into the sea to attack at the weapons that helped the enemy to do so...i find today's iran example eerily similar, and sincerely hope the issue can be solved through the current EU efforts

So it is not merely that technology can be developed to such a degree of accuracy that collateral damage will be avoided. We have reached a plateau in that regard

sorry jim, i see no evidence of this...everything i have read and studied points towards a continual decrease in collateral damage that is primarily the result of new weapon technology...but i am willing to be convinced otherwise if the proofs are strong enough


as always, i enjoy discussing these things with you jimbo...but there was just so much in your post with which i disagreed that i felt i had to counterargue...nonetheless, i hope (and if i was so inclined, would pray) for peace...we can agree on that, even if our methods in so doing differ...but i think we are generally closer in perspective than we are far apart

which is why the US is calling it pre-emptive self-defence, which is completely legal in accordance with international law, by the way, regardless of what spin i've seen put on it...

Heady answer, where's the brandy?
Of course the US called it self defense.....but it was a lie.

Irregardless of what you say about France and Germany's motivations in opposing the U.S. invasion of Iraq, it is my understanding that a significant factor was the issue of death and suffering wrought versus the actual Iraqi threat posed fictitiously by the Yankee doodle dandies.

Yes we told them to leave town and then we bombed. Bur there was a lot of bombing before as well.

Your initial premise is that Iraq was a threat, and you justify the as you say somewhat cautious means thereafter.

With Israel, knifing an Iraqi nuke plant?
No real harm done, cause thay could get away with it, but look again, they also have numerous nukes of their own and are vicious about anybody even talking about it.

I guarante you that if we strike in Iran, we will have a war on our hands that will magnify Iraq into a tragedy beyond belief. The simple fact is that we can not strike Iran.. We can not strike Korea.
So we have to negotiate.

We pulled punches on Iraq because we could.
No other reason. We justified our reasons with a scripted scenario.

I know about the battle of Britain. I know that the german Air Force changed their targets from British airfields and into the cities. It was stupid as well as horrific.
THEN WE DID THE SAME THING. But hey, the Germans upped the anty. Yes. So we are still using WW2 to justify suqt little wars all over the world.
I know that WW2 involved killing Dresden and etcand etc. My pops was a bomber pilot at age 19, copilot in B-24 with a Quaker as his first pilot. My dad died in 1948, but I have known the Quaker since I came back from Vietnam.

He has been very much against this war, and Vietnam, and Panama, and, Desert Storm 1, and he firebombed German cities in WW2.

You wanna decrease collateral damage?
Stop the war.
Use restraint. Involve others. Don't lie about rationale and rush to war.

We all know what we are capable of.

Oh this Cuban coffee is too good!

I will reread your threads again, matey.

I also want to point you toward a friend of mine who will be published in ....(follows in quote)

Dear Jim,

Yep, I’m still at Haverford, though not Haverford High. Haverford High is the public school. I’m at a private school called The Haverford School. (There is no state board of education anywhere in these United States that says I’m qualified to teach high school, so I can’t teach in public schools, to which I say, “Fine. Fuck you.”) And Dr. Joe Cox--formerly Colonel Joe Cox, ranger, paratrooper, and West Point professor—is still the headmaster. He and I just wrote poems about the Iraq War that will appear together in the next issue of War, Literature and the Arts sometime later this year.


Yes, what passes for left wing politics in this country’s political discourse is pretty pathetic. I still remember the debate between Republicans and Democrats over Nicaragua in the 1980s: send in the Marines v. economic sanctions. Not one serious mainstream politician suggesting maybe we should just leave them alone. And of course, 20 years later, Nicaragua is the second poorest country in the western hemisphere—but they’re not communist anymore, so who cares? Christ, don’t get me started.

Bill

http://www.wdehrhart.com/
http://www.poetsagainstthewar.org/displ ... thorID=492
(Haverford High is a Quaker school. Bill was a Marine in Vietnam.)

See Knip, I know that the realpolitik types do not envision anything better than smarter bombs, but in fact there is another way to look at this, and that is to look at the tragedy of war without excuse, and to demand alternatives, and war as the last resort.

You say we are moving toward ever greater accuracy in guidance systems. Is that being paralled by a movement toward more accuracy in truth, less deceipt, and room to move out of our gridlock? It is my hope that we are doing that, and my hope for you as well. We have got to stop and quit rationalising our wars with false scenarios, offer alternatives, even whilst on guard. Nopbody I know is gonna be a patsy and not fight for loved ones.
I am a screaming maniac, waiting to be loosed, but tethered with experience of dismay and being soiled by my former masters.
I swooped down into those artillery bases with reckless abandon, a controlled fall, loaded with guns and bombs and landmines.
Then I asked, why? I write my own orders now, make my own meanings, and question war every time.


I understand your ambivalence. I been there, altho as a young man, was shocked away and had to make my basic impuilses stand the test of my own rationale. Not afraid to fight just to be misused abused in service of a lie, perpetrating suffering to others when the best was left undone.
It as always a priv·i·lege to dialogue with you and who'da guessed a Canadian swabbie'd be here with the kooks?


Katum

E-dog, I hear a drone flying overhead. Buzzzzzzzzzz. It's a robot bee!

http://www.neweyestudio.com/ebayH/ebh683.jpg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guns

Again we pass that field
green artillery piece squatting
by the Legion Post on Chelten Avenue,
its ugly little pointed snout
ranged against my daughter's school.

"Did you ever use a gun
like that?" my daughter asks,
and I say, "No, but others did.
I used a smaller gun. A rifle."
She knows I've been to war.

"That's dumb," she says,
and I say, "Yes," and nod
because it was, and nod again
because she doesn't know.
How do you tell a four-year-old

what steel can do to flesh?
How vivid do you dare to get?
How explain a world where men
kill other men deliberately
and call it love of country?

Just eighteen, I killed
a ten-year-old. I didn't know.
he spins across the marketplace
all shattered chest, all eyes and arms.
Do I tell her that? Not yet,

though one day I will have
no choice except to tell her
or to send her into the world
wide-eyed and ignorant.
The boy spins across the years

till he lands in a heap
in another war in another place
where yet another generation
is rudely about to discover
what their fathers never told them.

W.D. Ehrhart
(This poem) comes from my book Beautiful Wreckage: New & Selected Poems by W. D. Ehrhart, Adastra Press, 1999.

http://www.poetsagainstthewar.org/displ ... thorID=492