Sony rebooting Starship Troopers

[stj]

^^^It took a while to hear this over the bellowing of the gored oxen.

The only thing the idiotic Rico has an aptitude for are K9 and MI. The other poor soul thought MI was special forces!

It was the father who talked about the smallness of Federal Service when arguing against the enlistment. The scene makes no sense whatsoever if this isn't factually true. Therefore, the book most certainly says the electorate is small. Which proves another poor poster also does not understand what is on the page, either.

But enough of the comedy, and to one serious question. How is the small electorate in Heinlein's absurd utopia different from our own? Let's be clear: A small electorate is not at all the same thing as a small voter participation rate. It is different because the only way to even get a vote is to submit yourself to indoctrination by the military, even to the point of accepting abuse, for what is legally an indeterminate period.

By the way, it is probable that most people don't vote because they know perfectly well the system is rigged so that their votes will not change anything. Since people like to rationalize acceptance of a demeaning reality as happiness, it would be easy to argue that means they are implicitly voting for the system. And it would be advantageous for the owners to pretend this is true.

And, also by the way, it is perfectly easy to interpret the common soldier as an elite unjustly despised by the common rabble, even though the handful of common soldiers defend the fat and sloppy majority. This was how a lot of soldiers saw the situtation in the interwar period of the Twenties and Thirties (the time of Heinlein's military training and youth.)
What little story there is in Starship Troopers is how dummy Rico finds out better, taught by the glorious army of Utopia. There is no contortion of logic here by me. Heinlein conducts an enormous contortion of logic by refusing to face the inevitable logic of a franchise reserved to the veterans of a small military force. Which is the same that the ancient Greek city states had, the temptation to use the franchise to enact policies favoring their special interest. Which is why his whole scheme is lunatic.

 

[Caliburn24]

The only thing the idiotic Rico has an aptitude for are K9 and MI. The other poor soul thought MI was special forces!

MI are special forces.

Remember that Heinlein was writing in a time before special forces had become institutionally accepted and organized(No SEALs, no Delta, SAS freshly born, Green Berets were a few years off). Elite units of the day were Rangers, paratroopers and marines. The public, and military brass hardly knew what special forces were, and certainly did not assign much value to them. More importantly, we had not had countless movies and video games glamorizing the lone wolf special operations soldiers. Heinlein failed to predict that special forces soldiers would gain an aura of competence and professional skill. He thought they would always be a subset of the poor downtrodden infantry. He was mistaken.

So, Rico has an aptitude for MI and K9. Does it make sense that people would look down on those things? Yep, the working conditions are bad, life expectancy relatively short, and post-military career options are bad. And his society is clearly anti-military(but fascist).

But now lets interject a bit of reality. In the US military we use the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery(ASVAB) test for recruits. A score of 115 or above is required for special forces(I still get the e-mails for Delta recruitment briefings). I can only speak for the Army from firsthand experience, but out of the 200 some jobs in the Army, one job always has the highest average ASVAB scores. Yeah, Infantry. Shocker eh? Yet the infantry and associated combat arms are still treated as dumb grunts even today, when we have statistical hard data telling us we're smarter than the rest of the Army.

I can understand readers seeing Rico test into MI, and thus assume he is an idiot. From my point of view however it tells me he is smarter than the rest. What did Heinlein intend? I'm not sure. But his own military experience was in the 1930s when the entire country was looking for a steady job, and the military was small and could afford to be picky.

As to the rest of the text of Starship Troopers. You can make a case either way for Rico's intelligence. Personally I think he is too much of a cipher to make a dogmatic argument one way or the other. The book is tiny, and Heinlein did not give Rico much character or depth. It is not a character piece. But seeing that Rico plays with orbital mechanics, powered-armor, nukes, and is tapped for officer training I have a tough time seeing him as an idiot.

So now lets step away from Rico's example, and look at MI as a whole.

-A tough, demanding training course with a horrendous fail rate(90%).

-Extensive live fire training(which is expensive as Heinlein knew) with a relatively high incidence of fatal training accidents.

-Trained to operate in all environments.

-Operating ahead of conventional forces.

-Operating in small numbers with large geographical spaces in between.

-Exclusively male.

-Trusted enough to handle nuclear weapons.

Those are all hallmarks of special forces(or at the very least elite conventional units where the distinction becomes largely academic). Heinlein did not foresee his Poor Downtrodden Infantry becoming so glamorized and idolized by the public. Heck, he would probably think we were downright fascist and militaristic for the attention given to Seal Team Six after the OBL mission. But he would recognize those SEALs as kin to MI.

 

[J.T.B.]

MI are special forces.

Remember that Heinlein was writing in a time before special forces had become institutionally accepted and organized(No SEALs, no Delta, SAS freshly born, Green Berets were a few years off). Elite units of the day were Rangers, paratroopers and marines. The public, and military brass hardly knew what special forces were, and certainly did not assign much value to them. More importantly, we had not had countless movies and video games glamorizing the lone wolf special operations soldiers. Heinlein failed to predict that special forces soldiers would gain an aura of competence and professional skill. He thought they would always be a subset of the poor downtrodden infantry. He was mistaken.

I would disagree with that. The concept of what we now call "special forces" (not capitalized) was already established in the public mind during WW2 with units like the US Army Ranger battalions, USMC Raider battalions, First Special Service Force, and Royal Marines commandos. These units got plenty of publicity during the war and also had a prestigious reputation with the public.

So now lets step away from Rico's example, and look at MI as a whole.

-A tough, demanding training course with a horrendous fail rate(90%).

-Extensive live fire training(which is expensive as Heinlein knew) with a relatively high incidence of fatal training accidents.

-Trained to operate in all environments.

-Operating ahead of conventional forces.

-Operating in small numbers with large geographical spaces in between.

-Exclusively male.

-Trusted enough to handle nuclear weapons.

Those are all hallmarks of special forces(or at the very least elite conventional units where the distinction becomes largely academic). Heinlein did not foresee his Poor Downtrodden Infantry becoming so glamorized and idolized by the public. Heck, he would probably think we were downright fascist and militaristic for the attention given to Seal Team Six after the OBL mission. But he would recognize those SEALs as kin to MI.

It's more like a futuristic-spacey-atomic analogue to the WW2 US Marines than a special forces unit. The washout rate is way off, of course, but the rest lines up pretty well. They are not a huge force, but handle space-borne (amphibious) operations, conducting drops (landings) on far-flung planets (islands). They often raid outposts, neutralize them and get out, but sometimes they get into extended actions where an enemy is dug in. Special forces are not normally committed to fight large, prolonged battles, and don't have the supply/support structure to do so. IIRC, Rico implies that there are multiple MI divisions, which would make the force considerably larger than what we would normally recognize as special forces units. I guess if the six-division US Marines of WW2 meet the definition of special forces, so would the MI, but to me it's not a very good fit

As far as handling nuclear weapons, it seems like an elite function now that we think in terms of strategic weapons, but when the book was written it was commonly expected that every US Army infantry battalion would soon have tactical nukes of some kind, and indeed a number of army divisions (not special forces units) were equipped with the Davy Crockett through the 1960s.




Justin

 

[stj]

There is one misunderstanding of what I'm saying. I don't think Rico is an idiot because he only tested for aptitude for K9 and MI. I think MI is the bottom because the idiot Rico qualified only for it. I don't think it's the other way round. And what story there is, is about how dummy Rico gets wise, thanks to the Army.

As to whether MI was special forces in the novel, I can't agree. Most of all, if MI are special forces, then Heinlein's Federation doesn't have any regular forces, not for the ground at least. Nearly as important, Rico can't qualify only for special forces. Anyone with the skills for special forces can handle regular forces.

I am very sure that Heinlein's utopian army is using a SF version of aptitude tests which really do measure genuine aptitudes for specific jobs. Rather like J.T. McIntosh's World Out of Mind. I'm skeptical that such a thing is really possilble. Most "aptitude" tests are really basic interest profiles. I've forgotten my ASVAB scores and most of the test too. But I have an impression it is largely an intelligence test with some cursory interest profiling. So I'm not sure it's relevant. The higher ASVAB average for infantry is fascinating information but too difficult to assess off the cuff. Fortunately for discussion purposes it is actually irrelevant.

 

[Warped9]

I missed reading the book until decades after it came out. I really enjoyed it. A year or so later I saw the film. My friends and I came out of the theatre expressing variations of

The only thing I liked about the film were the designs of the warrior bugs. The rest was shit.

I'd really like to see the new film version do a lot better.

 

[Demiurge]

There is one misunderstanding of what I'm saying. I don't think Rico is an idiot because he only tested for aptitude for K9 and MI. I think MI is the bottom because the idiot Rico qualified only for it. I don't think it's the other way round. And what story there is, is about how dummy Rico gets wise, thanks to the Army.

Actually, it's stated that Rico is accepted to Harvard, and that there is an expectation that he will go on to study at the Sorbonne. That was the map his father had for his life anyway.

It's also explicitly stated that Rico had done well in school and was well rounded - debate team, class treasurer, silver medal in the yearly literary contest.

The thing you aren't taking into account is that MI is an elite job - the majority of the people in peace time weren't chosen for that, and the majority that were then quit. And of course, you don't give dummies multi-million dollar suits of armor or nuclear weapons.

Most of the people were in the non-combat auxiliaries:

From Col Dubois during H&MP class:
'And you have forgotten that in peacetime most veterans come from non-combatant auxiliary services and have not been subjected to the full rigors of military discipline; they have merely been harried, overworked and endangered - yet their votes count.'

I think you have an assumption that if the guy is a soldier, he has to be dumb.

The MI are the regular army - but because of the necessities of the requirements of the job, that means they are elites.

At least, at the time Johnny goes into the service - later it may have changed when they started having major casualties and far more people volunteering to join.

Rather like J.T. McIntosh's World Out of Mind. I'm skeptical that such a thing is really possilble.

Irrelevant to your assumptions. You can have a break out if that's at issue, but you can't use that against the stated world of the characters, any more than I could dismiss Picard for some of the clearly inhuman tropes that in Star Trek.

Most "aptitude" tests are really basic interest profiles. I've forgotten my ASVAB scores and most of the test too. But I have an impression it is largely an intelligence test with some cursory interest profiling. So I'm not sure it's relevant. The higher ASVAB average for infantry is fascinating information but too difficult to assess off the cuff. Fortunately for discussion purposes it is actually irrelevant.

It's completely relevant to your assumptions that he's a dummy based on the fact that he 'only' qualified to MI, and it's intellectually dishonest to suggest othewise - that was one of your primary points.

 

[Demiurge]

It was the father who talked about the smallness of Federal Service when arguing against the enlistment. The scene makes no sense whatsoever if this isn't factually true.

Source? He certainly goes on about how 'parasitic' and expensive it is. He never says it is small.

Therefore, the book most certainly says the electorate is small. Which proves another poor poster also does not understand what is on the page, either.

Arrogant presumption. Cite where it is called 'small.' The fact you read it in a review doesn't indicate that it's actually in the book.

The Fleet Sergeant that acted as a recruiter does imply the opposite however:

"Because it has become stylish, with some people - too many people - to serve a term and earn a franchise and be able to wear a ribbon in your leap which says you are a veteran"

I'll let you provide substantial basis for your assertions before I bother with any of the fluff that comes from then extrapolating on your misperceptions.

In points of logic, if your first statement is an error, it doesn't matter the elaborate chains of logic you assert after that.

 

[Demiurge]

Yeah, the book is still interesting to me in some ways. It is a product of the height of the Cold War, when it was widely expected that tactical nukes would be commonly used on the battlefields of full-scale future wars. The powered armor is a novel solution to telling an infantryman's story in that setting. There is also some meandering about what we would now call "tooth to tail ratio" and military organization that is probably more than a little naive.

Heinlein wrote quite a bit about elites running the show for everyone's good. At least as scary as ST is 1948's Space Cadet, wherein a force of specially selected, scientifically-trained officers keeps the peace on a united Earth by controlling a network of orbital nuclear bombs. But Heinlein wasn't alone in that kind of thing, H.G. Wells and Doc Smith and Isaac Asimov and I'm sure many others have plowed the same ground. What Heinlein did in ST was bring the underlying philosophy right out front through the "History and Moral Philosophy" discourses. In a way, I have to respect that because it gives the reader more of an opening to question the system that's presented, compared to other works where the political/ruling system is an unquestioned fixture.

But politics aside, one thing Heinlein could do really well was create a wonderful verisimilitude, usually through casual, natural-sounding dialogue and handling the most fantastic details in an offhand, everyday manner. He made futuristic settings solid and believable as well as anyone I've read.

The Verhoeven movie didn't work for me at all, as a satire or anything else. I tend to appreciate moviemakers who make their points subtly, so Verhoeven, like Oliver Stone, generally doesn't appeal to me. The script is sensationalistic junk. Nationalistic, militaristic authoritarian states are bad? Check. But the movie lets us know that how? Because the characters are vapid, superficial and spout empty-headed trashy dialogue? If only it were that simple.

Justin

Hi Justin - good piece there, and I agree with the majority of it and empathize with it.

I'd disagree on one relevant point however. While Heinlein did often posit rule by the elites (that was a very common conceit in scifi at the time) he actually didn't take that tact in ST. Indeed, he refuted it.

At least, according to Dubois, the teacher of H&MP. He states explicitly that in this world's context that was attempted, rule by the scientific elite after a revolution in New Delhi, but it failed because they lacked a proper philosophical understanding despite their superior intelligence. Those who had served weren't hand picked or more disciplined, the crime rate of veterans was the same.

It isn't a personal quality that forms this elite - it's the voluntary act of service to place the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage. And the understanding of responsibility that goes with it.

Personally I find this appealing, though ultimately I understand it's flawed. There's no guarantee of future self-sacrifice based on prior servitude.

 

[krithargus]

You know, all politics and crap aside, I want to see some frickin' Powered Armor this time!

I did ask Clancy Brown about that at Starfest here in Colorado,he said Verhoeven didn't want it to hide the actor's faces.That's when I knew it would suck,I most whole heartedly agree.

 

[Caliburn24]

I would disagree with that. The concept of what we now call "special forces" (not capitalized) was already established in the public mind during WW2 with units like the US Army Ranger battalions, USMC Raider battalions, First Special Service Force, and Royal Marines commandos. These units got plenty of publicity during the war and also had a prestigious reputation with the public.

The public has always had an appreciation for elite military units. But in the wake of WW2 those units had to fight tooth and nail to maintain their operating budgets(In the US at least). The USMC Raider Battalions were disbanded in 1944 before the war was even over for example. And a lot of side schools and such were shut down. Sniper schools, demolition schools, etc. It wasn't until Kennedy made a big deal about the Green Berets that special forces(as unconventional units) made any real in-roads in the political mess that is the US defense budget and public consciousness. And even then generals were loath to give them any funding. Even in the 70s and 80s when Delta Force and DEVGRU were just getting off the ground, they had to contend without the budgets they needed.

It's more like a futuristic-spacey-atomic analogue to the WW2 US Marines than a special forces unit. The washout rate is way off, of course, but the rest lines up pretty well. They are not a huge force, but handle space-borne (amphibious) operations, conducting drops (landings) on far-flung planets (islands). They often raid outposts, neutralize them and get out, but sometimes they get into extended actions where an enemy is dug in. Special forces are not normally committed to fight large, prolonged battles, and don't have the supply/support structure to do so. IIRC, Rico implies that there are multiple MI divisions, which would make the force considerably larger than what we would normally recognize as special forces units. I guess if the six-division US Marines of WW2 meet the definition of special forces, so would the MI, but to me it's not a very good fit

As far as handling nuclear weapons, it seems like an elite function now that we think in terms of strategic weapons, but when the book was written it was commonly expected that every US Army infantry battalion would soon have tactical nukes of some kind, and indeed a number of army divisions (not special forces units) were equipped with the Davy Crockett through the 1960s.

I was Army, so I have a bias against marines. But I worked with some of them in Iraq, and they always insisted that the Marine Corps are special forces(When I asked why they have Force Recon marines then, they just replied, "Even more special special forces").

But you're right, Heinlein's MI are not exactly what we would recognize as special forces. But we're(USA) focused on unconventional, generally covert small units currently. Other nations have different definitions. North Korea's DPRK(special forces) for example has 180,000ish soldiers. Saddam's Republican Guard is another example. The Waffen SS were considered special forces of a sort. Both of those units had hundreds of thousands of members with the infrastructure to fight prolonged conventional engagements.

As far as there being multiple divisions of MI, since they represent the entire Federation, that number seems quite small. If MI were the standard grunts of the Federation Army there should be millions of them, entire Army Groups.

But it does bring up an interesting point. The definitions of conventional infantry, elite infantry and special forces are constantly changing. The US Army today is about 400,000 strong. The teeth to tail ratio has become so horrible, that only around 25,000 of those soldiers are 11Bs(MOS Infantryman). Those 25,000 are very elite, more elite in general than most of the special forces of WW2. As armies become more technologically advanced the number of front-line fighters is going to continue to decrease relative to the number of logistical support soldiers behind them. Maybe Heinlein foresaw this trend, maybe not, but the idea of MI seems to fit the trend. One or two trigger-pullers backed by a hundred or more support staff.

Those trigger-pullers are going to be ruthlessly selected for quality.

As far as the US Army and tactical nukes in the 50s and 60s. Those nukes were artillery delivered, only to be authorized by a general officer, with multiple layers of other officers and safeguards in place. It was essentially just like the Air Force or Navy, only the delivery system was a cannon.

That is far different from giving an infantryman a nuke and and allowing him to use it at his(or his platoon leader's) discretion.

 

[stj]

Heinlein's Federation has no regular ground forces if MI is special forces. I am not so foolish as to keep a copy of Starship Troopers, but Rico's remarks on the people working at base when he becomes a cadet should not be too hard to find and quote. The notion that there is some other regular army position for washouts from MI to go too, is a dubious one. An army without regular ground forces?

Further, despite Rico's accomplishments, his story is how he was stupid and the Army taught him better. The problem of how someone with such potential only has aptitude for MI and K9 is insoluble.

The ASVAB score averages are about the real army. Reality has nothing to do with Starship Troopers. There is such a thing as reasonable speculation but this novel has nothing to do even with that. They most certainly are irrelevant to this discussion.

Parasitism is when a small organism attaches itself in some fashion to a large one and absorbs resources sufficient to sustain itself. Parasites are often debilitating but are too small to kill outright, which would be predation. Predators usually are much larger than their prey, to make kills easy, because every wound could lead to fatal infection. In other words, smallness is part of the meaning of parasitism. It is arrogant presumption to play games with the dictionary instead of taking words as they are.

 

[Demiurge]

[

Heinlein's Federation has no regular ground forces if MI is special forces.

The book supports that hypothesis. It's just that the MI that assault planets through orbital insertion, work individually in a miles long sector of responsibility, and wield WMDs on a regular basis (including clean tac nukes and nerve gas in the book) have as much in common with a 'grunt' as Seal Team Six did. The difference is that is the accepted norm.

I am not so foolish as to keep a copy of Starship Troopers,

Hence your relative lack of knowledge about what is in it.

but Rico's remarks on the people working at base when he becomes a cadet should not be too hard to find and quote. The notion that there is some other regular army position for washouts from MI to go too, is a dubious one. An army without regular ground forces?

Most of the quiters lost their franchise - they are out of service. Most of the people in Federal Service are not in the MI - MI is a high ranking job when Rico joins. Its just not apparent to Johnny that is the case. He learns otherwise throughout the book.

Further, despite Rico's accomplishments, his story is how he was stupid and the Army taught him better. The problem of how someone with such potential only has aptitude for MI and K9 is insoluble.

Rico wasn't stupid. He was ignorant of how Federal Service worked, just like you are, and by the end he was aware of it Of course, some of that is no doubt their personal spin and propaganda, but it didn't appear that that was far off from the world they lived in (even if you would expect differences in reality, again, just like Trek in that regard).

It states explicitly that most people with franchise are not combat veterans. It states explicitly that most people who are chosen for MI washout - nearly 90% - and that many of those lose their rights at franchise.

The takeaway from this is that the MI is a higher rated job in the Federal Service hierarchy then you give it credit for - Caliburn does a good job of explaining how that relates to modern service in his previous post.

Stupid people aren't chosen for these jobs.

The ASVAB score averages are about the real army. Reality has nothing to do with Starship Troopers. There is such a thing as reasonable speculation but this novel has nothing to do even with that. They most certainly are irrelevant to this discussion.

Your lack of understanding as to what the structure of the Federal Services entails is what is pertinent, and your assertion that if his aptitude ONLY allows him roles in the MI or K9 he is stupid.

You are making such an assertion based on your own preconceptions on what the infantry is now, not how it is portrayed in the book.

Parasitism is when a small organism attaches itself in some fashion to a large one and absorbs resources sufficient to sustain itself. Parasites are often debilitating but are too small to kill outright, which would be predation. Predators usually are much larger than their prey, to make kills easy, because every wound could lead to fatal infection. In other words, smallness is part of the meaning of parasitism. It is arrogant presumption to play games with the dictionary instead of taking words as they are.

Parasitic is also used in a broader sense, as I would assume you know, especially in the context of social status and class. Welfare recipients in the UK are sometimes termed parasitic - they however aren't considered a small group. Parasitic in terms of social structure of an entire world (and evidently additional colonies) does not correlate with a particular percentage of that population.

It's a commonly accepted use of the term:

par·a·site (p

r

-s

t

)n.1. Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
2. a. One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.

b. One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.

3. A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.

The combination of the context and the comments of the Fleet Sergeant who states too many people are earning the franchise makes the second meaning the most likely, and that doesn't state a 'small' electorate.

And of course, voting rights aren't universal even in Western democracies in the last century. What is a small percentage? In the US, about 62% of the population is eligible, and of those, voter turn out averages less than 50% (going into the upper 30s for some non-Presidential congressional elections). Is that 'small'?

 

[J.T.B.]

I'd disagree on one relevant point however. While Heinlein did often posit rule by the elites (that was a very common conceit in scifi at the time) he actually didn't take that tact in ST. Indeed, he refuted it.

At least, according to Dubois, the teacher of H&MP. He states explicitly that in this world's context that was attempted, rule by the scientific elite after a revolution in New Delhi, but it failed because they lacked a proper philosophical understanding despite their superior intelligence. Those who had served weren't hand picked or more disciplined, the crime rate of veterans was the same.

Yes, I'm sure you have the right of it. I guess I was taking the leap to a "military veteran elite" ruling in its own interests. Which is what I believe would probably happen, but is not supported by the text. I undoubtedly don't remember a lot as I've not read the book in 20 years.

As far as there being multiple divisions of MI, since they represent the entire Federation, that number seems quite small. If MI were the standard grunts of the Federation Army there should be millions of them, entire Army Groups.

That assumes a lot about Federation population, force structure doctrine, and how large a force is required for a "space war." IIRC the book doesn't give us much to go on. There is no mention of ground forces aside from MI, K-9 (used as scouts) and combat engineers (space Seabees). The book does say that the "MI is the smallest army in history for the size of the population it guards," which implies that the MI is "it" for ground combat. It also says that three MI divisions were used to capture a fortified planet, but that was for intelligence purposes and the normal procedure would be to just blast away with nukes from space. So maybe the ground-fighting requirements in the space war are different that what we might expect based on today's experience.

As armies become more technologically advanced the number of front-line fighters is going to continue to decrease relative to the number of logistical support soldiers behind them. Maybe Heinlein foresaw this trend, maybe not, but the idea of MI seems to fit the trend. One or two trigger-pullers backed by a hundred or more support staff.

That's not the way he tells it, though. He says that in an MI division of ~11,000 men, every single one is a trigger-puller, and every officer commands a combat unit, even the division staff officers (who are really unit commanders wearing second hats). There is something called the Logistics Corps about which not much is said, though it is considered a "combat" branch, but most "support" functions are said to be handled by civilians.

As far as the US Army and tactical nukes in the 50s and 60s. Those nukes were artillery delivered, only to be authorized by a general officer, with multiple layers of other officers and safeguards in place. It was essentially just like the Air Force or Navy, only the delivery system was a cannon.

That is far different from giving an infantryman a nuke and and allowing him to use it at his(or his platoon leader's) discretion.

Not the Davy Crockett (small nuclear device projected by recoilless rifle). They were controlled by the infantry battalion CO through the mortar platoon leader. Not the same as every soldier having one, no, but you can see how someone at the time could extrapolate a future battlefield where every line infantryman had access to something like that.

I am not so foolish as to keep a copy of Starship Troopers,

I don't see what's foolish about having a copy of a book that you seem to enjoy discussing. That makes it sound like the book itself is dangerous, like keeping old blasting caps around or something.



Justin

 

[ZeroArmour]

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/12/starship-troopers-remake-is-in-the-works.html

Ashley Edward Miller and Zack Stentz are writing the script.

I'm guessing this will be more in the spirit of the book than Paul Verhoeven's movie.

All Paul Verhoeven did was show the natural outcome of granting political rights exclusively to veterans: the creation of a military dictatorship.

Is it a military dictatorship?

Yes, you have to perform "Federal Service" to get the right to vote or run for office, but you only get those rights AFTER you muster out! Career military personel couldn't vote or run in elections. There's also no party requirement mentioned in the books.

While I agree the Veterans constitute a political elite, it's no more elite than anyother political process, and it does impose a price on political power. Want to impose you political will on others? First risk your life! It's better than leting someone run just because they look good or know the right people.

 

[Caliburn24]

That assumes a lot about Federation population, force structure doctrine, and how large a force is required for a "space war." IIRC the book doesn't give us much to go on. There is no mention of ground forces aside from MI, K-9 (used as scouts) and combat engineers (space Seabees). The book does say that the "MI is the smallest army in history for the size of the population it guards," which implies that the MI is "it" for ground combat. It also says that three MI divisions were used to capture a fortified planet, but that was for intelligence purposes and the normal procedure would be to just blast away with nukes from space. So maybe the ground-fighting requirements in the space war are different that what we might expect based on today's experience.

Yeah, too many assumptions have to be made to argue anything dogmatically concerning force structure and doctrine. The USSR fielded around 500 divisions in WW2, today the world's only undisputed military superpower fields 10 active combat divisions. Maybe the Federation just has a handful of divisions.

That's not the way he tells it, though. He says that in an MI division of ~11,000 men, every single one is a trigger-puller, and every officer commands a combat unit, even the division staff officers (who are really unit commanders wearing second hats). There is something called the Logistics Corps about which not much is said, though it is considered a "combat" branch, but most "support" functions are said to be handled by civilians.

Heinlein's idea of an MI division is clearly a nod to the USMC's oft quoted maxim that "Every marine is a rifleman". Even today the marines like to claim that they give more combat power per-tax dollar than any other branch of the US military. Which is true, but also another way to lie with statistics. The marines leech support services off of the three other branches(you could call them a parasitic service). They eat in Army DFACs, fly in Air Force planes, sail in Navy ships, hitch rides in Army trucks. Hurt? Go to an Army hospital. Toothache? Army dentist.

Does MI operate this way? Operating as a relatively small combat force, backed by a vastly larger support network? Again, it is impossible to argue dogmatically, Heinlein only gave us the one short book and a few notes on it.

But I would argue that it has to work like that, otherwise it is a greater fantasy than some of his political ideas.

 

[J.T.B.]

Does MI operate this way? Operating as a relatively small combat force, backed by a vastly larger support network? Again, it is impossible to argue dogmatically, Heinlein only gave us the one short book and a few notes on it.

But I would argue that it has to work like that, otherwise it is a greater fantasy than some of his political ideas.

Yeah I agree completely, that's what I was referring to as naive earlier in the thread. He even takes a swipe at the US Army for having "special insignia" (green combat leaders loop) to distinguish the "real" officers (in his words). Like the saying goes, amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics. It may not be romantic, but it wins wars.



Justin

 

[Tom Hendricks]

I have to say, this has turned into one of the best discussions, with great point and counter points ever to appear on TrekBBS.

 

[Mistral]

I'd like to see a Starship Troopers TV series. But a movie I can take or leave.

Keyword here: veteran.

If you actually read Heinlein's work, you'll see that the Starship Troopers system strictly forbids current and active soldiers/sailors/etc from voting and running for political office. Only veterans.

And it should also be noted that the general population is not lacking in RIGHTS. Look at Rico's family, for example; they seemed fairly well off. Veterans may be the only ones who can actually vote, but the entire population - civilian and citizen alike - enjoys the full protection of the law.

I wouldn't trust any society, no matter how well-meaning, to safeguard people's rights. People have to safeguard their own rights. If they cannot vote, they will lose their rights sooner or later (even if they can vote, they better keep their wits' about them!)

However, if military service is so widespread that everyone knows a veteran among their friends and family, that might mitigate unfairness. The real problems stem from a whole segment of society being disenfranchised, with nobody to look out for them.

You mean, like, say, the millions of Americans who can't afford to pay for their own lobbyists or donate heavily to a PAC?
Sure, we get to vote-but so do the N Koreans. Its a question of whether or not the votes MATTER. I've read Heinlein's book several times. While it is a barebones description of how the society he envisions works, I'm not totally convinced it isn't as viable as our own. Combine it with Universe Commonsense and you get some interesting ideas for modifications to the current system.

 

[Mistral]

Yeah, the book is still interesting to me in some ways. It is a product of the height of the Cold War, when it was widely expected that tactical nukes would be commonly used on the battlefields of full-scale future wars. The powered armor is a novel solution to telling an infantryman's story in that setting. There is also some meandering about what we would now call "tooth to tail ratio" and military organization that is probably more than a little naive.

Heinlein wrote quite a bit about elites running the show for everyone's good. At least as scary as ST is 1948's Space Cadet, wherein a force of specially selected, scientifically-trained officers keeps the peace on a united Earth by controlling a network of orbital nuclear bombs. But Heinlein wasn't alone in that kind of thing, H.G. Wells and Doc Smith and Isaac Asimov and I'm sure many others have plowed the same ground. What Heinlein did in ST was bring the underlying philosophy right out front through the "History and Moral Philosophy" discourses. In a way, I have to respect that because it gives the reader more of an opening to question the system that's presented, compared to other works where the political/ruling system is an unquestioned fixture.

But politics aside, one thing Heinlein could do really well was create a wonderful verisimilitude, usually through casual, natural-sounding dialogue and handling the most fantastic details in an offhand, everyday manner. He made futuristic settings solid and believable as well as anyone I've read.

The Verhoeven movie didn't work for me at all, as a satire or anything else. I tend to appreciate moviemakers who make their points subtly, so Verhoeven, like Oliver Stone, generally doesn't appeal to me. The script is sensationalistic junk. Nationalistic, militaristic authoritarian states are bad? Check. But the movie lets us know that how? Because the characters are vapid, superficial and spout empty-headed trashy dialogue? If only it were that simple.

Justin

Hi Justin - good piece there, and I agree with the majority of it and empathize with it.

I'd disagree on one relevant point however. While Heinlein did often posit rule by the elites (that was a very common conceit in scifi at the time) he actually didn't take that tact in ST. Indeed, he refuted it.

At least, according to Dubois, the teacher of H&MP. He states explicitly that in this world's context that was attempted, rule by the scientific elite after a revolution in New Delhi, but it failed because they lacked a proper philosophical understanding despite their superior intelligence. Those who had served weren't hand picked or more disciplined, the crime rate of veterans was the same.

It isn't a personal quality that forms this elite - it's the voluntary act of service to place the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage. And the understanding of responsibility that goes with it.

Personally I find this appealing, though ultimately I understand it's flawed. There's no guarantee of future self-sacrifice based on prior servitude.

A point that Heinlein once raised was that a bachelor going out to defend his country is a young man being adventurous but the true patriots are the married men w/children who fight. In fact, he emphasizes that it is their responsibility to do so. He tells the story of a man who is walking w/his wife when her foot gets caught in a train track. The man is unable to free her and a passing hobo tries to help out. They struggle until the last possible second but an on-coming train kills all three. His question was : Who was the true hero? And the answer was The Hobo. The man who's wife it is has a DUTY to stick it out and try to save her. The Hobo had no obligation and was the true hero. His point being(as is typical of RAH) that those with the most to lose have the most responsibility to protect what is theirs.

So let's send all of the rich kids to fight in Afghanistan and let the poor kids stay here and try to find jobs. Seems fair.

 

[stj]

It states explicitly that most people with franchise are not combat veterans. It states explicitly that most people who are chosen for MI washout - nearly 90% - and that many of those lose their rights at franchise.

The takeaway from this is that the MI is a higher rated job in the Federal Service hierarchy then you give it credit for - Caliburn does a good job of explaining how that relates to modern service in his previous post.

No, the takeaway from this is that the book contradicts itself. In the story proper, a necessarily small elite veteran electorate votes. In a few throwaway lines, the opposite is asserted, despite being impossible in story terms. The reference I asked had to do with contractors providing support services at Heinlein's version of OCS, which again shows that there are very few military services proper. Which means there cannot be a large number of veteran electors.

Your lack of understanding as to what the structure of the Federal Services entails is what is pertinent, and your assertion that if his aptitude ONLY allows him roles in the MI or K9 he is stupid.

I never said anything of the sort, and I explicitly stated this is the opposite of what I said. This is even worse than the assumption that a SF writer wouldn't know that the scientific meaning of "parasite" implies small. Or imagine that a businessman wouldn't know terms like "freeloaders" or "bums" or "timeservers" or, even, if he wanted to get fancy, "sinecures."
When you have to make stuff up, it means you've run out of real argument.

The upshot of it all is that you think it's just dandy for a man to tell children that there's not really any thing such as human rights, it's all just meaningless words, that violence is the final arbiter and genocide is just a strategy.