6 ms·
It's so funny how sci-fi gets so many things wrong. In the future every infantry level soldier will never miss, yet we have Star Wars.
by narrator 7y ago
It's so funny how sci-fi gets so many things wrong. In the future every infantry level soldier will never miss, yet we have Star Wars.
- tachyonbeam 7y agoI think you could argue that Star Wars is more fantasy than sci-fi. It has concepts like destiny, an unexplainable magical force, etc. Not to mention ridiculously slow "laser" weapons. It's unconcerned with scientific plausibility, and more with storytelling. I mean, jedis look like they would fare poorly again WWII-era weapons such as machineguns, RPGs, fragmentation grenades, chemical weapons (corrosive gas that burns skin and lungs) and napalm. As far as infantry soldiers never missing, maybe. It's also likely that soon there won't be much human infantry. We might still be far useful autonomous robots, but I don't think we're that far from remote controlled humanoid robots with guns on them.
- teawrecks 7y agoIMO sci-fi has to ask philosophical questions that arise with sufficiently advanced technology. Star wars mostly doesn't do that. There are a few things in the lore, like how androids have to be reset regularly or they gain sentience. But it's not really explored. Star wars is fantasy.
- soulofmischief 7y agoAsimov's three types of sci-fi: * Adventure Fiction/Space Opera - The technology and science are secondary to the plot, which is often very grandiose, much like operas and horse operas that were popular at the time (the root of the latter name). * Gadget Fiction - The technology/science and the struggle of the inventor to create/discover/explain it are the source of the conflict in the story. * Social Science Fiction - The effect of the technology/science on society is the source of the conflict in the story. Star Wars is a 1 and 3 type of story, though you could hone in a bit more and say, for example, that Episode IV is also gadget fiction given the focus on the Death Star.
- ed 7y agoTo be fair, Star Wars takes place thousands of years before Guaranteed Hit tech was invented.
- baybal2 7y agoEven "realistic" WWII movies got near everything wrong. War wouldn't look glamorous if 4 out of 5 soldiers die a "glorious" death from artillery fire from 20 kilometres away. Analogously, WWIII will likely be about thousands of soldiers being vaporised by atomic weapons, and blown to pieces by drones flown by men sitting in comfy bunkers on the other side of the globe
- ajmurmann 7y agoOr maybe for WWIII weapons will be so destructive that we instead will fight it through propaganda, surveillance and trade. Maybe a country will build some militarized, new island, but nobody would date to touch those because weapons are already to scary. Even if one country managed to install a puppet president in another, no military action would ever result because escalation to nuclear weapons is too frightening of a possible consequence.
- ISL 7y agoI think this outcome is a reasonable prediction, but it requires three key assumptions -- that those people making the decisions actually understand how terrible these weapons are, that mutual destruction is actually assured, and that those people actually care about losing.
- dredmorbius 7y agoIt's not prediction. It's history.
- verdverm 7y agoThere's an original Star Trek where war is fought in simulation and people are euthanized if they die in simulated nukes.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- jacquesm 7y ago> Analogously, WWIII will likely be about thousands of soldiers being vaporised by atomic weapons Analogously, WWIII will likely be about hundreds of millions of civilians being vaporized by atomic weapons.
- philipkglass 7y agoThe science fiction that more correctly envisions the effects of technological development on warfare is less popular. It's particularly uncommon in TV and films. Audiences prefer certain kinds of violence to be conventional, ennobling, and heroic. It's hard to evoke that feeling if the protagonist faces no more personal risk than an exterminator spraying for ants -- even in cases where the "bad guys" really do seem to merit lethal violence. See also: movies where the final confrontation with a villain requires hand to hand combat because all the ranged weapons have been misplaced. Shooting enemy soldiers at long distance before they're even aware of the danger is great in actual warfare but audiences don't want actual warfare.
- stcredzero 7y agoThe science fiction that more correctly envisions the effects of technological development on warfare is less popular. It's particularly uncommon in TV and films Here's the big difference between actual combat footage and movies/tv. In movies/tv you have to have the actors in well-framed shots, well-lit, recognizable, and distinguishable against the background. On actual battlefields in recent times, doing this sort of thing often gets you dead in about 3 seconds. Contrast this with my impression of watching some actual outdoor combat helmet-cam footage: People start yelling they're taking fire, then take cover. The enemy is something like 150 yards away or more, and would only appear as a tiny figure or a speck on a TV screen, but only if you actually spotted them and you don't even get to poke your head up to look for too long, if at all. You might be able to distinguish smoke or flashes in the distance, though. A few minutes later, air support is called in, and there's an even bigger puff of smoke out there.
- philipkglass 7y agoI have watched a ridiculous number of combat footage videos from recent conflicts. I agree with your take on the helmet-cam perspective. There are times where you can clearly see everybody and they're well lit, not moving chaotically. That's when you watch a team operating anti-tank guided missiles against tanks or other targets. There's a lot of distance separating the attackers from their targets. You hear the missile launch and watch it close the distance to the target over a period of several seconds. The targets might start to scatter a couple of seconds before the missile arrives if they can hear it, or remain completely unawares until the explosion. It's very easy to see what is happening but it also looks very "unheroic."
- badrabbit 7y agoStar wars is a different univerde,earth or the milkyway don't exist in it. Perhaps star trek is a better comparison?
- Already__Taken 7y agoStargate did ok initially, the big bad while technologically superior is agreed with terror weapons. That excuse stops working after a series or 2
- walshemj 7y agoWell if most of the Jaffa consider the Gould Gods and the technology magic - you can see where the problem the Gould have. And of course SG never really explained why they weren't using Landies and Humvees
- kstenerud 7y agoHero shows require either very good writers, or enemies that miss all the time. And good writers are in short supply.
- clSTophEjUdRanu 7y agoI also love how space battles are portrayed as taking place up close. Space is large. You'd surely depend entirely on computers for targeting and would never see the enemy with the naked eye at those distances. Makes for a boring movie though.
- imtringued 7y agoIt has more to do with plot armor. You can't kill off your important characters. They are needed later.
- the8472 7y agoSome computer games solve this problem by making your named characters mass-produced androids/clones. You can chat with them at the base and yet send them to die.