The Author of Our Best SF Military Novel Explains the Future of War
motherboard.vice.com
The Author of Our Best SF Military Novel Explains the Future of War
1–10 of 86 posts
Re: The Author of Our Best SF Military Novel Explains the Future of War
#2Mankind has been at war for most of its existence. Only after WW2 and the development of nuclear weapons has war become much too risky due to MAD and has made diplomacy a much more viable option....for the more powerful nations. Meanwhile, we still have civil war in Syria, unrest in Africa etc.
Once we colonize other worlds and space travel becomes more feasible, earth will become less valuable: the powers that be can relocate to another planet and just fight their proxy wars on earth.
Re: The Author of Our Best SF Military Novel Explains the Future of War
#3Mankind has been at war for most of its existence. Only after WW2 and the development of nuclear weapons has war become much too risky due to MAD and has made diplomacy a much more viable option....for the more powerful nations. Meanwhile, we still have civil war in Syria, unrest in Africa etc. Once we colonize other worlds and space travel becomes more feasible, earth will become less valuable: the powers that be ca…
Mankind has always been at war with itself over resources.
The introduction of nuclear weapons only removed the option of total war from the table, all the other regular warfare standards are still in play.
Re: The Author of Our Best SF Military Novel Explains the Future of War
#4'“To say that The Forever War is the best science fiction war novel ever written is to damn it with faint praise.” It’s one of the best books about war, period'
I'd probably raise that on Gibson. It's one of the best books, period.
"The protagonist, an almost-anagrammed stand-in for Haldeman named Mandella, is hurled across far reaches of the galaxy to fight a poorly understood, apparently undefeatable foe."
In that regard, it's as much a commentary about war today as it is the future.
Re: The Author of Our Best SF Military Novel Explains the Future of War
#5Mankind has been at war for most of its existence. Only after WW2 and the development of nuclear weapons has war become much too risky due to MAD and has made diplomacy a much more viable option....for the more powerful nations. Meanwhile, we still have civil war in Syria, unrest in Africa etc. Once we colonize other worlds and space travel becomes more feasible, earth will become less valuable: the powers that be ca…
Mankind has always been at war with itself over resources. The introduction of nuclear weapons only removed the option of total war from the table, all the other regular warfare standards are still in play.
The reality is that war is an effective means of population equilibrium, and it's no coincidence that its' enthusiasts skew heavily male. Genetically speaking, it offers a good deal: eliminate competitor males, and if you survive, your mating opportunities statistically improve after the war is over (and that's without mentioning the horrid connection between war and mass rape in ancient warfare, and still sometimes today).
Ironically enough, I think these violent "selfish gene" urges have been co-opted into (relatively) less deadly forms of war by sociopaths who seek economic domination and control (typically using the recursive logic of game theory; after all, they're just keeping up with the other sociopaths). I wish I could remember the source, but I've read that conquest and colonionism is so expensive that it tends to be net-neutral even after extracting the resources of the vanquished; however, it is an extremely effective way to transfer wealth internally between powers on the victor's side.
Given the perverse incentives at work, the only way to reduce war is to pro-actively wage peace, from every angle: deepen economic interdependence, extend the circle of empathy through culture, and perhaps most importantly, continue to inter-breed across every geographic and ethnic divide.
Re: The Author of Our Best SF Military Novel Explains the Future of War
#6'“To say that The Forever War is the best science fiction war novel ever written is to damn it with faint praise.” It’s one of the best books about war, period' I'd probably raise that on Gibson. It's one of the best books, period. "The protagonist, an almost-anagrammed stand-in for Haldeman named Mandella, is hurled across far reaches of the galaxy to fight a poorly understood, apparently undefeatable foe." In that…
It's still one of my favorite reads.
It's worth mentioning that Haldeman wrote it in part as an allegory to Vietnam. It's often called a counterpart or "rebuttal" to Heinlein's "Starship Troopers", though you'll read that both authors had immense respect for each others' books.
In any case, I agree, "The Forever War" is up at the pinnacle of the art of Science Fiction and a near-perfect example of the message it can deliver.
Re: The Author of Our Best SF Military Novel Explains the Future of War
#7I read Starship Troopers and The Forever War back-to-back in like three days, and I wasn't so much of a fan of Haldeman's book, the writing just didn't seem as good to me as Heinlein's and in any case they're nearly identical -- though obviously the relativity thing and time making the "forever" part true was a very good point.
Re: The Author of Our Best SF Military Novel Explains the Future of War
#8I don't think the author of this post ever actually read Starship Troopers, I imagine they've only seen the movie, since the book is hardly pro-war.
Re: The Author of Our Best SF Military Novel Explains the Future of War
#9I don't think the author of this post ever actually read Starship Troopers, I imagine they've only seen the movie, since the book is hardly pro-war.
I don't think the movie was pro-war either. It was, imo, a satirical in flavor.
Re: The Author of Our Best SF Military Novel Explains the Future of War
#10I read Starship Troopers and The Forever War back-to-back in like three days, and I wasn't so much of a fan of Haldeman's book, the writing just didn't seem as good to me as Heinlein's and in any case they're nearly identical -- though obviously the relativity thing and time making the "forever" part true was a very good point.
Saying they're "nearly identical" seems to miss the point that the former is a paen to the military filled with lieutenant colonels waxing philosophical about how duty to fight is the basis of all morality, whilst the latter involves a brazenly cynical protagonist whose thoughts of war mostly involve hoping to find a way out of it...