Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

New rules of engagement

We seem to have a growing number of armed conflicts taking place all over the planet.

As has always been the case in war, soldiers are dying and innocent civilians are also losing their lives -- whilst those orchestrating the conflicts sit comfortably, thousands of Km from the frontline and watch it all on a screen.

I think it's time we changed the rules of engagement for war and used technology to turn the ugliness of war into a more humane battle, regardless of the motivation driving the engagements.

Right now, in the 21st century, we live in an era where virtual reality is becoming a practical tool and AI is allowing us to do all sorts of things that were previously beyond our grasp. Why not apply these tools to the art of war?

Before I get 100 angry emails saying "but AI and VR *are* being used in the battle theatre" allow me to elaborate on my idea.

Ultimately, war is simply the result of one leader or nation taking action to force their ideology or their desire for power, on another.

It is the nature of man and perhaps even one of the driving forces of evolution that the strong will destroy the week, thus strengthening the entire species as a result.

In the case of primitive man we battled with our bare hands and our teeth then perhaps sticks and stones (remember that scene from 2001 a Space Odyssey?).

Now that we have improved our technology, wars are fought with missiles, drones, lasers, jet-aircraft and more. Although the tech has changed, the goals and objectives of conflict remain the same -- force your will on others and grab their stuff (especially territory).

Now imagine if you will, new rules of engagement where all this fighting is done in a virtual world. A world where everything is simulated on a computer operated by a neutral party.

Yes, that's right, we're talking about little more than round of PUBG where the winner takes all.

Nobody has to die, no valuable national assets have to be destroyed, billions of dollars need not be squandered in procuring arms, etc.

The parties to the conflict simply agree to abide by the outcome of the game. This means the loser must turn over their lands and their properties to the winner and relinquish political control.

In the end... the *outcome* is the same as if a real "guns and bombs" war had been fought but instead of inheriting a wasteland of destruction, the victor gets a pristine prize. Likewise, the vanquished lose their property to the winner but at least they still have their lives, their families and have avoided the many horrors of war.

Surely this is how a civilised species would solve conflicts that might otherwise become existential?

Unfortunately, I can't see this scenario ever playing out. Doubtless whoever lost one of these virtual wars would simply start a real war to try and turn things around.

However, if we, as a species, are to survive the next 1,000 years, I think we will have to consider the option of changing the entire rules of engagement for war. If not, we may all simply become a footnote in the history of the planet.

Carpe Diem folks!

Please visit the sponsor!

Here is a PERMANENT link to this column

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font