war. the sound of thunder from Hell itself. heavy tanks moving into line to engage the enemy. shells pounding cities into rubble. fertile green open country turned into wasteland. it could be 1914, 1939, or 1990. the date doesn’t matter. its the same scenario, the same destruction.
will Gaza mark the end of conventional conflict and the Iran Regime war the start of something new?
scorched sand and concrete
its all too familiar. the location is just another dot on the world map wiped from our history. more disenfranchised people with a new identity. collateral.
I’m not making some worthy political statement here. this could be any war, who started it, enabled it, supports it and the rights and wrongs of it. they are all the same. people will always want to fight. some out of the perceived unfairness of life, some to follow some twisted ideology. we can’t change that, we’re flawed humanity after all.
but does war have to be fought this way?
technology’s value reduced to providing the means of killing more efficiently
technology has always been designed to make our lives better, easier. devices we will buy, upgrade, enriched living presented in a pristine unboxing experience. except war. that’s all about the maximum damage that can be inflicted. no longer tech for a better way of life, this is for a better way of death.
better for whom?
does anyone stop to think what value is delivered to the victor when the dust has settled? usually there will be a lot of it – and probably in many cases, its all that’s left. the victor is more often or not simply the last one standing on a land they get zero value from.
We say every big war will be the last. but this to me represents what could well be the last war fought like this.
new technology for a better war
don’t be horrified. I’m not some twisted warmonger. I’m a realist, a pragmatist. but above all a human being who appreciates the value of life. few wars begin with the people. the vast majority – as near as dammit all of them, are fought by a government, dictator, some figurehead who drags his people into his fight, by his action or by his aggression on a peaceful neighbour.
why cant there be a war that leaves the innocent people alone, leaves the the country intact, a sanitised surgical war?
wars of attrition are finished. the balance is tipping
wars like Afghanistan have shown that tiny devices – improvised explosive devices or IEDs – can defeat even the greatest armour. unconventional war sent the might of the USSR packing and forced the invincible US and NATO into a humiliating scramble to leave. tactical tech.
so here’s the thing. we have entered the phase of conflict where the most effective weapon costs a fraction of the means to defeat it. a drone costing less than a few thousand dollars requires a missile costing millions to stop it. basic maths suggests that if one side has enough drones, the other side will simply run out of money before they could claim any sort of victory.
what if technology has something even more intelligent to offer here?
evolutionary drone warfare
imagine an AI-enabled drone. programmed to target precisely the enemy and avoid the innocent. using geo-location – already in place, but maybe using facial or characteristic recognition to identify the evil leader? maybe analysing the posture of the target to identify the threat. an armed combatant engaged, a cowering child ignored. a new humanity-rules-based terms of engagement.
the technical battalion
such drones could be deployed after programming via a mother drone or some disguised conventional vehicle travelling along the highway or “loitering” in a specific location. that could just be the start.
a war without soldiers – a battle without collateral damage. now that would be the war to end all wars. and good riddance to the old wars!