What do you think?
Rate this book
Future War: Preparing for the New Global Battlefield
An urgent, prescient, and expert look at how future technology will change virtually every aspect of war as we know it and how we can respond to the serious national security challenges ahead.
Future war is almost battles fought in cyberspace; biologically enhanced soldiers; autonomous systems that can process information and strike violently before a human being can blink.
A leading expert on the place of technology in war and intelligence, Robert H. Latiff, now teaching at the University of Notre Dame, has spent a career in the military researching and developing new combat technologies, observing the cost of our unquestioning embrace of innovation. At its best, advanced technology acts faster than ever to save the lives of soldiers; at its worst, the deployment of insufficiently considered new technology can have devastating unintended or long-term consequences. The question of whether we can is followed, all too infrequently, by the question of whether we should.
In Future War, Latiff maps out the changing ways of war and the weapons technologies we will use to fight them, seeking to describe the ramifications of those changes and what it will mean in the future to be a soldier. He also recognizes that the fortunes of a nation are inextricably linked with its national defense, and how its citizens understand the importance of when, how, and according to what rules we fight. What will war mean to the average American? Are our leaders sufficiently sensitized to the implications of the new ways of fighting? How are the attitudes of individuals and civilian institutions shaped by the wars we fight and the means we use to fight them? And, of key How will soldiers themselves think about war and their roles within it?
The evolving, complex world of conflict and technology demands that we pay more attention to the issues that will confront us, before it is too late to control them. Decrying what he describes as a "broken" relationship between the military and the public it serves, Latiff issues a bold wake-up call to military planners and weapons technologists, decision makers, and the nation as a whole as we prepare for a very different future.
Future war is almost battles fought in cyberspace; biologically enhanced soldiers; autonomous systems that can process information and strike violently before a human being can blink.
A leading expert on the place of technology in war and intelligence, Robert H. Latiff, now teaching at the University of Notre Dame, has spent a career in the military researching and developing new combat technologies, observing the cost of our unquestioning embrace of innovation. At its best, advanced technology acts faster than ever to save the lives of soldiers; at its worst, the deployment of insufficiently considered new technology can have devastating unintended or long-term consequences. The question of whether we can is followed, all too infrequently, by the question of whether we should.
In Future War, Latiff maps out the changing ways of war and the weapons technologies we will use to fight them, seeking to describe the ramifications of those changes and what it will mean in the future to be a soldier. He also recognizes that the fortunes of a nation are inextricably linked with its national defense, and how its citizens understand the importance of when, how, and according to what rules we fight. What will war mean to the average American? Are our leaders sufficiently sensitized to the implications of the new ways of fighting? How are the attitudes of individuals and civilian institutions shaped by the wars we fight and the means we use to fight them? And, of key How will soldiers themselves think about war and their roles within it?
The evolving, complex world of conflict and technology demands that we pay more attention to the issues that will confront us, before it is too late to control them. Decrying what he describes as a "broken" relationship between the military and the public it serves, Latiff issues a bold wake-up call to military planners and weapons technologists, decision makers, and the nation as a whole as we prepare for a very different future.
208 pages, Hardcover
Published September 26, 2017
45 people are currently reading
500 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews
September 11, 2017
*Free copy for an honest review.
The first part of this book showed me just how close we are to the military Sci-Fi books I love becoming a lot less Sci-Fi. This both thrilled and terrified me. In the Sci-Fi books, the technologies are already common place and the errors minimized. We're still in the testing phases and the full ramifications are not yet thought through.
The technologies that we are looking at are amazing developments, if they can be perfected. We've seen videos of amputees controlling robot actions with their mind. There are news stories about technological advances allowing for faster healing. We're even getting closer to being able to delete bad memories. These technologies are amazing. But they're not always good. What are the psychological side effects of knowing that a lost limb can be regrown or replaced? If you don't remember the bad things, even horrors, that you've done, are you still responsible for them?
There are even questions to consider about robots being brought into war zones. We've already seen in real life how algorithms do not always go as we think they will, as we plan they will. Artificial intelligence is still in rough stages. Being able to beat humans at games is one thing. Being able to make the right call on the battlefield is another. And what about the soldiers who serve alongside these robots? How will it affect their behavior? Their calls?
This book does a wonderful job of presenting the technology, presenting the questions that need to be asked, and giving the common citizen a good place to start their own research and education on the topic. Latiff laments the chasm that's been steadily forming between US Troops and US citizens and pleads for citizens to educate themselves and start closing that gap. After reading this book, I have expanded my daily news topics and will be looking up a number of the books he lists in his notes.
If you have any interest in the future of technology, the current or future state of warfare, how to support our troops more effectively, this is the book for you. If you have any interest in joining the US Armed Forces, you will want to read this book as well. I highly encourage any and all US citizens to pick this up and learn more about what is involved when politicians talk about sending out our troops.
The first part of this book showed me just how close we are to the military Sci-Fi books I love becoming a lot less Sci-Fi. This both thrilled and terrified me. In the Sci-Fi books, the technologies are already common place and the errors minimized. We're still in the testing phases and the full ramifications are not yet thought through.
The technologies that we are looking at are amazing developments, if they can be perfected. We've seen videos of amputees controlling robot actions with their mind. There are news stories about technological advances allowing for faster healing. We're even getting closer to being able to delete bad memories. These technologies are amazing. But they're not always good. What are the psychological side effects of knowing that a lost limb can be regrown or replaced? If you don't remember the bad things, even horrors, that you've done, are you still responsible for them?
There are even questions to consider about robots being brought into war zones. We've already seen in real life how algorithms do not always go as we think they will, as we plan they will. Artificial intelligence is still in rough stages. Being able to beat humans at games is one thing. Being able to make the right call on the battlefield is another. And what about the soldiers who serve alongside these robots? How will it affect their behavior? Their calls?
This book does a wonderful job of presenting the technology, presenting the questions that need to be asked, and giving the common citizen a good place to start their own research and education on the topic. Latiff laments the chasm that's been steadily forming between US Troops and US citizens and pleads for citizens to educate themselves and start closing that gap. After reading this book, I have expanded my daily news topics and will be looking up a number of the books he lists in his notes.
If you have any interest in the future of technology, the current or future state of warfare, how to support our troops more effectively, this is the book for you. If you have any interest in joining the US Armed Forces, you will want to read this book as well. I highly encourage any and all US citizens to pick this up and learn more about what is involved when politicians talk about sending out our troops.
September 22, 2023
The author takes what for me was a unique approach to the examination of the future of warfare. Instead of focusing purely on the military aspect of styles of warfare and the technology that may drive revolutions and evolutions in warfare, he also examined the interplay of society with warfare.
His plea for the involvement and education of Congress, industry, and the American people on all things related to warfare was refreshing. He explored how and why nations go to war currently and how they ought to in the future. This was overlayed with future trends of warfare and the need for civilians to drive the direction of warfare and their obligation to be involved in cost sharing and the decision to go to war.
This is a good read both for those involved in defense as well as for anyone who considers themselves a responsible and engaged citizen.
His plea for the involvement and education of Congress, industry, and the American people on all things related to warfare was refreshing. He explored how and why nations go to war currently and how they ought to in the future. This was overlayed with future trends of warfare and the need for civilians to drive the direction of warfare and their obligation to be involved in cost sharing and the decision to go to war.
This is a good read both for those involved in defense as well as for anyone who considers themselves a responsible and engaged citizen.
October 25, 2017
It isn’t just science fiction writers who should keep an eye on the cutting edge of tech, especially in the military. Defense is a big part of what the government does, and tech is a big part of defense. It is your civic responsibility to pay a certain amount of attention. Future War does mention a lot of cool tech. And the focus on ethical issues is welcome. But Future War is ultimately unsatisfying because, while it raises questions, it doesn’t deal with them in a serious way.
Latiff has the right background on paper to write on these issues. He has degrees in physics, engineering, and history/strategy/international economics and had a long military career. And the book is well timed. The general public in America IS extremely disassociated from the U.S. military. We are on the cusp of major changes in tech at the same time that power is sliding from the “few and complex” toward the “many and simple.”
Latiff talks about a lot of tech, some possible now, some likely in the near future, and some more theoretical. Some highlights:
• Identification based on “the shape of the ear, the individual’s gait, fingerprint scanners that work at a distance, chemical markers in sweat, and the specifics of a heartbeat”
• Soldier body modifications—“exoskeletons to improve strength, drugs to improve cognition or alter memory, and surgery to implant microelectronic neurological aids,” “contact lenses that would allow a soldier to see in the infrared spectrum”
• Artificial intelligence replacing intelligence analysts
• Quantum computing that makes cryptography impossible
• “Black biology”—genetically engineered biological weapons, including externally triggered viruses and “individually customized genetic” weapons
• Underwater drones
• Lethal cyber capabilities (“interfere[ing] with the flight controls of an aircraft or to cause a bomb to detonate prematurely”)
• “Pain rays” for crowd control
• Hypersonic weapons
• Antisatellite systems
Many of these have the potential to fundamentally change how we fight wars, much as GPS and night-vision did. They also bring risk. Lethal cyber capabilities and antisatellite systems have the potential to sharply change the dynamic between the “few and complex” toward the “many and simple.” We have become highly reliant on technology and may become more so. Thankfully, the military is giving that risk at least some thought. After a ten year break, the U.S. Naval Academy reinstated the requirement that midshipmen learn to use a sextant for navigation.
All of this raises ethical issues and creates risks. One of Latiff’s major arguments is that the military and the public don’t give nearly enough attention to the ethical issues (though he does note that, for example, the military is not yet comfortable with completely autonomous lethal systems). I have to agree with this, and I like that the book takes ethical considerations into account.
He also notes that there are not just known risks but unknown risks. For example, we didn’t foresee the psychological toll that drone strikes would take on drone pilots. Latiff attempts to raise some questions. Automated weapons will reduce casualties. What does the removal of fear mean for constraints on unethical behavior? I doubt fear plays that great a role, but the point is we can’t KNOW how automated weapons systems will change behavior until we have them and start using them. We need to consider it now.
Oh, and these issues are a big deal financially too. The U.S. spends close to $200 budget on research, development, testing, and procurement out of a roughly $600 billion defense budget.
Latiff is taking the right approach, and he is very good at raising questions. What he isn’t very good at are answers. Especially toward the end, he tends to throw out sometimes radical ideas without developing the argument for them or providing any evidence. A few that were the reading equivalent of a poke in the eye for me:
Regarding the merits of attempts to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, he says “if we have nuclear weapons, how can we tell others they can’t…?” I recognize the utility in considering ethical questions under the assumption that the parties start from the same position. But it has limited practical use. The United States et al. have nuclear weapons. That is hardly an argument for throwing the barn doors wide open and inviting everyone to take them. One, if disarmament is the end goal, adding nuclear countries gets us farther from that, not closer. Must we disarm before we can work to disarm others or prevent nuclear proliferation? As the statement by the United States, Great Britain, and France refusing to sign the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons noted, unilateral disarmament would be “incompatible with the policy of nuclear deterrence, which has been essential to keeping the peace in Europe and North Asia for over 70 years.”
Two, can Latiff argue that the world isn’t worse off with a nuclear North Korea? That it wouldn’t be worse off with a nuclear Iran? He can argue it is “fair” that they get the bomb, or that it is hypocritical for us to try to stop them, but even if those ethical considerations have any weight they simply have to be outweighed by the risk posed to liberal democracies like South Korea, Japan, and Israel. A simple test: no country that thinks another country should be wiped off the face of the map should have the bomb. Five of the nine nuclear countries are democracies. Does Latiff seriously believe that those five countries pose the same threat as the other four and Iran? That matters.
Latiff criticizes our response to the dissolution of the Soviet Union because we viewed it “as an opportunity to encourage capitalism, not democracy and human rights,” not grasping how the three are inextricably linked.
Latiff complains of movies “romanticizing the military and conflict” and “represent[ing] only one side of the conflict and glorify war.” I’m not sure if Latiff and I are watching movies by the same Hollywood. TV Tropes has an entire page devoted to the Obligatory War-Crime Scene. (He has a better point about their depiction of “unerringly accurate weapons.”)
Latiff presents the primary argument for an all-volunteer military as being that “for the military to reflect society is unimportant” as “long as the force is professional, efficient, and overwhelming.” But the better argument for an all-volunteer military is that conscription doesn’t actually reduce the support for war, that it lowers the quality of the military, and that it leads to higher casualties.
He describes the public response to the Iraq War as “muted” and “almost insignificant.” The former I might grant. But the latter? The Iraq War was the most significant political event of this century, including 9/11. It led to the Democrats retaking the Senate and the House in 2006. It led to Barack Obama, instead of Hillary Clinton, winning the Democratic nomination in 2008 and then the presidency. It led to a 60-seat Democratic majority in the Senate (and thus allowed Dodd-Frank and Obamacare). It left George W. Bush without political capital, ruined any chance Jeb Bush had at winning the Republican nomination, and destabilized the GOP, opening the door for Donald Trump. It led Obama to not seek congressional approval to intervene in Libya and prevented any chance that the U.S. would intervene in Syria. If it doesn’t seem like a big deal, blame the media. Believe me, the public responded plenty.
Latiff claims that “[w]e are so enamored with military capabilities that we have experienced repeated budget crises in recent years because many in Congress could not bear the idea that social programs might be funded at a level equal to or greater than weapons and the military.” There are two separate, albeit interrelated arguments there. One is that military spending should go down. The other is that spending on social programs should go up. Even if we accept the first argument, the second argument by no means follows. In fact, some of the same arguments that Latiff makes in favor of reducing military spending counsel in favor of reducing spending on social programs. He says the public would quickly restrain the military if they were forced to cover the full cost. He is right, I think, but he might find the same about the social programs he would rather money be diverted to. He notes that “a large number of systems are mismanaged and far exceed their budgets and schedules.” Sure. The same is true for social programs. Latiff also repeatedly harps on the lack of attention that the public pays to military issues. Might they pay more attention, though, if the federal government didn’t spend so much time and money doing things it was never authorized to do by the Constitution?
Latiff notes that service contractors outnumber active duty soldiers. He asserts that is bad. Maybe it is. But he doesn’t tell us why. The use of contractors rather than employees is hardly unusual. And if some of those contractors are, as he notes, used for lawn mowing, the number alone doesn’t tell us very much. Latiff throws out nutty ideas like relying more heavily on National Guard and Reserve for foreign deployments. First, did he not notice the enormous strain we put on the National Guard and Reserve over the course of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Second, if contractors are bad, why are reservists good? He also advocates for changes that “will allow far greater flexibility in allowing military personnel to move between military and civilian life and will allow outside experts, like technical experts from industry, to enter into service as more senior levels.” Sounds good. Will they be contractors?
This might still be a good book to pick up if you are particularly interested in these issues. But I have to believe a better book is out there. I wholeheartedly agree with Latiff that Americans need to think more about their military, its future, and the ethics issues that come with that. But this book is too poorly written and reasoned to be a spark for that fire.
Disclosure: I received a review copy of Future War through NetGalley.
Latiff has the right background on paper to write on these issues. He has degrees in physics, engineering, and history/strategy/international economics and had a long military career. And the book is well timed. The general public in America IS extremely disassociated from the U.S. military. We are on the cusp of major changes in tech at the same time that power is sliding from the “few and complex” toward the “many and simple.”
Latiff talks about a lot of tech, some possible now, some likely in the near future, and some more theoretical. Some highlights:
• Identification based on “the shape of the ear, the individual’s gait, fingerprint scanners that work at a distance, chemical markers in sweat, and the specifics of a heartbeat”
• Soldier body modifications—“exoskeletons to improve strength, drugs to improve cognition or alter memory, and surgery to implant microelectronic neurological aids,” “contact lenses that would allow a soldier to see in the infrared spectrum”
• Artificial intelligence replacing intelligence analysts
• Quantum computing that makes cryptography impossible
• “Black biology”—genetically engineered biological weapons, including externally triggered viruses and “individually customized genetic” weapons
• Underwater drones
• Lethal cyber capabilities (“interfere[ing] with the flight controls of an aircraft or to cause a bomb to detonate prematurely”)
• “Pain rays” for crowd control
• Hypersonic weapons
• Antisatellite systems
Many of these have the potential to fundamentally change how we fight wars, much as GPS and night-vision did. They also bring risk. Lethal cyber capabilities and antisatellite systems have the potential to sharply change the dynamic between the “few and complex” toward the “many and simple.” We have become highly reliant on technology and may become more so. Thankfully, the military is giving that risk at least some thought. After a ten year break, the U.S. Naval Academy reinstated the requirement that midshipmen learn to use a sextant for navigation.
All of this raises ethical issues and creates risks. One of Latiff’s major arguments is that the military and the public don’t give nearly enough attention to the ethical issues (though he does note that, for example, the military is not yet comfortable with completely autonomous lethal systems). I have to agree with this, and I like that the book takes ethical considerations into account.
He also notes that there are not just known risks but unknown risks. For example, we didn’t foresee the psychological toll that drone strikes would take on drone pilots. Latiff attempts to raise some questions. Automated weapons will reduce casualties. What does the removal of fear mean for constraints on unethical behavior? I doubt fear plays that great a role, but the point is we can’t KNOW how automated weapons systems will change behavior until we have them and start using them. We need to consider it now.
Oh, and these issues are a big deal financially too. The U.S. spends close to $200 budget on research, development, testing, and procurement out of a roughly $600 billion defense budget.
Latiff is taking the right approach, and he is very good at raising questions. What he isn’t very good at are answers. Especially toward the end, he tends to throw out sometimes radical ideas without developing the argument for them or providing any evidence. A few that were the reading equivalent of a poke in the eye for me:
Regarding the merits of attempts to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, he says “if we have nuclear weapons, how can we tell others they can’t…?” I recognize the utility in considering ethical questions under the assumption that the parties start from the same position. But it has limited practical use. The United States et al. have nuclear weapons. That is hardly an argument for throwing the barn doors wide open and inviting everyone to take them. One, if disarmament is the end goal, adding nuclear countries gets us farther from that, not closer. Must we disarm before we can work to disarm others or prevent nuclear proliferation? As the statement by the United States, Great Britain, and France refusing to sign the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons noted, unilateral disarmament would be “incompatible with the policy of nuclear deterrence, which has been essential to keeping the peace in Europe and North Asia for over 70 years.”
Two, can Latiff argue that the world isn’t worse off with a nuclear North Korea? That it wouldn’t be worse off with a nuclear Iran? He can argue it is “fair” that they get the bomb, or that it is hypocritical for us to try to stop them, but even if those ethical considerations have any weight they simply have to be outweighed by the risk posed to liberal democracies like South Korea, Japan, and Israel. A simple test: no country that thinks another country should be wiped off the face of the map should have the bomb. Five of the nine nuclear countries are democracies. Does Latiff seriously believe that those five countries pose the same threat as the other four and Iran? That matters.
Latiff criticizes our response to the dissolution of the Soviet Union because we viewed it “as an opportunity to encourage capitalism, not democracy and human rights,” not grasping how the three are inextricably linked.
Latiff complains of movies “romanticizing the military and conflict” and “represent[ing] only one side of the conflict and glorify war.” I’m not sure if Latiff and I are watching movies by the same Hollywood. TV Tropes has an entire page devoted to the Obligatory War-Crime Scene. (He has a better point about their depiction of “unerringly accurate weapons.”)
Latiff presents the primary argument for an all-volunteer military as being that “for the military to reflect society is unimportant” as “long as the force is professional, efficient, and overwhelming.” But the better argument for an all-volunteer military is that conscription doesn’t actually reduce the support for war, that it lowers the quality of the military, and that it leads to higher casualties.
He describes the public response to the Iraq War as “muted” and “almost insignificant.” The former I might grant. But the latter? The Iraq War was the most significant political event of this century, including 9/11. It led to the Democrats retaking the Senate and the House in 2006. It led to Barack Obama, instead of Hillary Clinton, winning the Democratic nomination in 2008 and then the presidency. It led to a 60-seat Democratic majority in the Senate (and thus allowed Dodd-Frank and Obamacare). It left George W. Bush without political capital, ruined any chance Jeb Bush had at winning the Republican nomination, and destabilized the GOP, opening the door for Donald Trump. It led Obama to not seek congressional approval to intervene in Libya and prevented any chance that the U.S. would intervene in Syria. If it doesn’t seem like a big deal, blame the media. Believe me, the public responded plenty.
Latiff claims that “[w]e are so enamored with military capabilities that we have experienced repeated budget crises in recent years because many in Congress could not bear the idea that social programs might be funded at a level equal to or greater than weapons and the military.” There are two separate, albeit interrelated arguments there. One is that military spending should go down. The other is that spending on social programs should go up. Even if we accept the first argument, the second argument by no means follows. In fact, some of the same arguments that Latiff makes in favor of reducing military spending counsel in favor of reducing spending on social programs. He says the public would quickly restrain the military if they were forced to cover the full cost. He is right, I think, but he might find the same about the social programs he would rather money be diverted to. He notes that “a large number of systems are mismanaged and far exceed their budgets and schedules.” Sure. The same is true for social programs. Latiff also repeatedly harps on the lack of attention that the public pays to military issues. Might they pay more attention, though, if the federal government didn’t spend so much time and money doing things it was never authorized to do by the Constitution?
Latiff notes that service contractors outnumber active duty soldiers. He asserts that is bad. Maybe it is. But he doesn’t tell us why. The use of contractors rather than employees is hardly unusual. And if some of those contractors are, as he notes, used for lawn mowing, the number alone doesn’t tell us very much. Latiff throws out nutty ideas like relying more heavily on National Guard and Reserve for foreign deployments. First, did he not notice the enormous strain we put on the National Guard and Reserve over the course of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Second, if contractors are bad, why are reservists good? He also advocates for changes that “will allow far greater flexibility in allowing military personnel to move between military and civilian life and will allow outside experts, like technical experts from industry, to enter into service as more senior levels.” Sounds good. Will they be contractors?
This might still be a good book to pick up if you are particularly interested in these issues. But I have to believe a better book is out there. I wholeheartedly agree with Latiff that Americans need to think more about their military, its future, and the ethics issues that come with that. But this book is too poorly written and reasoned to be a spark for that fire.
Disclosure: I received a review copy of Future War through NetGalley.
October 17, 2020
USA: Hello Mr Scientist, can you make me an even more horrifying way to kill people?
Scientist: Sure. But it might not be a good idea.
USA: We'll worry about that later. Here's some money.
Scientist: I'll get started.
Retired Major General Dr Robert Latiff spent much of his career looking at the cutting edge of military technology. As both a scientist and an officer, he knows what is already being developed to wage war, and is well placed to speculate about the future of war. He doesn't just want to let us in on what war will look like, he wants us all to help ethically shape the future of war.
This book was both fascinating and deeply annoying to read. I think my biggest problem with Future War was that, for someone wanting to talk about war ethics, Latiff selectively presents the military, political leaders, and history so as to feel deliberately obfuscatory. Now, this is probably about Latiff being a retired airforce Major General and thus his bias is showing. But maybe that is the problem. Maybe the people who get to talk about war ethics and new tools of war, are ultimately going to be too biased. At least Latiff is aware of this bias since he raises the issue of the conservative and "yay war" bubble many of his colleagues work in and calls for the general public to be involved.
I wrote down a lot of comments as I was reading (see below) because of my frustration. One of my first comments was the "America: Fuck Yeah!" sentiment that was present. I don't think that is entirely fair to Latiff. He does express a reasonable level of awareness, but when someone talks about "keeping America safe" you really feel like forcing them to include a list of war crimes, atrocities, and coups that the USA has been involved in.
The insights into technology are extremely interesting. If you follow tech at all you'll love what is discussed. It is the ethical considerations where I think the book falls flat. The examples of what ethical considerations are interesting but also feel ultimately hollow.
If someone is planning how to kill others, particularly lots of others, then that is unethical.
The arguments around Just War Theory and the ethics of war strike me as handwaving bullshit dreamt up by status quo warriors. Unfortunately, I don't have the background in moral and ethical philosophy to really dig into how it is wrong. No doubt there is a lot of material justifying war because that's what very serious status quo academics do as part of their contribution to the war effort so that no one ever asks them to actually fight and die in one.
Ironically, by the definitions of Just War Theory, I think you'd battle to find an example of a Just War. Which makes the entire idea of ethical warfare a comfort blanket to pull over your face as you invade a country to secure theirresources freedom.
Some people are scared of the technology and potential of future war portrayed here. I'm more scared of how Latiff's calls for a discussion of the ethics involved aren't going to happen in any meaningful way.
Comments so far:
Only two chapters in, but already there is this overwhelming "America: Fuck Yeah!" attitude present. Threats could get hold of the weapons we're developing... is said unironically. USA aren't working on this (anymore after a feasibility analysis) but China doesn't have any such ethical compunctions...
Considering this book proposed to cover the technology and ethics of future wars in the opening, I'm already sensing that Latiff is probably going to pretend that the USA has never committed acts of genocide, war crimes, invasion, etc. whilst insisting they need new cool gadgets to do more of that stuff with.
Halfway in the new technologies are being discussed as inevitable. But it is then asserted that new tech will be used for war. That doesn't have to be so. Kinda feels like no-one ever stops and makes the argument that massive military research budgets could instead be civilian research budgets. Can't really weaponise something when you're not starting out building it as a weapon and pouring billions into doing so.
Three quarters in and the ethical discussion is taking shape. Just War and the like are being utilised. Some really good points are made but then are undermined by selective presentation of realities. E.g. Latiff makes a really good point about requiring strong ethical and moral frameworks (Warrior Code, etc) in the development of weapons, use of weapons, and the accepted practices of troops (when politicians justify or promote the use of torture, the command structure will follow, and thus the troops will utilise it). But he then skirts around how the military have been indoctrinating soldiers with increased efficiency to be killers, how they have researched making their soldiers more able to kill people, how they train them to think of "the enemy" as "inhuman" to make them able to justify killing to themselves.
I'm really having trouble with the supposed ethics of all this. Ultimately, all this tech is being developed to kill people. That's premeditated murder. Ergo, that is unethical. There isn't really a justification for that. A lot of handwaving is done based upon the idea that "the other side" will behave unethically, so we have to be prepared to "defend ourselves" (i.e. to also act unethically). The worst part is that this self-perpetuating cycle is often leveraged to gain power, resources, and profit (the latter is mentioned briefly in the third section by Latiff).
Philosophically, a lot has been written about Just War Theory, particularly against criticisms of it. I'm somewhat surprised that there isn't a solid argument against it. Take for example Jus ad bellum. Let's find a war that fits that definition. Particularly from the losing or instigating side. Ever. Just War Theorists certainly seem to try and pretend this occurs. People trying to kick wars off certainly try to make the argument of just cause (etc.). But most of those arguments are hollow, revisionist, and often straight-up lies (WMDs in Iraq anyone?).
Almost feels like a lot of money gets thrown at people to justify war.
Last chapter has some interesting points about echo chambers, ideological divides, society involvement, and American exceptionalism. All very good points. But again I find myself spotting what Latiff doesn't discuss and what he skips over.
E.g. He says that the average American is removed from war and largely uninformed/ignorant of it. But that is by design and moreover, the military is actively involved in keeping people ignorant. He made a point about no war critical films having been made whilst skipping over the fact that if a production studio wants to make a military film they need to have everything ticked off on by the military (it's why US military is awesome, bad elements are rogues who meet justice, they never commit war crimes, etc, etc.). Military intelligence was actively involved in the lies that took the US to war in (insert massive list here). The military routinely covers up atrocities, war crimes, abuse, rape, etc.
https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/...
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_wa...
https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explaine...
Scientist: Sure. But it might not be a good idea.
USA: We'll worry about that later. Here's some money.
Scientist: I'll get started.
Retired Major General Dr Robert Latiff spent much of his career looking at the cutting edge of military technology. As both a scientist and an officer, he knows what is already being developed to wage war, and is well placed to speculate about the future of war. He doesn't just want to let us in on what war will look like, he wants us all to help ethically shape the future of war.
This book was both fascinating and deeply annoying to read. I think my biggest problem with Future War was that, for someone wanting to talk about war ethics, Latiff selectively presents the military, political leaders, and history so as to feel deliberately obfuscatory. Now, this is probably about Latiff being a retired airforce Major General and thus his bias is showing. But maybe that is the problem. Maybe the people who get to talk about war ethics and new tools of war, are ultimately going to be too biased. At least Latiff is aware of this bias since he raises the issue of the conservative and "yay war" bubble many of his colleagues work in and calls for the general public to be involved.
I wrote down a lot of comments as I was reading (see below) because of my frustration. One of my first comments was the "America: Fuck Yeah!" sentiment that was present. I don't think that is entirely fair to Latiff. He does express a reasonable level of awareness, but when someone talks about "keeping America safe" you really feel like forcing them to include a list of war crimes, atrocities, and coups that the USA has been involved in.
The insights into technology are extremely interesting. If you follow tech at all you'll love what is discussed. It is the ethical considerations where I think the book falls flat. The examples of what ethical considerations are interesting but also feel ultimately hollow.
If someone is planning how to kill others, particularly lots of others, then that is unethical.
The arguments around Just War Theory and the ethics of war strike me as handwaving bullshit dreamt up by status quo warriors. Unfortunately, I don't have the background in moral and ethical philosophy to really dig into how it is wrong. No doubt there is a lot of material justifying war because that's what very serious status quo academics do as part of their contribution to the war effort so that no one ever asks them to actually fight and die in one.
Ironically, by the definitions of Just War Theory, I think you'd battle to find an example of a Just War. Which makes the entire idea of ethical warfare a comfort blanket to pull over your face as you invade a country to secure their
Some people are scared of the technology and potential of future war portrayed here. I'm more scared of how Latiff's calls for a discussion of the ethics involved aren't going to happen in any meaningful way.
Comments so far:
Only two chapters in, but already there is this overwhelming "America: Fuck Yeah!" attitude present. Threats could get hold of the weapons we're developing... is said unironically. USA aren't working on this (anymore after a feasibility analysis) but China doesn't have any such ethical compunctions...
Considering this book proposed to cover the technology and ethics of future wars in the opening, I'm already sensing that Latiff is probably going to pretend that the USA has never committed acts of genocide, war crimes, invasion, etc. whilst insisting they need new cool gadgets to do more of that stuff with.
Halfway in the new technologies are being discussed as inevitable. But it is then asserted that new tech will be used for war. That doesn't have to be so. Kinda feels like no-one ever stops and makes the argument that massive military research budgets could instead be civilian research budgets. Can't really weaponise something when you're not starting out building it as a weapon and pouring billions into doing so.
Three quarters in and the ethical discussion is taking shape. Just War and the like are being utilised. Some really good points are made but then are undermined by selective presentation of realities. E.g. Latiff makes a really good point about requiring strong ethical and moral frameworks (Warrior Code, etc) in the development of weapons, use of weapons, and the accepted practices of troops (when politicians justify or promote the use of torture, the command structure will follow, and thus the troops will utilise it). But he then skirts around how the military have been indoctrinating soldiers with increased efficiency to be killers, how they have researched making their soldiers more able to kill people, how they train them to think of "the enemy" as "inhuman" to make them able to justify killing to themselves.
I'm really having trouble with the supposed ethics of all this. Ultimately, all this tech is being developed to kill people. That's premeditated murder. Ergo, that is unethical. There isn't really a justification for that. A lot of handwaving is done based upon the idea that "the other side" will behave unethically, so we have to be prepared to "defend ourselves" (i.e. to also act unethically). The worst part is that this self-perpetuating cycle is often leveraged to gain power, resources, and profit (the latter is mentioned briefly in the third section by Latiff).
Philosophically, a lot has been written about Just War Theory, particularly against criticisms of it. I'm somewhat surprised that there isn't a solid argument against it. Take for example Jus ad bellum. Let's find a war that fits that definition. Particularly from the losing or instigating side. Ever. Just War Theorists certainly seem to try and pretend this occurs. People trying to kick wars off certainly try to make the argument of just cause (etc.). But most of those arguments are hollow, revisionist, and often straight-up lies (WMDs in Iraq anyone?).
Almost feels like a lot of money gets thrown at people to justify war.
Last chapter has some interesting points about echo chambers, ideological divides, society involvement, and American exceptionalism. All very good points. But again I find myself spotting what Latiff doesn't discuss and what he skips over.
E.g. He says that the average American is removed from war and largely uninformed/ignorant of it. But that is by design and moreover, the military is actively involved in keeping people ignorant. He made a point about no war critical films having been made whilst skipping over the fact that if a production studio wants to make a military film they need to have everything ticked off on by the military (it's why US military is awesome, bad elements are rogues who meet justice, they never commit war crimes, etc, etc.). Military intelligence was actively involved in the lies that took the US to war in (insert massive list here). The military routinely covers up atrocities, war crimes, abuse, rape, etc.
https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/...
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_wa...
https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explaine...
December 17, 2017
Although this book seems, at first, to be the manifesto of a technology fetishist, the author soon dispels the reader of that misconception. Although he still looks at the World generally through the lens of rapid technological change, Latiff explores the deeper problems that technology brings to warfare. These include new moral and ethical dilemmas, exploding financial burdens, and the ever-widening divide between the American people and their military.
I would hesitate to say that this book breaks new ground. Anyone who reads and thinks even a moderate amount of this topic will find little that has not already been discussed at length in other sources. However, Latiff’s book does offer a succinct summary of the issues and the beginnings of recommended solutions to those issues. It is worth buying just for Chapter 4 alone. Also, the examination of the impact of the changing character of war caused by technology on the individual soldier in Chapter 3 is also very good. Overall, very enjoyable ... and a very quick read.
I would hesitate to say that this book breaks new ground. Anyone who reads and thinks even a moderate amount of this topic will find little that has not already been discussed at length in other sources. However, Latiff’s book does offer a succinct summary of the issues and the beginnings of recommended solutions to those issues. It is worth buying just for Chapter 4 alone. Also, the examination of the impact of the changing character of war caused by technology on the individual soldier in Chapter 3 is also very good. Overall, very enjoyable ... and a very quick read.
June 5, 2019
Thought-provoking insights from a leading military expert: technology, ethics, and the role of society.
December 13, 2021
Gave some insight into what the future of warfare will be but left me wanting more depth. Too much of an American angle by the author too.
August 9, 2017
This review is a bit difficult for me, as I read an excellent book with the same title some years ago. Despite all attempts at not comparing, I have to admit some expectations seeped through, and the fact that they turned out to be on completely different paths didn’t help.
That other book was talking about weapons of the future, and there’s a little bit of that here: sonic waves, lasers, and other non-lethal newfangled inventions that DARPA’s working on. Twice the author lists historical military breakthroughs, but in both cases misses one of the most elementary and essential: stirrups.
But other than that small section on tech, this book is really one long surprising treatise on the philosophical, moral, and ethical implications of war in the future, rather than a description of actual warfare. There isn’t much about the tactics necessary to fight the new enemy that has made terrorism synonymous with warfare, for example. In fact, the ideas presented are not new, such as the chapter on leadership, and have always been a part of warfare since the Ancient Greeks. Perhaps he sees a need to remind people of it, and that’s fine up to a point, but the author belabors these opinions time and time again. If I’m smart enough to pick up this book, I’m smart enough not to be beat on the head over and over with the same kick. Plus it’s more likely a case of preaching to the choir of anyone interested in reading this book. For instance, he makes the point that people who are unaffected by war—in this case the American people—don’t care about the issues surrounding it. I wrote a paper on this very subject years ago, about Bosnia and Croatia and the bombing of Serbia, and I’m not exactly a military expert, so I have to say I learned very little here.
2.5 pushed up to 3/5
That other book was talking about weapons of the future, and there’s a little bit of that here: sonic waves, lasers, and other non-lethal newfangled inventions that DARPA’s working on. Twice the author lists historical military breakthroughs, but in both cases misses one of the most elementary and essential: stirrups.
But other than that small section on tech, this book is really one long surprising treatise on the philosophical, moral, and ethical implications of war in the future, rather than a description of actual warfare. There isn’t much about the tactics necessary to fight the new enemy that has made terrorism synonymous with warfare, for example. In fact, the ideas presented are not new, such as the chapter on leadership, and have always been a part of warfare since the Ancient Greeks. Perhaps he sees a need to remind people of it, and that’s fine up to a point, but the author belabors these opinions time and time again. If I’m smart enough to pick up this book, I’m smart enough not to be beat on the head over and over with the same kick. Plus it’s more likely a case of preaching to the choir of anyone interested in reading this book. For instance, he makes the point that people who are unaffected by war—in this case the American people—don’t care about the issues surrounding it. I wrote a paper on this very subject years ago, about Bosnia and Croatia and the bombing of Serbia, and I’m not exactly a military expert, so I have to say I learned very little here.
2.5 pushed up to 3/5
November 10, 2017
Engage! That is the premise of fellow author and retired US Air Force Major General Robert H. Latiff, Ph.D, in his newly-released book Future War: Preparing the for New Global Battlefield. It’s not often someone so highly regarded simply pleads for help, but that is General Latiff’s most salient message. And I, for one, listen.
Technology has changed warfare in ways the average citizen barely comprehends. Each day dizzying choices become available to defense contractors, Pentagon procurement officials, and our elected representatives. Who can understand the impact on our very human warriors of the complexities and consequences of battlefield-performance-enhancing drugs, “intelligent” drones armed with lethal force, split-second orders to destroy based on networked—even crowd-sourced—statistical probabilities rather than the situation at hand, and robotic teammates “watching your six”?
Yet, according to General Latiff, we ask our fighting men and women to go into battle ever more frequently, trusting that the tools we hand them are somehow vetted as the right ones, that their orders are honorable, and that their actions are sanctioned by at least a majority of the citizenry they are sworn to defend.
We ask them to fight our wars for us without engaging in any debate about the ethics of today’s technology-enhanced actions and the costs to their lives…and souls.
Inventors tend to shrug and answer that the solution is ever more technology, more precise weaponry, melding of man and machine in ways that come right out of the pages of 20th century science fiction. Whether it is the Terminator’s Skynet, Star Trek’s Borg, or 2001’s H.A.L., the implications are clear. If we as citizens do not take the time to control our own fate, we are surely allowing a small group of scientists and their love affair with intelligent machines to dictate our future, and eventually run our lives. The institutions we rely on have abdicated their oversight responsibility for so many decades that the memory of such passionate, historical debates has faded completely.
No, I am not an alarmist nor a Luddite. But I, too, have found a lack of ethical consciousness and moral framework throughout Silicon Valley, where chasing wealth dominates discussions of societal priorities. Not all engineers and scientists do, but far too many, especially of the younger generation. Whether due to hubris that some other genius will solve whatever problems crop up, or a passionate quest to destroy previous generations’ flawed, human-based governmental structures and replace them with supposedly neutral machines, there is a significant lack of interest to face and openly deal with the philosophical, ethical, and political implications of their breakthrough ideas, and the world they spawn.
In Future War, General Latiff smartly focuses on the human element of war, and finds America singularly lacking in notions of values and morality. Not just in education, which is woeful enough, but in its citizens’ will to study, consider, debate, and actively choose what both the purpose and nature of future conflicts should be when we put machines between us and our enemy. National defense or national security? Police actions or humanitarian missions? Torture or passivity? Do we develop horrific new weaponry first, or be sitting ducks to nations who beat us to it? Has our own familiarity and comfort with the advantages of technology made us complacent to its evil side?
He sprinkles his chapters with unanswered (and perhaps unanswerable) questions such as these, recognizing it is not the military’s place to be the sole arbiter of right and wrong. However, nor is it the place of the elite few who grasp technology’s power and may use it for nefarious purposes, with or without our consent. Government of, for, and by the people requires involvement and engagement by all Americans. For a truly scary science-fiction scenario, I point you to Dave Eggers’ The Circle, a dystopian peek into the future, supposedly loosely based on conversations with tech leaders who by now have attained celebrity status with political aspirations, like Facebook’s Zuckerburg. As Chicago columnist Mike Royko famously said, “I may be wrong, but I doubt it.”
In a world dominated by fake news and entertainment-oriented media, those of us committed to an ethical, values-based future must stand up now and demand a considered thought process behind our rapid deployment of this new technology. As we speak, wars no longer are fought on delineated battlefields between nations over disputed territories, but rather in the world of cyberspace to create economic and psychological harm. How can any military deploy and defend against an invisible entity on an instantaneous, global battlefield? What do we really want our professionally trained soldiers to do on our behalf?
Whether we like it or not, we all have become citizen soldiers: fighting for truth from our media, justice for all, constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, and property rights in a world that has become increasingly reliant on a virtual network of bits and bytes. At what point could a network virus wipe out all records of your savings account, convert it to Bit Coin, or demand a ransom to release your funds? What if a single foreign hacker who wants to cause chaos throughout America is the sole person to blame?
Is that war? Do we send a drone to assassinate him or her? Are you ready to defend yourself, your rights, and your property as if it were war?
Or are you calling on our military to solve this attack on your behalf? How much is it worth to you in dollars, effort, and conscience? Where will you draw the line on your own civil liberties if the most effective technology has dire consequences here at home?
Alternatively, will you keep your eyes trained on your smartphone, reading Tweets and watching YouTube videos, preferring to keep your head buried in the sand because, in the end, you realize you sealed your own fate by not caring until it’s too late?
Dr. Latiff has asked for our help debating this matter, as we have asked him and his fellow military personnel for help defending us.
Isn’t it our turn to serve?
For the record, last year General Latiff endorsed Rare Mettle: A Silicon Valley Novel, for which I am eternally humbled and grateful.
Technology has changed warfare in ways the average citizen barely comprehends. Each day dizzying choices become available to defense contractors, Pentagon procurement officials, and our elected representatives. Who can understand the impact on our very human warriors of the complexities and consequences of battlefield-performance-enhancing drugs, “intelligent” drones armed with lethal force, split-second orders to destroy based on networked—even crowd-sourced—statistical probabilities rather than the situation at hand, and robotic teammates “watching your six”?
Yet, according to General Latiff, we ask our fighting men and women to go into battle ever more frequently, trusting that the tools we hand them are somehow vetted as the right ones, that their orders are honorable, and that their actions are sanctioned by at least a majority of the citizenry they are sworn to defend.
We ask them to fight our wars for us without engaging in any debate about the ethics of today’s technology-enhanced actions and the costs to their lives…and souls.
Inventors tend to shrug and answer that the solution is ever more technology, more precise weaponry, melding of man and machine in ways that come right out of the pages of 20th century science fiction. Whether it is the Terminator’s Skynet, Star Trek’s Borg, or 2001’s H.A.L., the implications are clear. If we as citizens do not take the time to control our own fate, we are surely allowing a small group of scientists and their love affair with intelligent machines to dictate our future, and eventually run our lives. The institutions we rely on have abdicated their oversight responsibility for so many decades that the memory of such passionate, historical debates has faded completely.
No, I am not an alarmist nor a Luddite. But I, too, have found a lack of ethical consciousness and moral framework throughout Silicon Valley, where chasing wealth dominates discussions of societal priorities. Not all engineers and scientists do, but far too many, especially of the younger generation. Whether due to hubris that some other genius will solve whatever problems crop up, or a passionate quest to destroy previous generations’ flawed, human-based governmental structures and replace them with supposedly neutral machines, there is a significant lack of interest to face and openly deal with the philosophical, ethical, and political implications of their breakthrough ideas, and the world they spawn.
In Future War, General Latiff smartly focuses on the human element of war, and finds America singularly lacking in notions of values and morality. Not just in education, which is woeful enough, but in its citizens’ will to study, consider, debate, and actively choose what both the purpose and nature of future conflicts should be when we put machines between us and our enemy. National defense or national security? Police actions or humanitarian missions? Torture or passivity? Do we develop horrific new weaponry first, or be sitting ducks to nations who beat us to it? Has our own familiarity and comfort with the advantages of technology made us complacent to its evil side?
He sprinkles his chapters with unanswered (and perhaps unanswerable) questions such as these, recognizing it is not the military’s place to be the sole arbiter of right and wrong. However, nor is it the place of the elite few who grasp technology’s power and may use it for nefarious purposes, with or without our consent. Government of, for, and by the people requires involvement and engagement by all Americans. For a truly scary science-fiction scenario, I point you to Dave Eggers’ The Circle, a dystopian peek into the future, supposedly loosely based on conversations with tech leaders who by now have attained celebrity status with political aspirations, like Facebook’s Zuckerburg. As Chicago columnist Mike Royko famously said, “I may be wrong, but I doubt it.”
In a world dominated by fake news and entertainment-oriented media, those of us committed to an ethical, values-based future must stand up now and demand a considered thought process behind our rapid deployment of this new technology. As we speak, wars no longer are fought on delineated battlefields between nations over disputed territories, but rather in the world of cyberspace to create economic and psychological harm. How can any military deploy and defend against an invisible entity on an instantaneous, global battlefield? What do we really want our professionally trained soldiers to do on our behalf?
Whether we like it or not, we all have become citizen soldiers: fighting for truth from our media, justice for all, constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, and property rights in a world that has become increasingly reliant on a virtual network of bits and bytes. At what point could a network virus wipe out all records of your savings account, convert it to Bit Coin, or demand a ransom to release your funds? What if a single foreign hacker who wants to cause chaos throughout America is the sole person to blame?
Is that war? Do we send a drone to assassinate him or her? Are you ready to defend yourself, your rights, and your property as if it were war?
Or are you calling on our military to solve this attack on your behalf? How much is it worth to you in dollars, effort, and conscience? Where will you draw the line on your own civil liberties if the most effective technology has dire consequences here at home?
Alternatively, will you keep your eyes trained on your smartphone, reading Tweets and watching YouTube videos, preferring to keep your head buried in the sand because, in the end, you realize you sealed your own fate by not caring until it’s too late?
Dr. Latiff has asked for our help debating this matter, as we have asked him and his fellow military personnel for help defending us.
Isn’t it our turn to serve?
For the record, last year General Latiff endorsed Rare Mettle: A Silicon Valley Novel, for which I am eternally humbled and grateful.
November 5, 2017
Future War raises a lot of excellent questions but I do feel it needs to be fleshed out more to be a more comprehensive and impacting read.
August 24, 2018
So Future War is just big business, it's a money go round for the west and east. Until strong man leaders throughout most of the war torn parts of this planet, are displaced with a form of rule, whatever it maybe but it must be something these people can believe in then unfortunately we have what is going on, weapons to the moon and back flowing like the amazon from western/eastern factories to fuel a never-ending wars. Complicated as it is we in the west are trapped when we vote for the status quo. Makes me think there is no hope, but I want to believe there is.
June 6, 2018
A decent primer on future war, tech, and ethical implications.
January 9, 2023
Very succinctly and directly, the author Robert H. Latiff narrows down the possible major threat of a war to new technology in the book Future War. He seems to have a sense of urgency, tantamount to his explanatory arguments. As stated explicitly, his purpose of writing this book is to awake people, especially the general public, about potential scene of future war, as well as what the armies are doing to prepare for them. Somehow he is warning people about in what ways would the war in the future be different from the wars in the past. He also projects technology being the dominant weapon. When I read about the how the future battle would look like in 2050, I was inspired to think how you would destroy a world in 2050. As a former major general in the US Air Force, Latiff employs a great number of resources coming from his past military experience. Also he uses data a lot to boost his arguments. He continues to talk about biological weapons. He acknowledges that there are laws and regulations controlling the usage of biological synthesis. Yet he and other officers admit that chances of misuse exist. Internal modifications include genetic editing and external enhancements include exoskeleton. He then talks about the autonomy of robotics. Without supervision from humans, highly autonomous machinery may make decisions on their own from which unwanted disasters may be caused. Latiff highly emphasizes the power of science and technology on weapons. A leap in technological innovation and improvement usually trigger an advancement of weapon. Personally, I like his inclusion of ethics, as well as approaching the consequence of employing new technology emotionally. I absolutely agree that emotional appeals are among the most important “leftovers” of wars. All the narrations and accounts are base on how people interpret the war. Though this point is not as thoroughly addressed as other concerns, I appreciate Latiff’s comprehensiveness towards the discussion of future wars.
July 15, 2018
I applaud the author’s brevity and conciseness, both of which are lacking in many non-fiction books on “big” topics.” I felt I was reading a thorough RAND briefing paper or something. Although I appreciated the author’s extrapolations to what a future war will look like, I learned more about how a veteran defense establishment type views the dichotomy between the US civilian and military populations. Not only do almost all Americans have hardly a clue about the military and its extensive activities abroad, military personnel more and more see themselves as a separate entity superior in morals and ethics. This divergence is dangerous, according to Latiff.
The other major theme, another inescapable divergence, is that modern weaponry and technical advances separate the warrior from the immediate consequences of the war and his/her actions (e.g., attacking remote locations with drones). The defense establishment is enamored with advanced technology. Citizens love the civilian applications. So everyone, it seems, is on an accelerating military-industrial complex treadmill, the one Eisenhower warned us against more than six decades ago.
Brief and concise as it is, the book is still somewhat repetitive and a few passages read like Pentagon memos. Generally, though, this book is on a par with Astrophysics for People In a Hurry - a great deal of great information is packed into a relatively small space.
The other major theme, another inescapable divergence, is that modern weaponry and technical advances separate the warrior from the immediate consequences of the war and his/her actions (e.g., attacking remote locations with drones). The defense establishment is enamored with advanced technology. Citizens love the civilian applications. So everyone, it seems, is on an accelerating military-industrial complex treadmill, the one Eisenhower warned us against more than six decades ago.
Brief and concise as it is, the book is still somewhat repetitive and a few passages read like Pentagon memos. Generally, though, this book is on a par with Astrophysics for People In a Hurry - a great deal of great information is packed into a relatively small space.
December 20, 2017
Really 4.5 stars. The reasons for it not being five stars are:
1. Too many " I was there so I know what I am talking about" episodes that really would be more effective as substantive and expanded footnotes or sidebars
2. Tangential aspects or subjects that turn into rants, not informed discussions of topics.
3. Some conclusions and "pleas" that are ill-informed, or strongly reflect authors' inherent bias.
Bottom line though, this book is a lucid, logical, well written, cogent Economist-magazine style précis of the state of the US military today-and its role in society as a whole. His commentary about the " general population" / "techno-Class" diversion is spot on. Where it lacks-it lacks because of the authors' lack of sociological insight-in short, he is a wealthy, White member of the US elite class writing as a member of that class and social milieu. That's not a bad thing in and of itself, but it decidedly colors his view of say, weapons procurement and the amount of tax money wasted by the Pentagon ( which he condemns strongly). Well worth reading. His Ted talk is worth watching too.
1. Too many " I was there so I know what I am talking about" episodes that really would be more effective as substantive and expanded footnotes or sidebars
2. Tangential aspects or subjects that turn into rants, not informed discussions of topics.
3. Some conclusions and "pleas" that are ill-informed, or strongly reflect authors' inherent bias.
Bottom line though, this book is a lucid, logical, well written, cogent Economist-magazine style précis of the state of the US military today-and its role in society as a whole. His commentary about the " general population" / "techno-Class" diversion is spot on. Where it lacks-it lacks because of the authors' lack of sociological insight-in short, he is a wealthy, White member of the US elite class writing as a member of that class and social milieu. That's not a bad thing in and of itself, but it decidedly colors his view of say, weapons procurement and the amount of tax money wasted by the Pentagon ( which he condemns strongly). Well worth reading. His Ted talk is worth watching too.
December 2, 2019
On one level, this is a book about future military technology and conflict, offering a general though engaging primer on the myriad of technological advances and opportunities for harm and conflict that are emerging. It doesn't rival the best works, ala Paul Scharre's Army of None, but it's solid.
In a deeper sense however, this book is much more about the people and society that owns such technology, rather than the military who use it on their behalf. Latiff, a retired US Air Force Major General makes a repeated plea for the public and political class to pay much greater attention to the changing nature of war.
From the ethical challenges of new technology, to the growing chasm between the military and US society, Latiff sets out in simple language the fundamentally unprepared, and often unthinking way in which the US is not ready for future war. It is these social issues, which loom far larger than the merely technical or tactical challenges posed by our adversaries and the latest technologies.
In a deeper sense however, this book is much more about the people and society that owns such technology, rather than the military who use it on their behalf. Latiff, a retired US Air Force Major General makes a repeated plea for the public and political class to pay much greater attention to the changing nature of war.
From the ethical challenges of new technology, to the growing chasm between the military and US society, Latiff sets out in simple language the fundamentally unprepared, and often unthinking way in which the US is not ready for future war. It is these social issues, which loom far larger than the merely technical or tactical challenges posed by our adversaries and the latest technologies.
January 18, 2025
Interesting bits of info on the new technologies the military (and the world) could be dealing with in the future.
The main reason for Latiff's book is to point out the various ways the general public is ill-suited to even to begin to have these discussions. The combination of automated, long-distance weapons and the growing insulation of the military from the public will lead to...well something bad. It could be a military that goes on more random, pointless excursions. It could be a military that becomes its own master. But the scariest thing is the general avoidance of thinking about war leading to an unguided, unknown unknown. (The only good thing Rumsfeld ever did was popularlize that term.)
Like most authors who think about war, the real question is how to avoid war. But we won't think about that as a country, we'll just continue to send troops to kill with ever advancing weapons while the rest of the country sits at a table like the dog in the meme.
The main reason for Latiff's book is to point out the various ways the general public is ill-suited to even to begin to have these discussions. The combination of automated, long-distance weapons and the growing insulation of the military from the public will lead to...well something bad. It could be a military that goes on more random, pointless excursions. It could be a military that becomes its own master. But the scariest thing is the general avoidance of thinking about war leading to an unguided, unknown unknown. (The only good thing Rumsfeld ever did was popularlize that term.)
Like most authors who think about war, the real question is how to avoid war. But we won't think about that as a country, we'll just continue to send troops to kill with ever advancing weapons while the rest of the country sits at a table like the dog in the meme.
December 18, 2019
I had the pleasure of meeting retired Air Force Major General Bob Latiff at a recent annual meeting of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the organization that annually sets the "Doomsday Clock". Bob was kind, gracious, easy to talk with, and as someone who was previously in charge of U.S. weapons development, he gave a riveting presentation on the ethical considerations involved in our choices moving forward. His book is no less riveting, and not a little disturbing. It is a well written reminder of where we've been, an illuminating explanation of where we are, and a chilling description of ethical (and maybe moral) choices we need to make as a people about the way forward with technology and its applications.
I think everyone should read this short book--but especially those in positions to make decisions about the paths we go down in war fighting.
I think everyone should read this short book--but especially those in positions to make decisions about the paths we go down in war fighting.
July 17, 2025
Future War is nonfiction book about technological developments and how are they going to influence warfare in near future. Author goes briefly thru whole platera of ideas on how warfare is going to develope, how is it going to inflience human societies and soldiers.
Reading this I had to remind myself that im not reading sci-fi novel. There is too much of questions and not enough answers. Author raises a question and then fails to deliver satisfying conclusion. There are too many guesings and speculations. Book is too short for its own good.
There are interesting ideas there but clouded in speculation. Author should try writing sci-fi novel.
Reading this I had to remind myself that im not reading sci-fi novel. There is too much of questions and not enough answers. Author raises a question and then fails to deliver satisfying conclusion. There are too many guesings and speculations. Book is too short for its own good.
There are interesting ideas there but clouded in speculation. Author should try writing sci-fi novel.
February 4, 2021
He brought up a lot of great points and I think I'll buy this one. I thought the chapter on Americans and their rah rah support the troops talk but not much action was spot on. He mentioned how few people actually know members of the military and perhaps that's why we let the government send them to far away places to fight wars most people don't think about. There's no direct effect on their lives. The talk about biological weapons, neurotoxins and scaling up vaccine production for pandemics was a bit scary for it's prescience.
November 3, 2017
A tour of the technology and challenges the military and society face in the coming years. From AI to autonomous systems to neutropics and drug enhancements there are many new weapons and threats that are starting to hit society. There are new challenges for society and for government on how to manage a very rapidly changing situation.
November 13, 2017
I had no idea how much war had changed. Just about every aspect from soldiers and weapons and the areas we fight in is all different from previous wars and the way they were fought in the past. One can not fathom all the differences and tactics that will be used in the coming warfare. This book brings them into view and it is scary. Interesting and informative read and I highly recommend.
December 23, 2017
A critical, and thought provoking look at how technology will change the aspect of war ,and how it will be conducted both on the battlefield, in cyberspace and in the war room. Military art and science, along with the moral and ethical aspect of the new, and enhanced warrior are all addressed in this book, and how it will reshape the future of war and peace.
January 13, 2018
I read this for research on my next WIP and it gave me so many good insights into the future of not only war but our future as a civilians in a chaotic world. Clear and concise writing. gave me chills to think how easily things can go very wrong if we make the wrong choices or get distracted and let things continue the way they are. A must read for all concerned citizens and soldiers alike.
June 20, 2019
Future War is a good overview of emerging technologies, and there are sprinkles of insight into the current human and societal issues of war. The book is generally well written and concise. It's just too short to meaningfully cover such a broad topic, and the two parts of the book aren't joined into any cohesive whole.
February 27, 2020
While I appreciated the passion and decades of service that led to this work—I was disappointed by the results. It read more like a rant or lecture, than a well-researched piece of literature. Whether I agreed with the positions taken or not was not the issues—rather I was underwhelmed by the research, structure, and clear evidence behind the assertions. Thankfully it was short.
April 20, 2021
Very well thought out and well researched book. Latiff knows his stuff. His urgency about civilians knowing more about the military and what we are really doing overseas and how our money is being spent makes me want to be more engaged. He did well at conveying how disturbed he was by the priorities of the American public today. A must read!
June 4, 2022
the end regarding the relationship between the military and civilian population was the most enlightening point for me. several other books cover the topics of developing technological threats but I've never read one that brought up the problem generated on both sides of the isle with widening the cultural differences between the military and civilians.
April 26, 2019
Interesting, but not groundbreaking
I liked this book, but I was expecting a little more on the technical aspects of future combat. There is a bit of that, but the bulk of the text is concerned with the social and ethical implications of the future of warfare.
I liked this book, but I was expecting a little more on the technical aspects of future combat. There is a bit of that, but the bulk of the text is concerned with the social and ethical implications of the future of warfare.
March 18, 2022
It was an informative book and felt that the author brought up some good points. I mean it's a good book but it's not earth-shattering on the concepts that he brought up. I do like that the fact that he did bring up the human cost of war, and how our past wars have affected the national psyche.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews