In chapter 16, Singer talks about the importance of public opinion when dealing with war. Singer mentions his discussion with Josiah Bunting on how Americans have lost interest in wars. The side effects of this loss is that Americans also lose "any sense of unity for a nation" and "the likelihood of bad policy, and more lost wars" increases (319). Singer and Bunting are portraying war as a positive aspect of American society and I cannot bring myself to agree. Yes, the country did unite during WW1 and WW2. Yes, they did care what happened overseas. Unity and participation are both good aspects of the American public but is war really the only way we can attain these two qualities? Do we really want to go back to the days of WW1 where we had to ration our goods necessary for survival? Do we really want to connect to one another over the fears of a foreign attack? Whether we're focusing on killing others or the men dying for our country, do we really want death to be one of the most important parts of American culture?
I can understand where Bunting is coming from. Americans aren't exactly unified at the moment and it must be frustrating for an army general to know that the war is losing attention. Robotics would take away everything Bunting knows about war and aggravate the divide between the public and war, but is this a bad thing? After a century full of war, Americans are tired. Americans are tired of fighting, they're tired of fearing, and they're tired of losing men they cherish. Robotics is the easy answer to this. Of course, with robotic weapons comes it's own list of problems but those are new problems, not the ones we've been consistently beaten down with over the past few decades. And who knows, robotics might bring new life to American interest. It might fascinate people to the point where Americans begin to rally around robotic weapons, effectively unifying the country around war once again. The thing with robotics is that we don't know. The future is uncertain and it will be interesting to see what unfolds.
I find it difficult to see people rallying behind the silicon soldier. People tend not to budge until something they cherish is at stake and history is littered with numerous examples supporting this fact. With the arrival of the silicon soldier and the reduction of risk to human operators, people would have even lesser motivation to get off their cozy couches. If a nation ceases to have any stake in war in which it is involved, it resembles a person high on drugs: lifeless, isolated and dead to outside violence.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to predict to what extent citizens will rally behind robotic soldiers. When looking at video games such as Call of Duty or Halo, players have no personal connection to the war being fought in those games. However, those players tend to become emotionally invested to their team in the game and became agitated when their team loses the battle. If citizens react similar to robotic soldiers as they do video games, then I can understand the support that robotic soldiers will receive and boost interest in American wars.
ReplyDeleteRobotic soldiers could have the opposite effect, however. Knowing how personal invested I am in sports, I know that part of my attachment comes from the idea of competition. This competition is between humans that have limits though. I know that I would not take much interest in sports if robots replaced human players because the limits to their physical disabilities disappear. While I may not be representative of the population, I believe that most people would agree with this idea. If the human element is removed from war, I'm not sure how much interest people would in robotic soldiers.
I think you bring up a good point about how we might get disengaged with war, but that we are still saving lives. This, I believe, is still the most important thing. We want to limit the cost of war as much as possible. But at a point, is the cost so low that it's not even war anymore? Just because our robots are defeated, that doesn't mean we are defeated. And if the people are disconnected from the war, what power does a winning army have over them? A robotic war when the population is disconnected is won only by bleeding the country dry financially. That is a long process, and there are probably other ways of doing this.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think that there are many other reasons why are country is less unified than it previously was; we can't just blame it on the forgotten wars. Going back to topics discussed during our reading of Wu, our entertainment is so diverse now there is less shared culture. There are other reasons too, for example a larger and more diverse population and increased globalization. So maybe this disengagement with war would be happening with or without our robot warriors.
War is the prospect of death or wounds and a loss of friends and comrades that is scarcely less tragic. (317) When unmanned systems replace for human soldiers, when robotic capital investments substitute personal investments of blood and risk, I agree too that nations are more willing to fight. There is no sadness of losing the one you love, but only inanimate robots. Beaumont mentioned that the USA did unite during WW1 and WW2. However, is it still same case when we facing unmanned system? When technology disengages the public and instead turns war into something merely to be watched, and not weighed with great seriousness, the checks and balances that undergird democracy go by the wayside. (323) Will people care how many robots damaged in the war?
ReplyDeleteI think its true that war brings something unique to the table in terms of unity. people were able to truly come together during wartime in the past, but that was because of the human element. It was because there were people fighting and dying for a cause. I agree with the idea that taking people out of the equation is going to change things, and that is both good and bad, because that means less national unity, but also less deaths. The problem with robot warfare for me is, though it lessens the lives lost, what does it mean for the other side? Once robots become involved, precision will no longer be an issue, and it becomes a battle of monetary value and scientific investment. the question that comes with robotic warfare is who will be left behind? will some nations disappear entirely as a result? whats going to happen?
ReplyDeleteI think that robots will certainly change the perception of war among civilians. As singer points out this may not be for the best. There is alredy a disconnect between the civilians and their protectors. Robots will only furhter this divide. Today people check out youtube clips of the warzone and celebrate when they see the enemy getting decimated. Tommorrow, who knows maybe war will only be a game for them.
ReplyDeleteIn 1991, my friend Alan called me on the first night of the Gulf War. He and I played board games, mostly military ones, to get our minds off the work-load of graduate study.
ReplyDelete"I'm watching the war," he said, "and I'm scared."
His family includes folks in Tel Aviv, and that night Iraq was raining down Scud missiles on Israel. The Israelis had hinted darkly that terrible retaliation would follow any chemical strike by Saddam Hussein's military. And for a brief time, the CNN reporter in downtown Tel Aviv donned his government-issued gas mask because there were reports of a chemical strike.
Alan and I agreed, over the phone, that the world we knew would be ending, as soon as an Israeli nuclear response triggered a regional war almost guaranteed to go global.
Alan's and my games had gotten very real suddenly; first his family was on the line and then, for an hour of white-knuckled terror, everyone on Earth seemed to be. Luckily, the crisis passed.
I just wonder if a robotic war would be so "clean" as we and some of Singer's sources imagine. One side would triumph, and then what would happen? Presumably, the robots would come to the home front of the other side, just like Saddam's guided missiles that could not be called back once fired.
That's not a place I want to go, ever again. I do not think that the soldiers Singer interviewed, who watch video screens of drone strikes in our war on terrorist organizations, can fast-forward mentally to what it might look like to see Cleveland or Sacramento or Orlando under attack.
Although society may seem to be growing intellectually and therefore have a desire to end the cruelty and loss of lives and resources involved in war, I do not think it is possible. As terrible as it may sound I believe that humanity has some sort of inherent desire to fight for things that they believe in. Wars have been a major part of history and have been engaged in by every single nation across the globe. I really do not see a future without war, as pleasant as it may sound. I do not think we will ever reach maturity as a society to get rid of wars. As well, I think that there are too many widely differing opinions in order for some sort of compromise to be made without some bloodshed. For instance, the Arab-Israeli conflict seems to be too big of an issue to solve without war. There is no logical compromise that can be made by both parties in order to end the hatred of both parties being this conflict literally goes back thousands of years.
ReplyDelete