shebs@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley Shebs) (10/12/83)
Over and over again, we find that there is no "heroism" in the army or in war. Go back through history, and you find that the most "heroic" wars are also the ones with very few casualties. If there's a lot of casualties, the war is "bloody", and if much property is destroyed (from burning or bombs or whatever), the war is "devastating". Also, war is more "heroic" to the non-participants, than to those involved. I haven't see the material in question, but it jibes with everything I know. In a way, it's practical; the commander cannot make strategy if everyone under him is running around trying to be "heroic". Regarding the enemy as sub-human is nothing new; there's lots of precedent. Perhaps the main change is that war has become something much larger than individuals, who are now caught in the system, with little understanding of what is really going on. The bomber drops his load on an unknown target, while the infantryman never sees who or what kills him. The commander is thousands of miles away, and the casualty reports are just pieces in the game. The suggestion that battlefields be automated (this is real, folks) is just a logical extension of current practice, and the accompanying suggestion that they be fought in deep space makes one wonder just what the *purpose* of war is... stan the l.h. utah-cs!shebs