What are they thinking?!

full article found here

"PRIMM, Nev. — A driverless Volkswagen was declared the winner yesterday of a $2 million race across the rugged Nevada desert, beating four other robot-guided vehicles that completed a Pentagon-sponsored contest aimed at making warfare safer for humans."

Is it just bad writting or the Pentagon's idea of the future of American Saftey?

Let's break this down:.

If this means "safer for humans", we have to recognize that war isn't made without two or more teams of people; i.e. "us" and "them". Inheriantly in war, the objective is to "kill them" or kill enough of them that they can't fight back. And the dead are not safer, they're just dead. Thus, "safer for humans' is a contradiction since, in war, someone has to die.

If this means "safer warfare", then we as a species are in deep trouble. War is supposed to be hard, ugly, and hellish. War is all those things and more for a very good reason - warfare is a "very bad thing" and should be avoided at all costs.

I don't want war to be safer, more efficent, or "pretty". If someone is killed, making it safer or pretty is to devalue the lives taken, as if to say, not only did we kill you but we taunt you in death. Making warfare "safer" will only lead to more warfare. Diplomacy is hard and if warfare gets any easier, we as human beings will also take the path of least resistance. That means more wars or continually smaller and smaller things. Occasionally, "this war" or "that war" will royally piss someone else off and they'll return the warfare favor. This cyclic warfare game is how the middle east, northern Ireland, and various African countrys got to be the high point of genicidal histories.

"Warfare safer for humans" is a incrediably fast path to complete human genecide.