Star Trek was different. The original series produced by Gene Roddenberry was full of philosophical and technological content. Tricorders matter/anti matter propulsion medical scanning beds cloaking or stealth shields and transporter machines. We forget how prescient the writers of the series were in the mid 1960s because so much of the then science fiction has turned into accepted contemporary technology.
I was reminded of my admiration for the original Star Trek series twice recently. First rummaging through some old files I found a yellow campaign pin circa 1967-68 which read "Nixon is only a Klingon in disguise." [For the non-Star Trek cognoscenti (if one can ever use that term to refer to a very nerdish community) the Klingons were pointy-eared enemies of the Federation good guys.] Second the US administration’s increasing fondness for Predator drone strikes (in action in Pakist again today) reminded me of a Star Trek episode in which the crew of the Starship Enterprise encounters an advanced civilization on the planet Eminiar VII which has been at war with its planetary neighbor for generations. The interesting aspects of this war are that (i) no one on either planet can remember why the war began or why they are still fighting and (ii) no weapons are actually fired. Instead these "advanced" societies have long-since moved beyond the crude form of warfare still more or less current on earth in favor of computer simulations of the destruction that kinetic weapon strikes would have had. Once these simulations have identified the putative victims of these attacks they are required to report to liquidation centers to be killed quietly and with no collateral damage.
The verile Captain Kirk will have none of this. In the episode he berates the leader of Eminiar VII for continuing to meekly follow this bloodless war protocol notwithstanding the latter’s protestations that this is the most advanced humane and civilized way in which to wage war. Kirk’s winning (of course) argument is that by so attenuating the gory and repugnant aspects of true warfare these self-proclaimed advanced civilizations had established a means by which to fight an endless war without the usual attendant mayhem.
So why does this 40+ year-old example of science fiction remind me of current US Predator drone warfare? It is of course the "stand-off" nature of the combat; the very attractive (from an American viewpoint) ability to project violence without putting American human forces in harm’s way and the computer-controlled seeming precision of the affair. What differs of course is that in the Star Trek episode both warring planets possessed the relevant technology but so far in real life only the US can project such lethal force. This will of course change.
There is another less immediately apparent manner in which the US is able to wage war without putting too many of our sons and daughters in theatre. First by using an ever increasing number of contractors (I would just call them mercenaries). Second via a volunteer army whose members are increasingly drawn from the less well-off. Now don’t get me wrong; I am deeply grateful to live in a society in which my young children do not expect to serve (at least unwillingly) in combat. However I do worry that our political leaders are somewhat more willing to take the nation to war because the consequences (at least to the most influential members of the electorate) are more attenuated.
Star Trek teaches us to be wary of the sanitization of war.
Its nice
I was just crazy for star trek in childhood. Faced lots of troubles from the parents also to watch it.
Wow! It is amazing how often science fiction can foretell of what may happen in the future. Even Kirks radio was a primative cell phone. Look to science fiction and it seems that it is possible to read a lot into what will happen in our future.
Quite right – you draw some healthy conclusions. Of course this does not only apply to the U.S. Britain wages limited wars with much the same limited effect on home public opinion. Bodies come back in ones and twos from Afghanistan to much public admiration but society as a whole is not involved. It was different for my father and his generation. In WWII most of those men did not want to make war but they had to and large numbers died. The vast blood-letting influenced post-war generations on the continent of Europe to choose peace not war. Britain however remains stuck in the lessons of Munich 1938 — don’t appease: if in doubt fight.
Star Trek i found it an epic movie.
This is something that comes up in ethical/moral leadership debates I’ve held with teens in a leadership program. The farther removed from the actual violence and person being killed the more “okay” people typically are with the action. For example I posed to a bunch of teenagers the “trolley dilemma” (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem#The_fat_man ) in which they would have to physically push a man to his death to save a greater number of people. Most agreed they wouldn’t do it. But change the scenario slightly make it a mere switch that has to be thrown to sacrifice one life to save a greater number and suddenly more of the group seems okay with that. In essence they are the same scenario — but the farther I remove them from the victim(s) and the act of violence the more likely more of the group were willing to do it. Having also served as a US Marine I can appreciate the sentiment that it becomes easier and easier to commit US troops and resources to wars when the general public becomes increasingly removed from (and failed to be repeatedly reminded of) the realities of what combat entails and how ugly conflict tends to be. The group of planet Eminiar VII (and perhaps by extension today’s American society) would have done well to heed the quote attributed to Robert E. Lee from the US Civil War: “It is well that war is so terrible — lest we should grow too fond of it.” Great article sir.