NationStates Jolt Archive

New rules of war put women on front line in Iraq and Afghanistan

Sarah Bryant was killed along with three reservists - this picture was released by her father
Jeremy Page, Michael Evans and Francis Elliott

Britain’s increasing use of women on the front line of war was called into question yesterday after Afghanistan claimed its first female casualty.

The intelligence officer, named last night as Sarah Bryant, 26, was on a secret counter-terrorism mission in Helmand province when she was killed along with three reserve members of the Special Air Service when their armoured Land Rovers were hit by a roadside bomb.

It was the greatest single loss of life for the Territorial Army since the Second World War and the biggest single loss of life for British troops since September 2006, when 14 personnel were killed in an RAF Nimrod crash near Kandahar. It brings to nine the number of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan in as many days.

The reservists, from the 23rd SAS Regiment, were providing support for an operation by the Afghan National Police east of Lashkar Gah.
Related Links

* Taleban driven out of Kandahar area - reports

* All Afghanistan is the front line

* Analysis: 360-degree war puts women in danger

Ms Bryant, whose family live in Carlisle, married a fellow intelligence officer two years ago. Her work in Afghanistan involved monitoring Taleban telephone and walkie-talkie communications. She spoke the local Pashtu language and was recently promoted to the rank of sergeant in the Intelligence Corps. She had done two six-month tours to Iraq.

Her father, Des Feely, said that he and his wife Maureen were “absolutely devastated to have lost the beautiful daughter we adored”. He added: “But I know that at least Sarah died doing the job she loved and for a cause she believed in.”

He said that she had been due to fly home next month. “But now she’ll be coming back to be buried with military honours at the church in Wetheral where she was married two years ago.”

Her death has highlighted the changing role of women soldiers on the “asymmetric battlefields” of Afghanistan and Iraq, where the traditional concepts of frontline and support roles have become blurred.

Commanding officers said that soldiers were now routinely selected for operations regardless of their gender.About a fifth of the 8,000 Service personnel in Afghanistan are women, even though they make up just a tenth of total army numbers. Army rules forbid the deployment of women in operations where they would be expected to “close with and kill the enemy”. But senior officers said last night that all operations outside base camps could be regarded as on the front line.

Gerald Howarth, the Shadow Defence Minister, called on the Government to make clear its position on the role of women in frontline positions. “There is no doubt in my mind that the Government needs to clarify that it is adhering to its own guidelines,” he told The Times. He added that the guidelines needed to be “appropriate to the shifting nature of the threat in Afghanistan”.

Major Bruce Spencer, a British military spokesman in Lashkar Gah, told The Times that the woman officer killed had been chosen for the patrol because she had the necessary skill set. “Military campaigns have moved on from the days when we confronted the enemy in the trenches across a clear front line,” he said. “We now have an asymmetric battlefield. The front line could be right outside the camp gates or 50 miles away. We select people on the basis of what they can do, not on the basis of their gender. Women are part of the full panoply of the Armed Forces. The risks that they take are the same as anyone else, and they understand the risks.”

Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said: “Obviously an inquiry will establish if there has been any breach of the rules of engagement in this instance. However, the reality of modern warfare is that men and women are together in harm’s way and I have nothing but admiration for this woman fighting for her country.”

Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP and former soldier, said that women were now routinely on the front line. “There is no reason a forward operations unit should not have a female radio operator. The intelligence corps are a combat arm, so there is nothing wrong with that. I don’t necessarily like it very much. But she signed up.”

Gordon Brown expressed his “deepest condolences” to the families of the four soldiers. Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, rejected suggestions that British troops in Afghanistan could start “losing heart” after the recent surge in casualties.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4168044.ece

I'm not sure why this is news. It seems to me that the death of a woman is no more tragic than the death of a man.

Does this kind of response say anything about sexism in society?

Why the hell are reservists being used for this kind of mission?

Meh. What do people enlist for if not to risk life and limb in the service of their country.

It's not exactly new, we had a female casualty in Iraq a couple of years ago. Women are forbidden from serving in front-line combat regiments (Infantry, Cavalry and Armoured) but have served in combat support arms for many years (Intelligence, Artillary, Signals) and have been in combat situations for a while. We even have women in special forces (the Special Reconnaissance Regiment, which do Special Forces Intelligence missions and in fact has it's origins in an intelligence unit used in Ireland in the 70s which routinely used women).

Every time a women is injured/captured/killed (and it has happened a few times over the years) the newspapers have the same panic of "should we be putting women in harms way" and the same arguments are given to them that women have chosen to do the job, they know the dangers, there is no real thing as a front line. The outcry then dies down before happening exactly the same again the next time something happens. In the meantime the army will continue to use women in the roles they trained and choose to serve in without distinguishing them from their male colleagues. So really, I think it's just the media that needs to catch up with army policies and get used to the fact that women are serving in dangerous situations, they choose to do so being aware of the dangers, and as a result some of them are going to get hurt.

A secure wage...?

Which they could get by joining a service other than the army. Honestly, would you enlist and not consider the possibility of death?

Meh. What do people enlist for if not to risk life and limb in the service of their country.

A secure wage...?

this whole article is more or less wrong O_O

- woman are denied from combat arms only (infantry, armored etc)

- women have fought battles in the past and will continue to fight battles just like any man

- the fact that she was territorial is completely irrelevant

as for the question: Women are still treated differently in our sociaty which is why they are not allowed in the combat arms

Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP and former soldier, said that women were now routinely on the front line. “There is no reason a forward operations unit should not have a female radio operator. The intelligence corps are a combat arm, so there is nothing wrong with that. I don’t necessarily like it very much. But she signed up.”

No

Why the hell are reservists being used for this kind of mission?

because backing up the regular army is what the TA does

No


I imagine he was getting confused with Combat Support Arm, which is what the Intelligence Corps is

I imagine he was getting confused with Combat Support Arm, which is what the Intelligence Corps is

its always nice to see the "experts" on these matters cock up though :p

its always nice to see the "experts" on these matters cock up though :p

Bah, he's an MP... did you seriously expect any better :p

Back to the topic of women in the armed forces, personally I think that women should be allowed to join Combat Arms too, as long as they can opperate at the same level as their male counter-parts (which a number definitely can) but I suspect it would require a lot of changes to traditional infanty unit training to keep a up a high level of unit cohesion. Our culture does after all teach us that women should be protected, and that instinct would have to be deemphaised in training for it to work. I think it's possible, and something the army should start considering really, but it's unfortunately not as simply a matter as many advocates would necessarily paint it.

SNIP

it was tried and turned out to be an absolute disaster with women frequently doing themselves injuries trying to constantly compete with men (feminism and all), men stopping in firefights when women get hit to help them, pregnancies and the age old issue of soldiers of both sexes fucking anything that moves

it was tried and turned out to be an absolute disaster with women frequently doing themselves injuries trying to constantly compete with men (feminism and all), men stopping in firefights when women get hit to help them, pregnancies and the age old issue of soldiers of both sexes fucking anything that moves

And yet a lot of European armies manage to have men and women serving in the same infantry regiments. I'm not saying it won't cause issues, but I think they can be over-come with time and appropriate training. Women have been serving in more and more capacities, it is the next logical step. We already have women serving along-side men in combat support capacities without issues, time are changing. Of course, one solution could be single-sex combat units (but within mixed battalions), which I believe have been posited before, but there has always been some issues as to if there would be enough women wanting to serve in an infantry role to make this worthwhile

It's a sad as any other death in the name of freedom, but not any more sad to me because she was a woman. Over here, especially during women's history month, you hear a lot about the WASPs and WAVES and how women were not allowed into real combat in a certain era, and how it was a triumph for equality that women were allowed to fight eventually. The reality, as The blessed Chris correctly puts it, is that you join the army to fight, and resign yourself to the fact that you may die, regardless of gender.

Meh. No worse then a guy dieing. *shrugs*

And yet a lot of European armies manage to have men and women serving in the same infantry regiments. I'm not saying it won't cause issues, but I think they can be over-come with time and appropriate training. Women have been serving in more and more capacities, it is the next logical step. We already have women serving along-side men in combat support capacities without issues, time are changing. Of course, one solution could be single-sex combat units (but within mixed battalions), which I believe have been posited before, but there has always been some issues as to if there would be enough women wanting to serve in an infantry role to make this worthwhile
I agree. Women do now serve in combat units of other nation's armed forces, and they have done so in the past, right alongside men, for thousands of years. The reality of what goes on in combat means that women are just as at-risk as men and just as likely to be in a hostile exchage of fire as men. But in the modern western world, there's a (bad) habit of shielding the folks at home from the harsh truth about what their soldiers are doing, so the myth of women being kept out of combat is allowed to persist. It will change, because it is a myth. Eventually, the nations that have cultural issues about men and women sharing combat duties will work those out. Necessity is the mother of invention, after all.

It's not exactly new, we had a female casualty in Iraq a couple of years ago. Women are forbidden from serving in front-line combat regiments (Infantry, Cavalry and Armoured) but have served in combat support arms for many years (Intelligence, Artillary, Signals) and have been in combat situations for a while. We even have women in special forces (the Special Reconnaissance Regiment, which do Special Forces Intelligence missions and in fact has it's origins in an intelligence unit used in Ireland in the 70s which routinely used women).

Every time a women is injured/captured/killed (and it has happened a few times over the years) the newspapers have the same panic of "should we be putting women in harms way" and the same arguments are given to them that women have chosen to do the job, they know the dangers, there is no real thing as a front line. The outcry then dies down before happening exactly the same again the next time something happens. In the meantime the army will continue to use women in the roles they trained and choose to serve in without distinguishing them from their male colleagues. So really, I think it's just the media that needs to catch up with army policies and get used to the fact that women are serving in dangerous situations, they choose to do so being aware of the dangers, and as a result some of them are going to get hurt.

In a war against insurgents, there isn't a "front line" in the way you might have with a large conventional war.

Women wanted to be equal - now they have it.

Meh. No worse then a guy dieing. *shrugs*

Yeah, but according to the news it isn't... weird how that happens isn't it?

Anyway I'm inclined to agree with Eofaerwic, if a woman can keep up and isn't detrimental to unit cohesion and performance in any significant way (pipe dream, I know) then there's no reason to not let them fight and die for their country.

Of course as Call to power mentioned, in practice it's not that simple.

In a war against insurgents, there isn't a "front line" in the way you might have with a large conventional war.

Women wanted to be equal - now they have it.
:confused: Isn't that exactly what he said? (Btw, the "no traditional front line" thing applies to all modern warfare, not just against insurgencies.)

:confused: Isn't that exactly what he said? (Btw, the "no traditional front line" thing applies to all modern warfare, not just against insurgencies.)

He wasted a lot of words.

Okay, I know I'm a minor, and I probably know less then you guys do, but i was wondering..... If women are hypothetically given "equal rights" then why aren't we given equal responsibities? Why aren't women put at the front, and why aren't they allowed to go into close combat situations that might endanger their lives? Women can have the strength to die for their country, just like men. I know girls who view being able to die to defend for their country as something they aspire to. they dream of becoming soldiers. and if the argument is that they have families back home, men do too!!!! And if a women should take care of her family, isn't one way to defend them? the whole thing doesn't make sense.....

While I can understand the emotional response, it is a reaction based on conditioning.

War is Hell for everyone. And make no mistake, back in the days when women weren't allowed in the military, they were still affected. Ask every woman who was living in the path of an invading army. Ask every woman who lived in occupied territory. Ask the women who lived under Taliban rule. Why does it seem less horrific when a civilian woman, who carries no gun and has no training, is brutalized, raped and killed than it does when a woman who can defend herself is? At least the woman with the training and the gun was able to fight back and take some with her.

I don't condone war. But I figure that, since war effects everyone, including women, then everyone, including women, should be trained to fight if it comes.

He wasted a lot of words.

She considers that to put forward a decent argument you need more than one line :p

Of course the fact I'm currently marking a load of coursework where people are failing to do that may be affecting my posts somewhat.

It is interesting however that most of the objections are coming from men not women, the women involved are more than happy to take on the equal responsibilities.

She considers that to put forward a decent argument you need more than one line :p

Of course the fact I'm currently marking a load of coursework where people are failing to do that may be affecting my posts somewhat.

It is interesting however that most of the objections are coming from men not women, the women involved are more than happy to take on the equal responsibilities.

I have noticed that where I am long-winded, she is far more likely to disagree.

The majority of posts where she has actually agreed with me (a rarity) is always short one-liners.

Okay, I know I'm a minor, and I probably know less then you guys do, but i was wondering..... If women are hypothetically given "equal rights" then why aren't we given equal responsibities? Why aren't women put at the front, and why aren't they allowed to go into close combat situations that might endanger their lives? Women can have the strength to die for their country, just like men. I know girls who view being able to die to defend for their country as something they aspire to. they dream of becoming soldiers. and if the argument is that they have families back home, men do too!!!! And if a women should take care of her family, isn't one way to defend them? the whole thing doesn't make sense.....

you frame the question as if you think that it is somehow women's "fault" that they arent allowed the same military jobs that men are.

the rules keep women from certain jobs because the military is a conservative organization that changes its ideas more slowly than the rest of society. the performance of female soldiers in current hot spots show those who make the rules just how well women can do their jobs in dangerous circumstances.

I have noticed that where I am long-winded, she is far more likely to disagree.

The majority of posts where she has actually agreed with me (a rarity) is always short one-liners.

Obviously the more words you use, the more chance you have of being wrong :p

But actually on this one I do agree. There are no front-lines in modern warfare and currently the main issues keeping women out of infantry and armour units (in the British army) are related to unit cohesion and provision of appropriate facilities, all of which can be overcome with time.

He wasted a lot of words.
No, actually, he didn't waste those words. They were all well-used and on-point.

She considers that to put forward a decent argument you need more than one line :p
I think that one should use as many words as needed to fully express one's idea.


I have noticed that where I am long-winded, she is far more likely to disagree.

The majority of posts where she has actually agreed with me (a rarity) is always short one-liners.
Um...that's so...sad.

The few occasions where I have agreed with you, are the ones where you've said something I agree with. All the other times, whether the posts were long or short, I didn't agree because I didn't agree. Length had nothing to do with it.

For example, your short response to Eofaerwic's post is, in my opinion, chock-a-block with questionable content, but I didn't attack it because it was so threadbare that there is a good possibility that I was reading more content into it than you actually put there. So I decided to wait to see more from you.

And yet a lot of European armies manage to have men and women serving in the same infantry regiments. I'm not saying it won't cause issues, but I think they can be over-come with time and appropriate training. Women have been serving in more and more capacities, it is the next logical step. We already have women serving along-side men in combat support capacities without issues, time are changing. Of course, one solution could be single-sex combat units (but within mixed battalions), which I believe have been posited before, but there has always been some issues as to if there would be enough women wanting to serve in an infantry role to make this worthwhile

the issue is balancing how large womens recruitment numbers are (and need for numbers) with the detriment they can cause

yes, there was a womens infantry (something of size) experiment however it was never completely staffed as was expected due to the small numbers of women applying for a combat role and smaller still those that can fulfill the fitness requirements (so the status quo remained and will do until the MOD starts getting desperate)

I don't condone war. But I figure that, since war effects everyone, including women, then everyone, including women, should be trained to fight if it comes.

are you suggesting what I think you are? :eek:

the issue is balancing how large womens recruitment numbers are (and need for numbers) with the detriment they can cause

yes, there was a womens infantry (something of size) experiment however it was never completely staffed as was expected due to the small numbers of women applying for a combat role and smaller still those that can fulfill the fitness requirements (so the status quo remained and will do until the MOD starts getting desperate)

What do you mean by the bolded phrase in this context?

Obviously the more words you use, the more chance you have of being wrong :p

But actually on this one I do agree. There are no front-lines in modern warfare and currently the main issues keeping women out of infantry and armour units (in the British army) are related to unit cohesion and provision of appropriate facilities, all of which can be overcome with time.

The only argument I've ever heard for keeping women out of certain specialties is one of physical stamina. One might presume that women in certain conditions would be expected to carry the same physical load over the same physical distances. That said, I've met many women when I was in the infantry who could have easily made that grade.

The Australian SAS is unique in that it lets women try out for the SAS. The place where women fail in selection is in the grueling long land navigation yomps in rough terrain. So far, no women have made it (it entails accurately doing land navigation without a GPS over 60km in a restricted time window). It fails a very large number of men, and so far, no women have passed. But I believe this will only be a matter of time.

What do you mean by the bolded phrase in this context?

I will just quote myself

it was tried and turned out to be an absolute disaster with women frequently doing themselves injuries trying to constantly compete with men (feminism and all), men stopping in firefights when women get hit to help them, pregnancies and the age old issue of soldiers of both sexes fucking anything that moves

The only argument I've ever heard for keeping women out of certain specialties is one of physical stamina. One might presume that women in certain conditions would be expected to carry the same physical load over the same physical distances. That said, I've met many women when I was in the infantry who could have easily made that grade.


As you say, the physical argument does tend to fall down in that *some* women can manage it. But there has often also been put forward an argument around unit cohesion and the psychological impact more than the physical issues (although the resulting smaller numbers of women has also be brought forward as an issue with regards to cost-analysis of the provision of appropriate facilities). Of course that doesn't mean I believe this arguments are valid ones for barring entry to certain branches, they can be overcome, but the arguments are there.

Although women can't try out for the British SAS a few years ago the first women succesfully completed the All Arms Commando Course and I believe women trying out for the Special Reconnaissance Regiment have to complete some parts of the SAS try-out (although I think the selections diverge before the long-distance run).

Why the hell are reservists being used for this kind of mission?

SAS = it doesn't matter if they are Reservists, they are some serious @$$kickers. Even as an American, I've got to hand it to the SAS. But even as hardcore as they are, I am reminded of my friend from high school. He was an immigrant from the Ukraine, and his father had been Spetsnaz and his whole unit was wiped out in an ambush in Afghanistan in the 80's. This type of warfare we have been engaged in since the Cold War has seen the erasure of front lines, so no troop is safe anywhere in the area - officer or enlisted, filling a combat role or not, front line or headquarters unit, male or female. And that's why signing on the dotted line isn't for everyone. Not everyone has it in them to give it all for their country to protect their family, friends, neighbors, and brothers in arms. So as long as we are an all-volunteer force, those of you who don't see why we do what we do don't have anything to worry about in that respect.

The situation with women filling combat roles is what has always been an issue with women's rights. It is the simple principal that with rights come responsibilities. Rights without responsibilities produces inequality. Women are not subject to the draft, and thats good because if it ever gets bad enough to where we need it again, we will need the women to be alive to replenish the population. That can't happen if a significant portion of the women are dead too.

That being said, I have a question for all of you to answer for yourselves. I just ask that you think about it, as posting your thoughts on the matter in here will change nothing and likely just spark inane arguments. Are you, as a person, prepared to accept female combat casualties and the possibility of female troops being captured by the enemy and what sort of treatment that would entail?

As you say, the physical argument does tend to fall down in that *some* women can manage it. But there has often also been put forward an argument around unit cohesion and the psychological impact more than the physical issues (although the resulting smaller numbers of women has also be brought forward as an issue with regards to cost-analysis of the provision of appropriate facilities). Of course that doesn't mean I believe this arguments are valid ones for barring entry to certain branches, they can be overcome, but the arguments are there.

Although women can't try out for the British SAS a few years ago the first women succesfully completed the All Arms Commando Course and I believe women trying out for the Special Reconnaissance Regiment have to complete some parts of the SAS try-out (although I think the selections diverge before the long-distance run).

People use the "unit cohesion" argument to ban homosexuals from the US military. It's bogus.

I think that if people were allowed some casual sex in the battlefield when things were quiet, it would be a good thing. Go on a long patrol, fight, come back, clean your weapons, and have some food, sex, and a rest.

People use the "unit cohesion" argument to ban homosexuals from the US military. It's bogus.

I think that if people were allowed some casual sex in the battlefield when things were quiet, it would be a good thing. Go on a long patrol, fight, come back, clean your weapons, and have some food, sex, and a rest.

I'd say it's possibly not quite as bogus as with homosexuality, given training for infantry often emphasises issues of protection of women and such, and as call to power has indicated, there have been failed experiments because of this. However, that does not make it valid, since there have been many cases of successful integration. They just need to change the training to handle it.

Casual sex is bad for sex rarely stays casual, especially in these sorts of situations. For the same reason it's really not a good idea to fuck around too much in the workplace, especially not if it's with a superior.

I will just quote myself
it was tried and turned out to be an absolute disaster with women frequently doing themselves injuries trying to constantly compete with men (feminism and all), men stopping in firefights when women get hit to help them, pregnancies and the age old issue of soldiers of both sexes fucking anything that moves
How is any of that a detriment caused by women in the military?

Surely, the part about women injuring themselves in trying to keep up with their male counterparts is more a fault of training and selection, not of the women themselves. On the contrary, to me, it shows a willingness that could only be considered a plus. It is up to the military command to put the right people in the right units. It's not the women's fault if they are being used inappropriately.

As to the part about men stopping to help injured female comrades, IF they do that for women more than they do it for men, then surely that is a matter of training and cultural conditioning -- again, not a detriment caused by the women themselves. As with the previous point, it is up to the military to address this in training male personnel. The cultural conditioning aspect may be harder to change, but cultures do change, so it is hardly insurmountable.

Finally, as to the sex issue, how is it a detriment caused by women that people like to have sex? Navies the world over have been dealing with this for many years, and as far as I know, none of them has suffered loss of effectiveness because of mixing the sexes. If a female soldier gets pregnant, she has the same options as any other soldier who suffers a physical set-back. She can abort and get back to fighting, or she can be sent home or rotated away from combat. The mere fact that a woman can get pregnant while in the military should be seen as no more a detriment than the fact that both men and women can get STDs while in the military or be in car accidents or accidentally shoot a nail through their own heads while constructing an encampment while in the military.

That being said, I have a question for all of you to answer for yourselves. I just ask that you think about it, as posting your thoughts on the matter in here will change nothing and likely just spark inane arguments. Are you, as a person, prepared to accept female combat casualties and the possibility of female troops being captured by the enemy and what sort of treatment that would entail?

More than just ready to accept it, I personally (and yes I am a woman) have wanted to join the armed forces (as an officer) and looked into this when I was at sixth form but found I was unable to due to physical disability (my eyesight although correctable, is technically at the point of being a visual handicap).

<snip>

That being said, I have a question for all of you to answer for yourselves. I just ask that you think about it, as posting your thoughts on the matter in here will change nothing and likely just spark inane arguments. Are you, as a person, prepared to accept female combat casualties and the possibility of female troops being captured by the enemy and what sort of treatment that would entail?
I'll take the risk and answer it here. This is, of course, merely my own personal opinion, it does not affect the practicalities of the issue, but it does serve to make it more clear why I hold my position on the issue. So here goes:

First, a disclaimer: I am anti-war in general. Therefore, I am not really "willing" to accept combat casualties of either sex. With that said, I see no reason why women should be held back from combat because of what may happen to them in battle or as prisoners. It will be no different and no more horrifying than what will happen to their male counterparts. It will also be no different and no more horrifying than what will happen to many civilian women and men caught in a war zone.

So, with the proviso that I detest and oppose war because of what happens to people during it, I do not see any reason why, if there is a war, women should not be permitted to face the same dangers if they want to, or trained properly for those dangers in case they can't avoid them.

I'll take the risk and answer it here. This is, of course, merely my own personal opinion, it does not affect the practicalities of the issue, but it does serve to make it more clear why I hold my position on the issue. So here goes:

First, a disclaimer: I am anti-war in general. Therefore, I am not really "willing" to accept combat casualties of either sex. With that said, I see no reason why women should be held back from combat because of what may happen to them in battle or as prisoners. It will be no different and no more horrifying than what will happen to their male counterparts. It will also be no different and no more horrifying than what will happen to many civilian women and men caught in a war zone.

So, with the proviso that I detest and oppose war because of what happens to people during it, I do not see any reason why, if there is a war, women should not be permitted to face the same dangers if they want to, or trained properly for those dangers in case they can't avoid them.

It's because of people's reaction to casualties (particularly one's own side) that the US has been rapidly developing more and more robots.

In the near future, all aircraft that are used for combat or reconaissance will be unmanned. Shot down? Hey, we didn't lose anyone.

There is a lot of work on robotic artillery (NLOS is a good example - it's unmanned and remotely controlled). And work on unmanned infantry support robots - probably soon to be remotely controlled infantry combat robots.

We could, in the future, invade and occupy a country, and sharply minimize our casualty rate.

Our casualty rate in Iraq is already a fraction of what our rate in Vietnam was - due to advanced body armor mostly. Even with the high use of IEDs, the rate is still sharply lower.

We'll be under pressure to take it even lower.

We're also under pressure to limit collateral damage. Even our bomb designs are going to be almost 1/10th of the size they are now (google Small Diameter Bomb) - just as accurate, but just enough to do the job without blowing up half the neighborhood.

And lasers are coming on line - now. We'll be able to pick a single man out of a packed crowd of civilians.

Sure, war will still result in casualties - but nowhere near as many as the past - and not even as many as today.

This will, as a result, sharply reduce the number of people who might otherwise object to war - most Americans are OK with war as long as we aren't the ones getting killed. I don't believe that there would be the current objection to the war if we had a zero casualty rate for our troops.

It's because of people's reaction to casualties (particularly one's own side) that the US has been rapidly developing more and more robots.

<snip>

This will, as a result, sharply reduce the number of people who might otherwise object to war - most Americans are OK with war as long as we aren't the ones getting killed. I don't believe that there would be the current objection to the war if we had a zero casualty rate for our troops.
I'm not okay with it, even if none of the casualties are from my own country. I hope I'm not that primitive, though I reckon many people are still.

I know that what you say is true, but to me it is nothing more nor less than a vision of hell -- a world full of blood and suffering and corporations making money off it, a whole social structure based on war profiteering. No thanks.

EDIT: My personal view on remote warfare is that it is murder committed by cowards. If a people do not have the stones to face their enemies up close and personal, then they should avoid making enemies.