The rules of War

[727Sky]

I can't find my link nor recall his name, but back in early 80s (I think 1982) one of those deep thinker RAND types who wrote paper wargaming scenarios for the Pentagon boys said the battlefield is no place for humans and proposed a cyborg/terminator + Space based weapons alternative. 40 years later they are getting closer with drones and who knows what they now have above our heads up in the Space cloud.

I remember when they were batting that idea around, the notion of an entirely mechanized battlefield. I remember thinking what a stupid idea that was. War sucks and it leave permanent marks, most of which are invisible to the eye. NO ONE leaves that battlefield the same as they were when they went in to it, whether it's readily visible or not. War is painful, and it is SUPPOSED to be painful - if it wasn't, humans would be doing it all the time for whatever reason their twisted little minds could devise.

Going full mechanized battlefield with no human element eliminates that pain, and it is a virtual guarantee of perpetual war. What is the point, exactly, of just having your machines "kill" my machines while we sit around and sip coffee? How is that battle even won, and what is the payoff once it is?

What if, after I lose, I say "so what if your machines 'killed' all my machines? Fuck your machines - I'm gonna run your squishy human body  through anyhow!"? What have the battle-bots gained for you at that point?

It's just a bone-headed notion. Leave it to Rand to come up with that bit of crazy.

.

The objective of the machines is to clear the battle field so a clear path to the enemy leaders can be had . Then you capture or destroy the enemy leadership while claiming to the world what fine fellows you are. If a city or two is destroyed in the process then sorry about that as it was necessary to get at the throats of the enemy. Two sides sides one purpose which is to bring about subjugation of those who oppose TPTB's divine right to rule..or so the history books will say as the winners will insure their version of the war is written...

when we look at history it seems someone is always wanting to start some shit The time between the wars is just taking a time out for the next conflict... a time to rearm and prepare for the next one.. The old saying, "If you want peace prepare for war" has, by history, been correct IMO.... Yep not nice and it is mean but it is what it is.