What do you think?
Rate this book
War X: Human Extensions in Battlespace
Are we afraid of war? Has the advancement of military technology created a mindset of invincibility on the battlefield? In War X, Tim Blackmore argues that the technology of warfare has essentially erased the human body from battlespace. The result is a physical and psychological distance between humanity and bloodshed. As the machinery of war develops, and as advances are made in the biological sciences, war becomes increasingly palatable - attractive, even - resulting in a sanitized murder culture in which war is anticipated and viewed with little anxiety.
Blackmore makes connections between human beings in battle and the very different world of weapons manufacturers, finding between the two a romance of war technology. Using popular science fiction literature and film, personal war narratives, biographies, and military imagery, he explores the human body in war, the ways in which soldiers imagine themselves superhuman - posthuman - protected by the armour of muscles and steel, tanks and helicopters, robotics and remote control.
War X is an explosive introduction to the discussion of modern warfare and a timely consideration of industrial warfare as it is unfolding even now in Iraq and Afghanistan, and as it might be in the future, with new weapon development. It is also a deliberation on the startling world of new weapon development, and the indescribable future of war that beckons.
Blackmore makes connections between human beings in battle and the very different world of weapons manufacturers, finding between the two a romance of war technology. Using popular science fiction literature and film, personal war narratives, biographies, and military imagery, he explores the human body in war, the ways in which soldiers imagine themselves superhuman - posthuman - protected by the armour of muscles and steel, tanks and helicopters, robotics and remote control.
War X is an explosive introduction to the discussion of modern warfare and a timely consideration of industrial warfare as it is unfolding even now in Iraq and Afghanistan, and as it might be in the future, with new weapon development. It is also a deliberation on the startling world of new weapon development, and the indescribable future of war that beckons.
258 pages, Hardcover
First published October 1, 2005
About the author
Tim Blackmore
4 books7 followersTim Blackmore is a professor in the Faculty of Information and Media Studies, Western University, Ontario Canada. His previous book, War X was published in 2005. He has written extensively about war, war technology, and popular culture.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
August 29, 2026
I first discovered this book in April 2016, back when I was a first-year university student (B.A. Hons. Geography), when it was assigned to the reading list of a compulsory tutorial class that I was enrolled in called 'GEOG10432 - Introducing Human Geographies 2'. At that time, I could not read the book at my own pace in its entirety, as time constraints for the writing of essays, exam revision, and the fact that I had borrowed it from the university library, meant that I could only really skim the book for what I needed. With that said, the book left a real impression on me, and I enjoyed reading (or skimming) it at the time. Therefore, now, just over ten (10) years later, in early August 2026, I have purchased a hard-cover copy of this book to read, in my own time, without the aforementioned time constraints.
I enjoyed this book overall; I found it to be a good introduction to the concept of 'battlespace', although I would have appreciated a bit more detail on how this concept applies to everyday life in urban environments - Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) and Operations Other Than War (OOTW). Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (1975) is referenced in the 'Works Cited', but I do not remember seeing it actually referenced within the book, unless I somehow accidentally skimmed past it. I have a faint memory of Foucault's concept of the "continuation of war by other means" from my time at university, and it came to mind when I read about the concept of OOTW. Perhaps Foucault's concept applies to places where war and war-related activity is not officially taking place, although my understanding of the 'battlespace' is that it is all war, all of the time. Also, sprinkled throughout the book is a kind of commentary on masculinity and sexuality, and the sexualisation of weapons and military vehicles. I thought that these commentaries were interesting, a bit strange, and also quite amusing to read. There's the sexualisation of a prototype gun, tanks, and helicopters. The concept of time-compression also features in a few parts of this book, but I am not 100% sure what it means or refers to. The 'RMA' (Revolution in Military Affairs) is another key concept in this book, and it is continuously referenced throughout, particularly in relation to other concepts.
On p.3, in the 'Introduction' of the book, it opens with a paragraph on 'NBC' war (nuclear, biological, and chemical war). This book was written in 2005, during the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the threat of "weapons of mass destruction" was real back then. However, no one nation-state seems to have used their nuclear weapons (or "nukes"), yet, and I am personally not sure how close any one nation-state is to pressing the button. The threat seems to loom over every war, including the current Russia-Ukraine war, as well as the Israel-Hamas war and the Iran war.
Also in the 'Introduction', there is a sort-of summary of the subsequent content of this book; "My concern is with humans who interact with war technology." There is also a reason given for the title of the book, in that the letter 'X' is used to denote an experimental, new, or otherwise un-named thing, usually a technology, but in this case a war.
On p.5, the reader is introduced to the concept of the 'battlespace'; "It is expected that war will be fought not in lines but in a four-dimensional battle arena. Battlespace, as it is called, is intended to be deep, wide, high, and simultaneous: there is no longer a front or rear."
On p.7-8, on military science-fiction, the first thing that came to mind for me was Blizzard Entertainment's computer-game Starcraft (1998), with the 'Terran' (human) race and their marines, who wear power-armour and wield oversized rifles, as well as the Warhammer 40,000 universe, in particular the Space Marines.
On p.10, the opening of Chapter 1, 'Crawling Flesh: The Infant Comes to Battle', begins with a quote from Ardant du Picq, the author of Battle Studies (1868); "The mass shudders; because you cannot suppress the flesh." I found this to be a fitting quote, seeing as the chapter seems to primarily concern human bodies and their flesh, and their subsequent signing-over to the collective whole of a nation-state's armed forces (military), or "industrial war-machine". Even from the opening pages of this chapter, I can only just begin to understand how and why most veterans come out of the military with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and are unable to settle back into civilian life, sometimes ending up homeless. It is a tragedy, to me, and undoubtedly to many others, too. The effects of PTSD, and the physical effects of war, seem to be the central feature of the book's final chapter.
On p.16, on soldiers and their thoughts on their chances of survival, there is a quote from a passage of p.111 in Goodbye to All That (1929) by Robert Graves; "I went on patrol fairly often, finding the only thing respected in young officers was personal courage. Besides, I had cannily worked it out like this. My best way of lasting through to the end of the war would be to get wounded. The best time to get wounded would be at night and in the open, with rifle fire more or less unaimed and my whole body exposed. Best, also, to get wounded when there was no rush on the dressing-station services, and while the back areas were not being heavily shelled. Best to get wounded, therefore, on a night patrol in a quiet sector. One could usually manage to crawl into a shell hole until help arrived." This quote is in the context of being seen as a war hero, but without losing life or limb, and, if the wound is bad enough, being sent home (and thus surviving).
On p.16-17, on the equipping and use of bayonets by modern soldiers; "The rifle put into each soldier's hand offers the individual great reassurance. And, as the rifle extends the arm's reach, so the bayonet extends the rifle's. Yet, according to military historian Joanna Bourke, the bayonet is a next to useless combat tool. Bayonet duels are extremely rare, and killing with edged weapons, even in the Napoleonic era, even rarer. If these facts are so, why is bayonet practice so prized by armies? In part, it is because there is a belief that bayonet training generates a killing spirit, but more it is because the bayonet personalizes the rifle and the battlefield." Further, on p.44, fig. 4 showcases a prototype futuristic gun that features a simple bayonet in the form of a knife on the front. The bayonet is probably symbolic more than practical. It made me wonder if rifles in the future will have bayonets for the same reason.
On p.22, there is a famous quote from p.250 of William Manchester's Goodbye, Darkness (1980), on the avoidance of an invasion of Japan in favour of nuclear warfare; "Thank God for the atomic bomb,". I have heard this quote somewhere before, possibly several times before, but I cannot remember where. Of course, it refers to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States of America (the first and only uses of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict), where hundreds of thousands of civilians perished, but at the time, the infantry were relieved that these bombings meant that an invasion and its assorted horrors and losses of friendly lives & limbs was not necessary.
On all war now being "total war"; after the Second World War, the idea of non-military and thus illegitimate targets (i.e. women & children) disappeared. I suppose that, for wars throughout history before then, women and children were not seen as targets or enemies, unless they were armed. It is slightly scary to think about.
On p.28-29, on the collection of war trophies from enemy bodies, Michael Herr's Dispatches (1977) is referenced; "Twenty five years later [after the Second World War], Michael Herr, living with the troops in Vietnam, was shown countless soldiers' photograph albums of flesh souvenirs, including severed ears, penises, corpses posed in sexual positions." A quote from p.199 of the book is given, where, after a while, Herr concludes only, "At least pictures didn't rot". It struck me upon reading this that it is a somewhat common conception that, in the same way, serial killers will often take trophies of their victims. Well, soldiers and their minds & bodies are broken down into killing machines, so I suppose it follows that they would do this, particularly during the wild exhilaration of gaining agency and autonomy on the battlefield (or in battlespace) over not only enemies' bodies, but their own.
On p.33-34, on the future of humans and the human body in an increasingly technological battlespace, the author quotes Colonel Stephen Tetlow, who agrees with the "prevailing view of the human battlespace - that is, that conflict is, and will remain, essentially a human activity, in which human qualities of judgement, self-discipline and courage, the moral component of fighting power will endure ... It is difficult to imagine military operations that will not ultimately be determined through the physical control of people by people. Technology must not be allowed to displace human intent or the decision of a commander". This book was written before the rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI). I wonder what the author would make of AI being used in a military context (i.e. in battlespace)? I imagine that AI is used as a tool to disseminate propaganda and political agendas, but what about the control of technology where the fighting takes place (drones, UAVs weaponry, radars, computers, etc)?
'C4ISR' (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) is another key concept in this book, particularly in relation to the future of war and the battlespace.
p.37 introduces the concept of Asymmetric or Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW), in which smaller and dedicated bands of individuals, driven by nationalism, religion, economic hardship, or all of these, are able to stand their ground or even win against technologically superior & better-equipped superpowers such as the United States or Russia. "4GW is marked by unpredictable, persistent bloodletting." Does this include domestic terror attacks committed by civilians?
The author explores and defines military acronyms in this book; there are so many of them, that at the end of the book there is a whole 'Glossary' dedicated in part to these acronyms.
Chapter 2, 'Breathing Metal: Armor Suited for War' explores the concept of power-armour, a concept which has its roots in science-fiction such as Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers (1959), and has been experimented with in reality in recent years. The mention of a suit of power-armour requiring an umbilical, reminded me of the 'EVAs' from Neon Genesis Evangelion, and how they only had a limited up-time when not connected to their own umbilicals.
On p.67, Chapter 2 ends with a sort-of prediction about the future of warfare in relation to armour and remote technology; "Armour will dominate the battlefield, commandeering the resources of science and engineering agencies dedicated to technowar - the same agencies will likely be hired to determine how to incapacitate armour. . . Robots guided by remote operators wearing Brain Machine Interfaces will fight each other over vast expanses of space now rendered entirely toxic for human habitation. As the operators break down or have aneurisms, heart attacks, and strokes, they will be replaced by younger people with better reflexes. And armour will progress to its next evolutionary position." Today, in 2026, there does not seem to have been much development in the way of military armour, but instead in remote technology and robotics; we have remotely-operated drones equipped with camera feeds and bombs, among other things.
Chapter 3, 'Heavy Tread: On Track for Battle' is about tanks and the concept of "AirLand Battle", which relies on light-weight weapons and speed to bring about an abrupt end to a battle, or a war.
On p.70-71, "Tanks didn't aim at men, as the British expected, but at each other". This surprised me, somewhat.
On p.72, the author describes the story of tank design as a balance between "mobility (speed), weight (armour), and firepower (tank cannon plus ammunition)". I suppose we generally understand tanks to be heavy unstoppable vehicles, but for the purposes of logistics and survivability, the balance needs to be just right for the purpose of the tank.
On p.76-78, the description of armour-piercing anti-tank 'sabot' rounds sounded very brutal, particularly for those tanks & the people inside them who would be on the receiving end of such a round after it had been fired.
On p.81, the German advance at Kursk during the Second World War is described by the author as the "world's largest tank battle", where "some six thousand tanks fought".
On p.82, the description of using the bathroom while in a tank made me think of how in some prisons there is a shared toilet, which is used by prisoners in full view of others (i.e. their cell-mate(s)). It also made me think of an age-old debate question that I have been thinking of recently - a "would you rather" - would you rather serve in the military, or go to prison? I suppose, in the former case, it depends on whether or not you are deployed, and in the latter case, it depends on what kind of prison you are sent to, and why. In both cases, it depends on how long you serve (as military personnel or as a prisoner).
On p.99, the concept of a floating tank, as seen in science-fiction, reminded me of "hovertanks", though I cannot quite remember where these are from. There are hovering tanks in Star Wars and Halo, at the very least.
On p.101, "the predictors say autonomous vehicles will arrive between 2015 and 2020"; well, in 2026, we have prototypes and early versions of self-driving cars, but they are not brilliant, and have been proven to be a dangerous liability in some cases. We also have prototype humanoid robots that use AI to function. This self-driving technology, and robotics technologies, may already be in use on the battlefield (or, rather, in battlespace), but I have not heard much on this from any news outlets or online sources.
Chapter 4, 'Rotor Hearts: The Helicopter as War's Pacemaker', seems to primarily be about military helicopters. The opening of this chapter, describing how the 'Huey' helicopter was a "sign for America's presence in 1960s Vietnam", reminds me of the infamous scene in the movie Apocalypse Now (1979), where the helicopters are flying over the battlefield and blowing things (people, structures) up, to the song 'Ride of the Valkyries'.
On p.107, "The helicopter seems to allow for a kind of arm's length war." I believe that the same can be said of other aspects of a country's air force, such as their places.
On p.110, on the effect of military helicopters on the nature of warfare; "Limitations from previous wars had suddenly been lifted. . . freeing the strategist from siege states that once organized war". Long sieges may not be seen as commonly in modern warfare, in part thanks to helicopters, but what about domestic sieges, like the Waco siege of 1993? I suppose the ATF & FBI used their helicopters in a similar, but ultimately different, context to how helicopters were used during the Vietnam War and in modern warfare.
On p.111-112, there is an interesting comparison between ancient horse cavalry and modern 'Air Cavalry', and how the unpredictable and swift nature of helicopters was not utilised by the commanders, who insisted on orderly formations, leaving the helicopters and their crew & passengers vulnerable to attack.
Chapter 5, 'Dead Slow: Loitering in Battlespace', seems to be about UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles).
On p.132, "...the RMA's fetishization of technology guarantees that post-human warfare will be autonomous, sophisticated, and invisible." This is another sort-of sexualisation of military technology, and it brings to mind something I read about military technophilia. At any rate, in contemporary wars in 2026, humans are still fighting each other directly on battlefields or within battlespace, and in the case of the Russia-Ukraine war, it seems like MOUT has been replaced with the bombing of each other's cities. I do not believe that we are at the level of "post-human" warfare yet, but perhaps we are somewhat of the way there.
On p.147, "For many soldiers, continuing encroachment by uninhabited craft represents the loss of work, the loss of agency, the loss of glamour associated with combat." Similarly, in 2026, advances in AI and automation are causing many people to lose their jobs; and with those job losses comes the loss of agency and pride. Perhaps this is the issue with "post-human" warfare, that military personnel can no longer feel proud or accomplished in what they do, or at least no longer in the same way feel that way.
On p.155, "Humans have become agentless spectators on a dying planet." This sentence stood out to me, because I found not tell if the author was referring to science-fiction, reality, or both.
The final chapter of the book, Chapter 6, 'Wastage: War after War', seems to primarily be about the after-effects of war, on people, governments, corporations, materiel, and the environment. In particular, PTSD and injuries sustained on the battlefield.
On p.170, it seems as though no amount of desensitisation can make anybody, even a soldier, come to terms with seeing a human body (their own body or that of another person) be destroyed by a high-explosive. Perhaps that is why it was referred to as "shell-shock" during the Great War.
The effect of war on all surviving military personnel, from "grunts" to decorated officers, is clear in this chapter; it seems like nobody really come away from war as the same person as they once were. The old question about serving in the military versus going to prison comes to mind again. Also in this chapter is a kind of commentary on the effects and after-effects of war on the (American) working-class, and how by sending their "dumbest", least-skilled, and least promising males, countries can perform a possibly-unintended eugenics by other means. The chapter reads to me as a powerful argument against joining the military in the first place, although in my case, I am 33 years old now, probably too old to join anyway. With my education, I could have applied to become an officer perhaps (on paper, at least), but I just cannot see that happening.
War is not nice, and this book certainly makes that clear. The need for war is a whole other debate, as well as what future war (or even world peace) would look like.
I enjoyed this book overall; I found it to be a good introduction to the concept of 'battlespace', although I would have appreciated a bit more detail on how this concept applies to everyday life in urban environments - Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) and Operations Other Than War (OOTW). Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (1975) is referenced in the 'Works Cited', but I do not remember seeing it actually referenced within the book, unless I somehow accidentally skimmed past it. I have a faint memory of Foucault's concept of the "continuation of war by other means" from my time at university, and it came to mind when I read about the concept of OOTW. Perhaps Foucault's concept applies to places where war and war-related activity is not officially taking place, although my understanding of the 'battlespace' is that it is all war, all of the time. Also, sprinkled throughout the book is a kind of commentary on masculinity and sexuality, and the sexualisation of weapons and military vehicles. I thought that these commentaries were interesting, a bit strange, and also quite amusing to read. There's the sexualisation of a prototype gun, tanks, and helicopters. The concept of time-compression also features in a few parts of this book, but I am not 100% sure what it means or refers to. The 'RMA' (Revolution in Military Affairs) is another key concept in this book, and it is continuously referenced throughout, particularly in relation to other concepts.
On p.3, in the 'Introduction' of the book, it opens with a paragraph on 'NBC' war (nuclear, biological, and chemical war). This book was written in 2005, during the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the threat of "weapons of mass destruction" was real back then. However, no one nation-state seems to have used their nuclear weapons (or "nukes"), yet, and I am personally not sure how close any one nation-state is to pressing the button. The threat seems to loom over every war, including the current Russia-Ukraine war, as well as the Israel-Hamas war and the Iran war.
Also in the 'Introduction', there is a sort-of summary of the subsequent content of this book; "My concern is with humans who interact with war technology." There is also a reason given for the title of the book, in that the letter 'X' is used to denote an experimental, new, or otherwise un-named thing, usually a technology, but in this case a war.
On p.5, the reader is introduced to the concept of the 'battlespace'; "It is expected that war will be fought not in lines but in a four-dimensional battle arena. Battlespace, as it is called, is intended to be deep, wide, high, and simultaneous: there is no longer a front or rear."
On p.7-8, on military science-fiction, the first thing that came to mind for me was Blizzard Entertainment's computer-game Starcraft (1998), with the 'Terran' (human) race and their marines, who wear power-armour and wield oversized rifles, as well as the Warhammer 40,000 universe, in particular the Space Marines.
On p.10, the opening of Chapter 1, 'Crawling Flesh: The Infant Comes to Battle', begins with a quote from Ardant du Picq, the author of Battle Studies (1868); "The mass shudders; because you cannot suppress the flesh." I found this to be a fitting quote, seeing as the chapter seems to primarily concern human bodies and their flesh, and their subsequent signing-over to the collective whole of a nation-state's armed forces (military), or "industrial war-machine". Even from the opening pages of this chapter, I can only just begin to understand how and why most veterans come out of the military with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and are unable to settle back into civilian life, sometimes ending up homeless. It is a tragedy, to me, and undoubtedly to many others, too. The effects of PTSD, and the physical effects of war, seem to be the central feature of the book's final chapter.
On p.16, on soldiers and their thoughts on their chances of survival, there is a quote from a passage of p.111 in Goodbye to All That (1929) by Robert Graves; "I went on patrol fairly often, finding the only thing respected in young officers was personal courage. Besides, I had cannily worked it out like this. My best way of lasting through to the end of the war would be to get wounded. The best time to get wounded would be at night and in the open, with rifle fire more or less unaimed and my whole body exposed. Best, also, to get wounded when there was no rush on the dressing-station services, and while the back areas were not being heavily shelled. Best to get wounded, therefore, on a night patrol in a quiet sector. One could usually manage to crawl into a shell hole until help arrived." This quote is in the context of being seen as a war hero, but without losing life or limb, and, if the wound is bad enough, being sent home (and thus surviving).
On p.16-17, on the equipping and use of bayonets by modern soldiers; "The rifle put into each soldier's hand offers the individual great reassurance. And, as the rifle extends the arm's reach, so the bayonet extends the rifle's. Yet, according to military historian Joanna Bourke, the bayonet is a next to useless combat tool. Bayonet duels are extremely rare, and killing with edged weapons, even in the Napoleonic era, even rarer. If these facts are so, why is bayonet practice so prized by armies? In part, it is because there is a belief that bayonet training generates a killing spirit, but more it is because the bayonet personalizes the rifle and the battlefield." Further, on p.44, fig. 4 showcases a prototype futuristic gun that features a simple bayonet in the form of a knife on the front. The bayonet is probably symbolic more than practical. It made me wonder if rifles in the future will have bayonets for the same reason.
On p.22, there is a famous quote from p.250 of William Manchester's Goodbye, Darkness (1980), on the avoidance of an invasion of Japan in favour of nuclear warfare; "Thank God for the atomic bomb,". I have heard this quote somewhere before, possibly several times before, but I cannot remember where. Of course, it refers to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States of America (the first and only uses of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict), where hundreds of thousands of civilians perished, but at the time, the infantry were relieved that these bombings meant that an invasion and its assorted horrors and losses of friendly lives & limbs was not necessary.
On all war now being "total war"; after the Second World War, the idea of non-military and thus illegitimate targets (i.e. women & children) disappeared. I suppose that, for wars throughout history before then, women and children were not seen as targets or enemies, unless they were armed. It is slightly scary to think about.
On p.28-29, on the collection of war trophies from enemy bodies, Michael Herr's Dispatches (1977) is referenced; "Twenty five years later [after the Second World War], Michael Herr, living with the troops in Vietnam, was shown countless soldiers' photograph albums of flesh souvenirs, including severed ears, penises, corpses posed in sexual positions." A quote from p.199 of the book is given, where, after a while, Herr concludes only, "At least pictures didn't rot". It struck me upon reading this that it is a somewhat common conception that, in the same way, serial killers will often take trophies of their victims. Well, soldiers and their minds & bodies are broken down into killing machines, so I suppose it follows that they would do this, particularly during the wild exhilaration of gaining agency and autonomy on the battlefield (or in battlespace) over not only enemies' bodies, but their own.
On p.33-34, on the future of humans and the human body in an increasingly technological battlespace, the author quotes Colonel Stephen Tetlow, who agrees with the "prevailing view of the human battlespace - that is, that conflict is, and will remain, essentially a human activity, in which human qualities of judgement, self-discipline and courage, the moral component of fighting power will endure ... It is difficult to imagine military operations that will not ultimately be determined through the physical control of people by people. Technology must not be allowed to displace human intent or the decision of a commander". This book was written before the rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI). I wonder what the author would make of AI being used in a military context (i.e. in battlespace)? I imagine that AI is used as a tool to disseminate propaganda and political agendas, but what about the control of technology where the fighting takes place (drones, UAVs weaponry, radars, computers, etc)?
'C4ISR' (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) is another key concept in this book, particularly in relation to the future of war and the battlespace.
p.37 introduces the concept of Asymmetric or Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW), in which smaller and dedicated bands of individuals, driven by nationalism, religion, economic hardship, or all of these, are able to stand their ground or even win against technologically superior & better-equipped superpowers such as the United States or Russia. "4GW is marked by unpredictable, persistent bloodletting." Does this include domestic terror attacks committed by civilians?
The author explores and defines military acronyms in this book; there are so many of them, that at the end of the book there is a whole 'Glossary' dedicated in part to these acronyms.
Chapter 2, 'Breathing Metal: Armor Suited for War' explores the concept of power-armour, a concept which has its roots in science-fiction such as Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers (1959), and has been experimented with in reality in recent years. The mention of a suit of power-armour requiring an umbilical, reminded me of the 'EVAs' from Neon Genesis Evangelion, and how they only had a limited up-time when not connected to their own umbilicals.
On p.67, Chapter 2 ends with a sort-of prediction about the future of warfare in relation to armour and remote technology; "Armour will dominate the battlefield, commandeering the resources of science and engineering agencies dedicated to technowar - the same agencies will likely be hired to determine how to incapacitate armour. . . Robots guided by remote operators wearing Brain Machine Interfaces will fight each other over vast expanses of space now rendered entirely toxic for human habitation. As the operators break down or have aneurisms, heart attacks, and strokes, they will be replaced by younger people with better reflexes. And armour will progress to its next evolutionary position." Today, in 2026, there does not seem to have been much development in the way of military armour, but instead in remote technology and robotics; we have remotely-operated drones equipped with camera feeds and bombs, among other things.
Chapter 3, 'Heavy Tread: On Track for Battle' is about tanks and the concept of "AirLand Battle", which relies on light-weight weapons and speed to bring about an abrupt end to a battle, or a war.
On p.70-71, "Tanks didn't aim at men, as the British expected, but at each other". This surprised me, somewhat.
On p.72, the author describes the story of tank design as a balance between "mobility (speed), weight (armour), and firepower (tank cannon plus ammunition)". I suppose we generally understand tanks to be heavy unstoppable vehicles, but for the purposes of logistics and survivability, the balance needs to be just right for the purpose of the tank.
On p.76-78, the description of armour-piercing anti-tank 'sabot' rounds sounded very brutal, particularly for those tanks & the people inside them who would be on the receiving end of such a round after it had been fired.
On p.81, the German advance at Kursk during the Second World War is described by the author as the "world's largest tank battle", where "some six thousand tanks fought".
On p.82, the description of using the bathroom while in a tank made me think of how in some prisons there is a shared toilet, which is used by prisoners in full view of others (i.e. their cell-mate(s)). It also made me think of an age-old debate question that I have been thinking of recently - a "would you rather" - would you rather serve in the military, or go to prison? I suppose, in the former case, it depends on whether or not you are deployed, and in the latter case, it depends on what kind of prison you are sent to, and why. In both cases, it depends on how long you serve (as military personnel or as a prisoner).
On p.99, the concept of a floating tank, as seen in science-fiction, reminded me of "hovertanks", though I cannot quite remember where these are from. There are hovering tanks in Star Wars and Halo, at the very least.
On p.101, "the predictors say autonomous vehicles will arrive between 2015 and 2020"; well, in 2026, we have prototypes and early versions of self-driving cars, but they are not brilliant, and have been proven to be a dangerous liability in some cases. We also have prototype humanoid robots that use AI to function. This self-driving technology, and robotics technologies, may already be in use on the battlefield (or, rather, in battlespace), but I have not heard much on this from any news outlets or online sources.
Chapter 4, 'Rotor Hearts: The Helicopter as War's Pacemaker', seems to primarily be about military helicopters. The opening of this chapter, describing how the 'Huey' helicopter was a "sign for America's presence in 1960s Vietnam", reminds me of the infamous scene in the movie Apocalypse Now (1979), where the helicopters are flying over the battlefield and blowing things (people, structures) up, to the song 'Ride of the Valkyries'.
On p.107, "The helicopter seems to allow for a kind of arm's length war." I believe that the same can be said of other aspects of a country's air force, such as their places.
On p.110, on the effect of military helicopters on the nature of warfare; "Limitations from previous wars had suddenly been lifted. . . freeing the strategist from siege states that once organized war". Long sieges may not be seen as commonly in modern warfare, in part thanks to helicopters, but what about domestic sieges, like the Waco siege of 1993? I suppose the ATF & FBI used their helicopters in a similar, but ultimately different, context to how helicopters were used during the Vietnam War and in modern warfare.
On p.111-112, there is an interesting comparison between ancient horse cavalry and modern 'Air Cavalry', and how the unpredictable and swift nature of helicopters was not utilised by the commanders, who insisted on orderly formations, leaving the helicopters and their crew & passengers vulnerable to attack.
Chapter 5, 'Dead Slow: Loitering in Battlespace', seems to be about UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles).
On p.132, "...the RMA's fetishization of technology guarantees that post-human warfare will be autonomous, sophisticated, and invisible." This is another sort-of sexualisation of military technology, and it brings to mind something I read about military technophilia. At any rate, in contemporary wars in 2026, humans are still fighting each other directly on battlefields or within battlespace, and in the case of the Russia-Ukraine war, it seems like MOUT has been replaced with the bombing of each other's cities. I do not believe that we are at the level of "post-human" warfare yet, but perhaps we are somewhat of the way there.
On p.147, "For many soldiers, continuing encroachment by uninhabited craft represents the loss of work, the loss of agency, the loss of glamour associated with combat." Similarly, in 2026, advances in AI and automation are causing many people to lose their jobs; and with those job losses comes the loss of agency and pride. Perhaps this is the issue with "post-human" warfare, that military personnel can no longer feel proud or accomplished in what they do, or at least no longer in the same way feel that way.
On p.155, "Humans have become agentless spectators on a dying planet." This sentence stood out to me, because I found not tell if the author was referring to science-fiction, reality, or both.
The final chapter of the book, Chapter 6, 'Wastage: War after War', seems to primarily be about the after-effects of war, on people, governments, corporations, materiel, and the environment. In particular, PTSD and injuries sustained on the battlefield.
On p.170, it seems as though no amount of desensitisation can make anybody, even a soldier, come to terms with seeing a human body (their own body or that of another person) be destroyed by a high-explosive. Perhaps that is why it was referred to as "shell-shock" during the Great War.
The effect of war on all surviving military personnel, from "grunts" to decorated officers, is clear in this chapter; it seems like nobody really come away from war as the same person as they once were. The old question about serving in the military versus going to prison comes to mind again. Also in this chapter is a kind of commentary on the effects and after-effects of war on the (American) working-class, and how by sending their "dumbest", least-skilled, and least promising males, countries can perform a possibly-unintended eugenics by other means. The chapter reads to me as a powerful argument against joining the military in the first place, although in my case, I am 33 years old now, probably too old to join anyway. With my education, I could have applied to become an officer perhaps (on paper, at least), but I just cannot see that happening.
War is not nice, and this book certainly makes that clear. The need for war is a whole other debate, as well as what future war (or even world peace) would look like.
May 26, 2013
A scary topic, very current, made fascinating by a clever, funny writing style the definitely keeps you reading, even as your horror builds.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews