Editorial – October 2024: Rules Of War.
Hello everyone,
Given the growing unrest in the world and the increasing number of civilian casualties from various wars on a daily basis, I’m not entirely convinced that changing the topic and assuming it will go away is appropriate in the context of an editorial. Considering how much war is a part of science fiction, especially in films, even the non-genre fan has seen the brutalities, and yet it rarely compares to real life as it triggers a reaction. If anything, there’s a tendency to dismiss such thoughts at the conclusion of a film, forgetting that if it were real life, we would be contemplating the loss of life. When civilian casualties are high, real life becomes far worse. Not that we should stop watching such films, but there is a need to consider the ramifications of what we watch rather than just see it as numbers.
Again, we face the possibility of nuclear war. We should never encounter this common science fiction trope in real life again. There’s certainly enough SF films showing the consequences of such an event that should make everyone gasp and not see as an inevitable conclusion that would drive the survivors into the stone age, or at least for a time while those with any technical talent try to make anything mechanical work again. I always remember the scene from the 1970 film ‘Colossus: The Forbin Project’ in which Colossus detonates an IBM in its silo while humans were using a sleigh of hands to remove the detonators. Nearly everyone there panics seeing the countdown and runs when they see what is about to happen, except for CIA Director Grauber (actor William Schallert), who sits calmly and takes his last drink. There is no running away from a detonation this close. That image always stayed in my head. The image was far more powerful than all the atomic war films that came before it.
The disruption of the airwaves and the melting of CPUs will undoubtedly lead to the Internet’s demise, especially for those who rely heavily on their mobile phones. One can only hope that some transmitters will survive, but it’s doubtful that they’ll be strong enough for much world-wide communication. This underscores our reliance on computer technology. This minor convenience pales in comparison to the number of lives lost.
In many ways, the end of the Cold War in 1991 ushered in a new era where new frontiers emerged, despite the media’s constant coverage. People don’t always consider the idea of using nuclear weapons, even when it hovers in the back of their minds. Complacency in the modern age is even scarier than the action. Nearly 80 years have passed since the last and only use of a nuclear device in a war. The other side could have just as easily used it. The oldest remembers it, but those much younger don’t recall the consequences. There is less fear and more ignorance about its effects. Modern nukes are far more devastating, and the after-effects spread more than the target because of radiation fallout. You won’t have any joy while you get fatal radiation poisoning.
The whole point of mutually assured destruction is to prevent any one country from winning a nuclear war, so no one wins. While this may not be to the satisfaction of nuclear disarmament groups, the existence of nuclear weapons in one country does not guarantee the safety of any other country. Even if all nuclear-armed countries were to follow these guidelines and disarm, there is no guarantee that any or all of them would not conceal some nuclear weapons just in case.
What could break this is if one country leader believes the other countries would not carry out that retaliatory action or thinks their actions would be too fast for someone to press the button. Therein lies the rub. Online, you can view the official procedures that the public needs to be reassured about, but understandably, not all of them are available. You won’t witness a scenario where all significant world leaders are assassinated first. There will always be someone in line to ensure no wicked deed goes unpunished. Hypothetically, one could surmise that the final choice is not to order an attack, but to stop one from going off.
When an enemy perceives their communication devices as a weakness and uses them against them, war takes on a whole new dimension. People are focusing more on films that employ clever strategies, which is contrary to the conventions of war.
It may seem strange to civilize war, but the key to making it fair is to prevent complete annihilation. For instance, a certain percentage of civilian deaths qualifies as a war crime. That’s why we should treat prisoners of war fairly, and certainly not torture them. Of course, we are aware that all nations have violated these laws, and determining who qualifies as a terrorist based on their actions remains a complex matter. It then becomes a choice between two evils when neither side is better than the other.
Given the current circumstances, how can I engage in a respectful conversation about science fiction? Even though my home is far from these wars, the Internet and media news make it impossible not to see what is going on. War turns into madness when there are no winners or losers.
World leaders are finally stirring to get something done. Negotiations will never be easy when country leaders and terrorist leaders are unlikely to want to sit down at a table and find some sort of compromise to their situation. This is primarily due to the fact that neither party can rely on the other to sustain a deal over time or exploit the other’s cooperation. Even so, a threat from the rest of the world to act harshly against any side that breaks any agreement represents a threat from above. Even though it’s not a common SF trope, third-party intervention is nonetheless present.
War is not civilized, and that needs to be reflected ever more in fiction. Particularly in science fiction, we can employ metaphors more effectively. The dead count extends beyond mere numbers, and it’s important to keep this in mind.
Thank you, take care, good night, and breathe heavily for a change.
Geoff Willmetts
editor: www.SFCrowsnest.info
A Zen thought: Learn from it, not live by it.
What Qualities Does A Geek Have? Honest evaluation is part of who we are.
The Reveal: You never see a ‘further notice’ sign, only the announcement for one.
Getting It Wrong In A Film: The 1966 SF film, Women of the Prehistoric Film’, has one space officer explaining to an underling relativity and get it totally wrong, saying it is something to do with planetary orbit. Really.
Observation: Watch a really bad film, like ‘The Beach Girls And The Monster’ (1966); there are other bad films there, and you shouldn’t trust the advertisement breaks.
Observation: The first two ‘Invasion of the Bodysnatchers’ films share a common denominator: they never show the pod people eating. So, if you’re masquerading as a pod person and acting as a group, how do you get away to have a meal?
Observation: Can you believe in people who have an altitude problem? It’s all height, isn’t it?
Observation: For those of you who look at the lists of things off of MSN, do you ever wonder or think the advertisements are part of it, and what should cleaning my cooker have to do with the problem?
Feeling stressed: Be grateful it isn’t agoraphobia, as the stresses mount up and you can’t figure out all the triggers.
