War Games

Yesterday I read about a new weapons system Israel is deploying on the border with Gaza. Although I find any weapons system repugnant, this one made me especially stop and think about what happens when war becomes like a game.

According to Ynetnews, an Israeli news website from Yedioth:

"IDF deploys new anti-terror system around Gaza

"Army upgrades its capabilities in the Gaza region: New system combines camera, machine gun and enables IDF troops stationed in operations room to identify and fire at terrorists without risking themselves...

"The systems, which are equipped with a camera and a machine gun, enable soldiers to watch any activity that takes place near the fence and if necessary to fire at the push of a button. The new system will soon be officially declared "operational."

"We will be able to distinguish between terrorists and innocent civilians," another military official said."

There's just something about this new weapons system

that I find particularly disturbing. It's quite an image if you look at the picture of the installation. Atop this wall enclosing the Gazans in what many consider the world's largest prison is a fierce machine gun that will be operated by video screen and push-button in some operations room somewhere. It's almost like something out of a bad science fiction film.

I can understand the desire of any army to protect its soldiers and to limit risk. But one has to ask oneself what the effect is when we make killing more akin to a Sony Play Station experience then the disgusting, dirty and nauseating experience it actually is. What happens when war becomes virtual?

Perhaps there is a silver lining to this death cloud that I am missing. Consider episode 23 - "A Taste of Armageddon" - from Season 1 of Star Trek:

"Captain Kirk beams down and meets Anan Seven, head of the High Council of the Eminian Union, who says that his planet has been at war for 500 years with Vendikar, the third planet in their system, which originally was settled by their people but is now an enemy.

"Kirk learns that the war is fought by computer simulations instead of real weapons, and the people calculated as casualties voluntarily report to disintegration chambers to die, but the planets' culture and infrastructure survive."

Oddly enough some interesting parallels between this science fiction show and today's reality of Israel and Palestine: an endless war between two nations that originated from one people giving us a foretaste of Armageddon. Maybe this new near-virtual weapon being deployed on Gaza's border is similar to how the Vendikars began their march to completely virtual warfare. Who knows?

I did a little further digging around the net, talked to some people here and there and I may have an exclusive. Click on the small (top-secret) image below to see the next generation weapons concepts allegedly being developed in the IDF weapons laboratory for deployment on the Gaza border.

Comments

[Zotle]

Why do you find this weapon system different/ more disturbing from other remote controlled weapons, which have been used by many western countries (including Israel) for some years now?
A few examples:
- Missile equipped flying drones, remotely controlled and used to fire at Terrorists/Militants/Freedom fighters (take your pick) in Afghanistan, Gaza, etc'
- Remotely guided missiles (such as Popeye), similarly used (mainly US, Israel).
- Any type of modern fighter jet, where the pilot sees his targets on head displays (I mean, can you get more Playstation-like then that?)

Its not I don't understand your sentiment, its just a little late. From the invention of the rifle and cannon, which enables one to kill from afar, one can claim the killing has become more 'detached'. It a simple fact of life of the 20th century.

[lennybrucel]

Hi Zotle,

Thnks for dropping in and for commenting. I can't deny the truth of what you are saying. And in fact I even asked myself that because I thought of what you write. I think this particular weapon represents for me an unwelcome inflection point in the developments you mention. Air based combat and sea based shelling have always had by their nature an element of detachment because of the fighters' great distance to the field of battle and the resultant ability for the fighter once again to not be confronted with the results of his deeds. At least the majority of soldiers, infantry and mechanized land based forces, in almost any conflict have to confront the reality of what they are choosing to do. In a democracy that is very important as it serves over the long term to hopefully temper the war tendency. By starting to remove that last reality check I believe we begin to approach a tipping point in totally being able to sterilize war and therefore be less averse to go to war. Many of democracies' finest and most dedicated peace activists are former warriors such as the case with me. Many politicians who think three times before supporting a war are combat veterans.

In addition, this particular weapon seems to be particularly heinous because I believe that Gazans in particular (and Palestinians in general) have become totally dehumanized in the minds of many Israelis and fervent pro-Israeli supporters. This weapon, in this situation, is a further emotional dehumanization in my mind, at least it has that danger.

I hope this explains my feelings. Let me note in general, that I am no big fan of most the wars we fight in this world and would rather see all our swords turned in plowshares. But you may have already guessed that.

Be well and again thank you for your level-headed and challenging point of view. Hope you come by again.

[Zotle]

Lenny;

I think that the the un-symmetry of the weapon that is bothering you. The image of Gazans, armed with light rifles and crude weaponry, fighting the Israeli tanks and robotic-like watch towers creates the image of 'star-wars rebellion vs. evil empire'. Of course, you attach that imagery with all the bias that comes with it. (I am not going to challenge that association, which belongs to another discussion). Me, being very rational (perhaps overly so), find this troublesome. Almost by definition, wars involve dehumanizing your enemy, and most were fought under technologically un-symmetrical terms: from the US in Vietnam, Russians in Afghanistan, to the Romans in Judea.

Of course, being weak does not necessarily mean you will lose (see some of the examples above), nor does it mean you necessarily have the moral high-ground. I have never heard of this planned remote-rifle before reading you blog, but it seems logical, given the situation. Trying to judge it from a humane perspective, it certainly will save Israeli lives, and as much as that may sound cynical, perhaps even some Palestinian ones. We are talking urban warfare (and war it is), densely populated with civilian areas, and this system might be better than shooting indiscriminately using tank shells or missiles.

[lennybruce]

Zotle:

I like the way you challenge my thinking, forcing me to unpeel the onion as it were. Yes, I believe my primary reaction was initially the 'un-symmetry' of the weapon and indeed I had exactly the image you describe: 'star-wars rebellion vs evil empire' as you could see from the accompanying satirical image at the end of the post.

I also can not deny the correctness of much of what you write about historical parallels. But what really bothers me most is that this is another example, the weapon and our discussion about it, of where the real essential problem lies.

Einstein, one of the world's most creative minds ever, once said: "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." The Israel-Palestine question is one of the most fitting examples of the inherent truth in Einstein's pithy thought.

Our conventional wisdom has lost much of its wisdom when it comes to solving our most pressing problems. Evaluating things that we are now doing and thinking based on historical parallels is the surest guarantee to living an endless loop of tragedy.

The only way to change the dynamics in any particular situation is to simply change our thinking and behavior. To stop sliding down whatever slippery slope we find ourselves on. This is why, regardless of the fact that war is by nature dehumanizing; despite the fact that examples of un-symmetric conflicts abound; despite the fact that since the club versus the bow and arrow we have always had a disconnect between killer and 'killee', it is not too late to say 'enough is enough.' I should correct myself, perhaps it is too late but perhaps it is still a case of better late then never.

Be well.