Will future soldiers be just computer geeks?

[Nik]

I guess many imagine combat as involving great worriers, personal heroism and other stuff that we read and watch about. We may wish the need to combat anyone will disappear and maybe one day it'll happen, but instead it turns into .... a computer game, where operators sit with joysticks in front of huge touch screens and operate sophisticated weaponry from afar.
Maybe first with planes, later with land vehicles, modern weaponry is designed to lessen personal involvement.
Here's something I found on the internet about some world armies:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...
https://www.rbth.com/economics/defenc...
https://futurism.com/the-byte/israel-...

Is Ender's Game becoming a reality in our time? Is physical fitness and other features are being overridden by those, requiring proficiency in joysticks, levers and game boxes?

[Scout]

This reminds me of an old Star Trek episode entitled "A Taste of Armageddon." Here's a synopsis:

On a mission to establish diplomatic relations at Star Cluster NGC321, Kirk and Spock beam down to planet Eminiar 7 to learn that its inhabitants have been at war with a neighboring planet for over 500 years. They can find no damage nor evidence of destruction but soon learn that their war is essentially a war game, where each planet attacks the other in a computer simulation with the tabulated victims voluntarily surrendering themselves for execution after the fact. When the Enterprise becomes a victim in the computer simulation and ordered destroyed, Kirk decides it's time to show them exactly what war means.

[Philip]

Scout wrote: "This reminds me of an old Star Trek episode entitled "A Taste of Armageddon." Here's a synopsis:

On a mission to establish diplomatic relations at Star Cluster NGC321, Kirk and Spock beam down to ..."

I remember that one and how shocking it was - very clever writing for a mainstream show.

[Frank]

Hi Scout,

I agree that future warfare will be very different from the blood and thunder of the past. The thing that makes me uneasy is the fear Geeks, as you call them, may well be very powerful indeed - if they're not already. Warfare has always incorporated the latest science. And science, which is my main occupation, is advancing very rapidly indeed.

[Scout]

What advances in warfare science today are particularly worrisome?

[Nik]

Scout wrote: "What advances in warfare science today are particularly worrisome?"

I guess those capable of annihilating this planet like nukes, then those of mass destruction that can cause multiple casualties and contaminate large areas like chemical & biological weapons or maybe those weapon (autonomous) systems that can go out of control and maybe those (if such are being developed) capable of destabilizing the ecosystems on global scale - like maybe artificially inducing earthquakes, tsunami, etc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectoni...
On the other hand, there are also positive trends - like non-lethal or temporary disabling. I'd say that weaponry that enables achieving operative goals without endangering your soldiers is also welcome and may have a serious discouraging effect on less technologically advanced adversaries.

[Philip]

Precision is the aim.
WWII carpet bombing with hundreds of planes continued into Vietnam
GPS guidance more precision strikes Gulf War and since
Now send a drone i.e. no risk to attacker
Next disable enemy without using weapon e.g. cyber attack on power and water plants - beats bombing them and once objectives achieved no rebuild.

[Nik]

It's worth noting that despite all the advances modern regular armies still experience considerable difficulties in prevailing over guerilla fighters

[Scout]

(Just a thought inspired by Nik's comment, not trying to hijack this discussion or expecting replies.) We won the war against the British by using guerilla tactics; we were stymied by guerilla tactics in Viet Nam. Why was that? Because ordinary citizens were armed with weapons similar to their attackers' and able to defend themselves on the ground.