I am not a big student of warfare theory, however I do have a passing knowledge of it. After some thought, this technology has a distinct different shape to it. In the time of Castle walls and the Maginot Line or the Great Wall of China, they separated their kingdoms by the land and the arrival of air warfare made that obsolete. The arrival of missiles and satellites also changed the nature of conflict.Cyber warfare has brought the anonymous nature to warfare. It is even possible for a person to program an effective bot that lives on after their death. By destroying the source of a problem, you cannot destroy the actual effect. It creates many unusual consequences. I think the government response is to control everything and in this way then it can stop this, however that is a fools errand. Anyone who understands how technology works knows that it is impossible to control every aspect of things which venture into chaos by their very nature..
If there is no possible means of separating the leaders of a nation from the effects of war, then it would seem they would likely be the first casualties. It would be a great deal more conscientious to simply remove the mechanism of power over people. If it were going to be replaced by a new dictatorship, it would require some new technology to shield from the one I developed.
It seems a bit more humane way of war to simply say that if the leader of a country is unwilling to cooperate to establish a flat world of equal opportunity, then they would be separated from their ability to use force ( not killed or hanged, just separated from the methods to direct weapons ). As opposed to destroying the populations and innocent bystanders of war, it would simply remove the heads of state and military, and if they were replaced, those in turn.
This is all theoretical and it is my attempt to find some way that change can be achieved with destroying the reason for change. It seems to me that if any organization wanted to use the people under their control to create a concentrated action of force to dispose of other humans, then that would be the trigger of effect. They would have to be removed and then people would have to decide for themselves how to organize life between each other. If there is no method by which someone could hold power by force, then it would solve many problems. There is ample communication between people and an infrastructure that would allow people all over the world to communicate, share ideas, and distribute goods fairly. The structure of rule by force is very destructive though I know that many people enjoy it. I understand the impulse from an emotional level and it is difficult for most to function without giving into their emotions. It is a much easier thought process to force a situation than to deal with the frustration of finding a solution. If there is no benefit in manipulating or forcing others, then the motivation is made obsolete.
In order for a nation to "wage" war against an enemy it would first have to find them. In the case of extra-terrestrials, that might very very difficult since no technology exists to even attempt to discover the origin of a UFO. In addition if it were able to cloak, and cause changes in matter at some great distance without influencing matter as a path, how would you ever know where the problem originated? Rockets, lasers, and bullets all influence the matter between the origin and have an identifiable path. If a weapon does not act through a measurable path, then it would be possible for it to exist anywhere on or off planet. It is part of the change that comes from new technology and new understanding.
Terrorism created a new way of warfare and now this may be the anonymous war, since it is not possible to isolate the origin of effect, it is not possible to act against it. It would only be possible if every other possibility could be excluded, and having some personal knowledge of this, that is absolutely impossible for a specific technical reason.
I suppose I could be sprinkling fairy dust with this idea, however I will continue to consider what methods could be used that would assure a solution that did not include the destruction of the innocent as a natural by product.
The ability to apply a method that is vastly superior can be applied in a conscientious way. I always liked the movie Rustler's Rhapsody and it probably best describes my idea of battle. I will take away every gun. If you have availability to a more effective defense then there is no need for offense.
0 comments:
Post a Comment