The Author of Our Best SF Military Novel Explains the Future of War

Post by tosseraccount » Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 4:50 PM UTC

s_kilk wrote: post #26

at-fates-hands wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The avoidance of war was probably due to the low population numbers and the ability of groups of hunter/gatherers to avoid each other. As the population grew and humans came into more frequent contact with each other, warfare was a natural by-product of the increased contact between groups.

Agriculture also brought in a massive change in how humans regarded territory. For hunter-gatherer societies there was basically no impulse to fight over territory. Everything they needed could be foraged, and the things they foraged were plentiful. Once we switched from foraging in a bountiful nature to scrounging a meager living from the dirt, defending that dirt or seizing more of it became a much bigger thing.

Post by phlakaton » Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 4:54 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #25

sampo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> paen to the military I always thought Starship Troopers was meant to be a satire, not praise for war. Just like Springsteen's Born in the U.S.A. isn't a patriotic song.

Given Heinlein's history and politics, I don't think so. Now the movie , that was definitely meant to be satire. Which is why so many fans of the book hate it.

Post by JackFr » Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 4:56 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #12

pm90 wrote: post #2

Mankind 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…

Actually, mankind has probably not been at war for most of its existence. Homo sapiens comes into existence ~200kya. By contrast, there is no evidence of warfare for most of the Paleolithic, and the first unambiguous evidence only comes ~10-12kya. In other words, the development of warfare is only roughly contemporaneous with the development of agriculture and sedentarism.

Post by davidw » Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 4:56 PM UTC

mrec wrote: post #31

angersock wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't really care for Old Man's War . It's a fun read, but it's popcorn. It was a bit too juvenile nanotech wankfest for me. Nominally it looks at subjects like long life, implanted AIs, etc., but it doesn't really do anything with them other than go "squeeeee look at the tooyyyyyys". EDIT: If you want to just bask in the sheer glory of superior firepower and gallows humor, and maybe even occasionally see somethin…

I'd second the Hammer's Slammers rec. Don't be put off by the lurid pictures of ZOMG TANKS!!! on the covers of some editions; it's a lot more nuanced than the name and artwork imply. I'd also recommend his Redliners , which deals in large part with the need to re-establish empathy between soldiers and the civilians they fight for. Some elements of the plot get a bit silly, but Drake was exorcising some serious person…

Post by talmand » Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 5:05 PM UTC

lukifer wrote: post #5

talmand wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…