Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers

[Kato]

Where do I start... Back in Highschool (or at least what'd be the most suiting German equivalent of it) when I was like... dunno, 14 or so, maybe older, maybe younger, I read a nice book about a militaristic society and about people who liked to get shout at and told they were useless (or at least they didn't mind) and who went into battle fully aware they might or rather probably won't come back. And I thought of it as a rather nice thing overall with some nice pseudo science fit in.
Couple of years later I'd about totally forgotten the book and decided (for mostly different reasons) to serve my at the beginning 9 months in the German military (which later turned into 2 years) The fact is, I noticed getting chewed out wasn't that bad if it really happened to you, and there are a hell lot of things making up for it.
So, a week or so ago a fellow student of mine happened to have the original book and all the memories popped back up all in a sudden, and I couldn't keep myself from reading it again. I'm not sure if it was the English (I guess it wasn't) or the fact I had gained about ten more years of experience, two of them in a though way less difficult, but at least a little alike Johnny's. It's just that my view on the topic has mostly reverted itself from 'an over the top story about the glory of the military' to 'a incidentally in the future settled story about the life of a (more or less) slightly special officer in an army.'

So... Yeah, I dunno. Who else read the books? How did you perceive it? (Did you do any kind of military service? Before? After? Was there any connection?) I know it is hard to discuss Heinlein (and especially ST) withut going political, since most of the book is Heinlein's views/ideas on societ, but we don't want to steer a military uprise, do we?
Also, did anyone see something else from the 'universe', except for that so bad it's good Verhoeven movie? (Don't get me wrong, it's nice action and comedy, but it's about as far from the book as Spaceballs is from Starwars...) e.g. someone stumbling over the anime by incident?

[kamikasei]

I thought it was interesting, and entertaining, but I got the feeling reading it that it was basically an argument for his particular political/social views where he'd written all these fictional facts to back it up. I remember being, well, disgusted by his argument about the death penalty. Essentially, whenever the characters started on about such-and-such "proven philosophical/ethical principle", it came off as the author using them as mouthpieces and having the characters we're told are very wise or competent assure us that their arguments are flawless.

That said, I have heard it suggested that the whole thing is actually self-subverting and that what I describe is actually meant to be an unreliable narrator effect reflecting the fascist indoctrination in the setting. Don't remember the book well enough to judge how plausible that is.

The power suits were cool though.

[hamishspence]

The book was certainly interesting....

When it comes down to it, it is one of the prototypes for a lot of later sci-fi. The Author Filibusters on capital punishment and other things can get a little trying, but as an soldier story its quite a good one.

Its been pastiched a couple of times- Harry Harrison's Bill the Galactic Hero is a good one.

[Om]

The film is better. It takes Heinlein's vision of a hyper-militaristic fascist society and dresses it up in clothes (literally) that we all recognise. Hearing these speeches come from officers in black leather trenchcoats lays bare the message that lay within the novel. No wonder so many of Heinlein's fans hate it

As for the book itself, I never enjoyed it. I wouldn't have found it so hard to get over the political message if there had been anything else of substance in the book. I've heard people praise the power suit segments but for some reason they never worked for me ("Whoosh, I dropped another bomb. Whoosh I jumped another few klicks"). In the absence of that, and the absolute abhorrence of the society described, I didn't find much to engage me


That said, I have heard it suggested that the whole thing is actually self-subverting and that what I describe is actually meant to be an unreliable narrator effect reflecting the fascist indoctrination in the setting. Don't remember the book well enough to judge how plausible that is.I'd buy that if it there was any sort of indication at all that this wasn't to be taken seriously. As it was the tone of the book, and the vision it lays forth, is unrelenting right from the early pages. At some point I did write an essay (which I seem to have lost...) just cataloguing the various nationalist/militaristic/fascist comments or descriptions. There were quite a lot of them

[hamishspence]

It's view of the universe, with the implication that its expand, compete, surval of the fittest, is pretty bleak. Howver, there is the notion of alien allies as well- the aliens they are fighting in the first chaptor of the book are their allies in the last chapter.

Heinlein can't really be pigeonholed- his books have an enormous variety from the slightly imperialistic Federation to the much more individualist moon men in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

[Faulty]

Nice yarn, horrible politics in my opinion. My politics really place me as an opponent of both military and state. Heinlein is a good author despite his often (IMO) questionable beliefs, however. I prefer The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

[Oslecamo]

Book's quality is discussable, but it gets lots of cookies for inspiring a lot of other cool fiction.

Mainly Starcraft and WH40K. Less deep politics, more awesome space action with power armored dudes fighting hordes of bugs and aliens with the ocasional backstabbing alliance.

Thank you Robert.

They should really make a movie closer to the book.

[orchitect]

Before going into my feelings on the book, I'd like to point out to Om that the director didn't even read the book. He said so in his interviews. If he had read it and deep into it he would not have made the movie the way he did. Or he might have just to make a buck.

I read that book twice straight through. The first time was a roller coaster that really caught me up in that world. The second time I was able to step back and look at the world of Starship Troopers.

I never joined the military, but I think about it a lot. I blame Starship Troopers for this (and my father, but that's another story). One on hand the world is so perfect in its simplicity, but that's the attraction of an merit-based society. I, not having military experience, imagined it to be like that, and I found that very attractive.

On the other hand, I find the society to be prone to stagnation because of the amount of work it takes to maintin social order. Overtime people can be conditioned to behave a certain way, but its a fairly unrealistic goal unless 1) the world was devestated by a global war, or 2) we have a common enemy. Starship Troopers meets both of these requirements, but I can't see, and don't want to see, them happen to us no matter how attractive that form of society is to myself.

[Zeta Kai]

Heinlein may have invented military sci-fi, but it's been done better & less jingoistically since. I highly recommend the novel Armor by John Steakley & Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card. They both have a more fun & more gripping narrative than Starship Troopers, they both have more military battles (which are told in more depth), & they are less politically charged (to put it mildly).

[chiasaur11]

Heinlein may have invented military sci-fi, but it's been done better & less jingoistically since. I highly recommend the novel Armor by John Steakley & Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card. They both have a more fun & more gripping narrative than Starship Troopers, they both have more military battles (which are told in more depth), & they are less politically charged (to put it mildly).

Agreed on Armor.

One of my favorite bits of power armor V bugs fiction.

First 90 pages are amazing.

[Om]

Before going into my feelings on the book, I'd like to point out to Om that the director didn't even read t he book. He said so in his interviews. If he had read it and deep into it he would not have made the movie the way he did. Or he might have just to make a buckActually from what I heard Verhoeven, who had lived through fascist occupation as a child, read the first few chapters before abandoning it deeply disillusioned. Certainly his choice to frame the Federation (the nominal 'good guys') as a quasi-fascist organisation was no accident

I also very much disagree that there is anything in the later chapters that would have persuaded him to do otherwise. The book's political message is remarkably consistent in its ultra-militarism. This may be time taking its toll, but I can't remember any point later on where Rico sits back and ponders the futility of war or questions the society that he was born into. On the contrary towards the end of the novel his world view (particularly with regards his father) is only confirmed. Verhoeven may not have read the whole work but he perceived the core of the story and the ideology espoused in it


Overtime people can be conditioned to behave a certain way, but its a fairly unrealistic goal unless 1) the world was devestated by a global war, or 2) we have a common enemy. Starship Troopers meets both of these requirements, but I can't see, and don't want to see, them happen to us no matter how attractive that form of society is to myself.That's the bit about the book that really prevented me getting into it. Given that I'm not particularly interested in 'hard' sci-fi of course. Heinlein has this society he's conjured up but its one so flawed that it, and the philosophy that underpins it, can only exist in a universe that is entirely black and white. Rico's musings on the 'survival of the fittest' and mankind's 'manifest destiny' to expand would seem nothing short of genocidal if not pitched against a foe that refuses to negotiate entirely. The Federation's regimental society and mass disenfranchisement is stunningly totalitarian... unless compared to a hive society in which individual freedom does not exist. And so on. The entire universe is simply there to justify Heinlein's twisted vision of future society

[Closet_Skeleton]

e.g. someone stumbling over the anime by incident?

Saw episode one of the anime. Wasn't particularly interesting and I don't know how close it was to the book, except that they made the protagonist a blonde-white american jock and the cars they drove were really old fashioned for a Sci Fi series.

[hamishspence]

A vision. Not necessarily his only vision (some of the post- Starship Troopers books were less jingoistic. Generally had less aliens though.)

His first book, For Us, the Living (not published till after his death) was almost as far from Starship Troopers as it is possible to get.

[RecklessFable]

Well, I guess I'll be the other view here and say the movie disgusted me utterly due to the director taking the book and twisting it to his own political agenda. It is merely a comedy to me at this point. It was like what Uwe Boll does to his source material. He takes the title and some of the character names and makes the movie he feels like (Bloodrayne, for example). Whether I agreed with the book point-for-point is irrelevant as my disgust at twisting someone else's work is what bothered me. If it was a parody, I'd feel otherwise, but it wasn't.

As for the actual novel, the military aspect was interesting. The powered armor, drop pods, etc being gleefully ripped off by Games Workshop. They call it inspiration yet defend their IP with draconic gusto (but that is another thread).

I like the idea that once you have sufficiently powerful weapons that are small enough to use, the concept of fixed emplacements and tanks are obsolete (as WWII started the shift when tanks rose to power). We are starting to see that today with weapons systems. The real challenge is achieving the mobility the MI had.

As for the political aspect, it is actually kinda funny to see how bent out of shape some folks are getting. You have to remember that Johnny Rico is not a philosopher nor a creative thinker. His point of view is obviously limited, so when he speaks you see things through his lens. Even when I read it in my teens I understood this.

One of the fundamental ideas in the book (aside from the politics) is about human nature. I have to admit that at first the whole corporal-punishment-activates-the-survival-instinct-and-therefore-actually-works theory used to make me uneasy. Then I realized it was because I was young, rebellious and wanted to break rules. Now I'm starting to think that our current prison-system full of guys pumping iron might not be the best behavioral deterrent...

I think the toughest pill for folks to swallow is service=citizenship. This system has never really been tried. I know lots of times folks say there should be a "stupid clause" for handling things like having children, voting, etc, but actually implementing a system like that has never happened. Limiting the franchise has always been used to subjugate a race/sex/group, not to actually improve the quality of the voters. I think human nature would prevent it from ever being implemented fairly, hence universal franchise being the only one that works so far.

At any rate, I think the best thing about the book is that it makes you think. It creates a sort of Utopian society out of what many would consider a Dystopian system. For that reason alone I think it is great art.

[Oslecamo]

His first book, For Us, the Living (not published till after his death) was almost as far from Starship Troopers as it is possible to get.

Did you read "A strange man in a strange land"? Hippie psykers?

I still wonder how that and SST were written by the same man.

Zeta Kai: Quality military battles in Ender's game? Where? The kids battles were fun, but definetely not very militaristic, more of a game(seriously, only one kind of weapon and objective?). The space battles had little more descritpion than "they shooted the plot weapon and won".

[Recaiden]

I tried reading a Stranger in a Strange Land. I never finished it.

Starship Troopers seemed kind of hollow, like the story wasn't relevant to it.

[hustlertwo]

It's one of my favorite novels, no question. Heinlein never was anywhere near that good again, from what I've read. While the movie was horrible as an adaptation, when judged on its own merits it is still worth watching. Philosophy is replaced with sly comedy and a very accurate look at the future of news and communication, action is amped up, chicks are brought in to doff their tops and give teenage boys another reason to watch. It wasn't high art, but like a lot of Verhoeven movies, it was highly entertaining.

[Faulty]

Heinlein may have invented military sci-fi, but it's been done better & less jingoistically since. I highly recommend the novel Armor by John Steakley & Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card. They both have a more fun & more gripping narrative than Starship Troopers, they both have more military battles (which are told in more depth), & they are less politically charged (to put it mildly).

Thanks for the suggestions, sir.

[Om]

Anyone read the Forever War? I've heard its a good counterpoint to Heinlein but never got round to it myself


As for the political aspect, it is actually kinda funny to see how bent out of shape some folks are getting. You have to remember that Johnny Rico is not a philosopher nor a creative thinker. His point of view is obviously limited, so when he speaks you see things through his lens. Even when I read it in my teens I understood thisOf course he's neither, he's a young kid who has been thoroughly indoctrinated by the school system. We get to hear the numerous lectures from his teacher (what was it, History and Moral Politics?) and commanding officers as Heinlein's philosophy* is expounded on in detail

As I said above, I could accept that this was intended as some subtle satire work if there was even a hint that someone else in the novel held a differing opinion. In the absence of this we simply have a series of characters spouting the same moral justifications, and divulging little else about their characters, as Heinlein preaches to us. IIRC the only person to disagree with the drivel being spouted by the teacher was Rico's own father... who finally relents, "becomes a man" (or something like that), and joins the military

*Well, his vision/philosophy in SST. I can't comment as to his other works

[shadow_archmagi]

Heinlein likes to author filibuster. All of his novels include at least one character whose role in the book is to explain to everyone else what is going on, while providing a mouthpiece for Heinlein's ideas. The professor in Harsh Mistress, the author in Strange Land, etc.

That said, he also tends to be quite good. Havn't read Starship Troopers on the grounds that after reading three books by him one after another, he gets a bit monotonous.

[Oslecamo]

I tried reading a Stranger in a Strange Land. I never finished it.


Unfortenely I can't really bring me to tell you to finish reading it.

It starts relatively well, then it oscilates, and then by the last parts it just seems like the author was on drugs or something. The ending...Oh dear god the ending... It's wrong in so many ways it makes SST actually look like a quite sensible story.

[Faulty]

Heinlein likes to author filibuster. All of his novels include at least one character whose role in the book is to explain to everyone else what is going on, while providing a mouthpiece for Heinlein's ideas. The professor in Harsh Mistress, the author in Strange Land, etc.

That said, he also tends to be quite good. Havn't read Starship Troopers on the grounds that after reading three books by him one after another, he gets a bit monotonous.

Yeah. I loved The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Starship Troopers so I bought some more of his books and couldn't get more than half way through any.

[chiasaur11]

Anyone else read his "All you zombies"?

Ace fun.

[TheThan]

It’s been many years since I’ve read it. I liked it, though my memory of it is shrouded in the mists of time. I loved the scifi element, though some of the political mumbojumbo really went over my head at the time.

[Theolotus]

I thought it was interesting, and entertaining, but I got the feeling reading it that it was basically an argument for his particular political/social views where he'd written all these fictional facts to back it up.

The power suits were cool though.


It is meant to be fiction in much the same way that Plato's "Republic" is fiction. It is an ideal for a society. The only one I've read that admits to being a flawed system. It is preachy, but with the seeming intent to raise questions. "If you dont like it, prove me wrong" is a theme throughout the book. If that theme is the intent, I think the book acheived its goal in spades.


It bothers me how much negative feed back is spun on the book. I understand opinions about the book, but if you could step away from the political statements/opinions, please. Not everyone shares the same views, and it would be nice if we kept the talking points focused on the book as art. Thank you.

[KnightDisciple]

All Heinlen's philosophy aside, the armor makes the book vastly better than the movie by default.

Also, didn't that book pretty much launch the "powered armor" concept to the forefront in fiction at all, basically inspiring everyone else to some degree or another?

[Drakyn]

It is meant to be fiction in much the same way that Plato's "Republic" is fiction. It is an ideal for a society. The only one I've read that admits to being a flawed system. It is preachy, but with the seeming intent to raise questions. "If you dont like it, prove me wrong" is a theme throughout the book. If that theme is the intent, I think the book acheived its goal in spades.


It bothers me how much negative feed back is spun on the book. I understand opinions about the book, but if you could step away from the political statements/opinions, please. Not everyone shares the same views, and it would be nice if we kept the talking points focused on the book as art. Thank you.
I think the book's plot and purpose are so bound up in its message that this is a very difficult thing to do. I read it and I could practically feel Heinlein's hand on the back of my skull trying to thwack my forebrain into each page while yelling "SEE you stupid, stupid noodle-loaf?! SEE?!?!"
I don't really care what your book's message is at that point, I'm not going to find it quite as enjoyable and am likely to disagree with it out of pure contrariness.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Anyone else read his "All you zombies"?

Ace fun.

Only Heinlein I've actually read.

[Theolotus]

I think the book's plot and purpose are so bound up in its message that this is a very difficult thing to do. I read it and I could practically feel Heinlein's hand on the back of my skull trying to thwack my forebrain into each page while yelling "SEE you stupid, stupid noodle-loaf?! SEE?!?!"
I don't really care what your book's message is at that point, I'm not going to find it quite as enjoyable and am likely to disagree with it out of pure contrariness.

Which is why I think the book was written that way. It makes the reader WANT to disagree. The reader must research a better system. Simplistic, cardboard arguments make the reader confident that s/he can blow through these arguments without much effort.

I think the book is well written in that it puts the reader in Mr. Rico's shoes and shows growth through a series of flashbacks, fast forwards, and soap box preaching. Rico is worlds apart from the boy he is at the beginning of the book. Right or wrong, he knows what he wants from life. He puts his life on the line because of his belief that he is doing what is best for himself and everyone else.

[Drakyn]

Which is why I think the book was written that way. It makes the reader WANT to disagree. The reader must research a better system. Simplistic, cardboard arguments make the reader confident that s/he can blow through these arguments without much effort.

I think the book is well written in that it puts the reader in Mr. Rico's shoes and shows growth through a series of flashbacks, fast forwards, and soap box preaching. Rico is worlds apart from the boy he is at the beginning of the book. Right or wrong, he knows what he wants from life. He puts his life on the line because of his belief that he is doing what is best for himself and everyone else.

The issue is that you can't really prove the fictional society wrong because it's set in a world carefully tailored to make it perfect, turning it from a "Come on I'm being reasonable, disprove this" into a smug "I am right and you shall see this as you think on it, because I have picked the best way." It's like a card shark challenging you to beat him using his own deck. The only way to win is to alter or add facts about the story's world - doctoring his cards yourself. And if you want to prove that it doesn't work/wouldn't work as well in the real world, that shows itself anyway by dint of the fictional circumstances needed to make it work as well as it did inside the story.
Lord knows I'm not a good judge of taste, but I liked the story beyond the tract. It's just that there was so very, very, very much tract shoved into the story.

[Dervag]

That said, I have heard it suggested that the whole thing is actually self-subverting and that what I describe is actually meant to be an unreliable narrator effect reflecting the fascist indoctrination in the setting. Don't remember the book well enough to judge how plausible that is.I submit that the society Heinlein describes in Starship Troopers is not actually fascist. As best as I can determine, it is a republic with a government service requirement for voters.*

Features of fascism not present include: a dictator, close alliance between the organs of government and some particular political party, paramilitary organizations run by the party (equivalent to German Brown Shirts or Italian Black Shirts), and major civil rights violations by the government.**

*Soldiers can't vote while in the military; there is no conscription; and lots of citizens despise the military (including Rico's own father). Some militarism.

**People who don't vote in this government still have civil rights, as far as I can determine; they retain things like freedom of speech and cannot simply be thrown in jail at random.
________


That's the bit about the book that really prevented me getting into it. Given that I'm not particularly interested in 'hard' sci-fi of course. Heinlein has this society he's conjured up but its one so flawed that it, and the philosophy that underpins it, can only exist in a universe that is entirely black and white. Rico's musings on the 'survival of the fittest' and mankind's 'manifest destiny' to expand would seem nothing short of genocidal if not pitched against a foe that refuses to negotiate entirely.In short... genocidal treatment of an enemy that is itself genocidal and refuses to stop trying?


The Federation's regimental society and mass disenfranchisement is stunningly totalitarian...What regimental society? The only society we actually see is the military, which is supposed to be regimented!

I mean, for crying out loud, they even have actual regiments and everything...

And if the answer is "the regimented society we see in the movie," then that is no answer. The movie is not an accurate representation of the book in any particular.
______


Which is why I think the book was written that way. It makes the reader WANT to disagree. The reader must research a better system. Simplistic, cardboard arguments make the reader confident that s/he can blow through these arguments without much effort.Now this is interesting. The one thing that Heinlein definitely did believe that features in the books is that a functioning democracy needs some qualification for voters other than "is alive and more than X years old," his argument being that there must be some mechanism for screening out ignorant fools and people who would ignore the interests of the nation.

That is something that is worth looking at and arguing about, because it's not a strawman version of what he really believed, and because he is far from the only person to think so.

[Cristo Meyers]

**People who don't vote in this government still have civil rights, as far as I can determine; they retain things like freedom of speech and cannot simply be thrown in jail at random.

The only right they lack is the vote and I believe those with the vote also tend to have an easier time working through the government bureaucracy, though I'm not so sure about the latter. Most of those that lack the ability to vote really don't consider it that big a loss and the military honestly doesn't seem to consider it that big of a gain, either.

The only society we see in any real detail is the military. Only one scene that I can remember is actually set in the outside world, and that's when Rico's in school.

[thepsyker]

I submit that the society Heinlein describes in Starship Troopers is not actually fascist. As best as I can determine, it is a republic with a government service requirement for voters.*

Features of fascism not present include: a dictator, close alliance between the organs of government and some particular political party, paramilitary organizations run by the party (equivalent to German Brown Shirts or Italian Black Shirts), and major civil rights violations by the government.**

*Soldiers can't vote while in the military; there is no conscription; and lots of citizens despise the military (including Rico's own father). Some militarism.

**People who don't vote in this government still have civil rights, as far as I can determine; they retain things like freedom of speech and cannot simply be thrown in jail at random.A point I would like to add to this is that, if my memory serves its been a while since I read the book, the point is made in the book that military services is not the only type of government service that can earn one the vote. It seems to me a lot of the criticism stems from the idea that the only way to earn the vote is to join the military which is not in fact the situation described in the book.

I would also echo those that say that he seems hard to pidgin hole as an author at times when it comes to the political slant of his writing, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress for example has always struck me as rather Libertarian, Stranger in a Strange land has a New Age feel, and his first book which was only published after his death, For Us, The Living has always to me felt slightly socialistic in regards to the social credit system.

[Killer Angel]

Book's quality is discussable, but it gets lots of cookies for inspiring a lot of other cool fiction.

Mainly Starcraft and WH40K. Less deep politics, more awesome space action with power armored dudes fighting hordes of bugs and aliens with the ocasional backstabbing alliance.

Thank you Robert.

They should really make a movie closer to the book.

Thanks for writing almost exactly my thoughts, it's easiest for me. :smallbiggrin:
ST is a very good book; it shows all his age, but still, it's a nice reading.
I don't find so "fascist" the military indoctrination... it is, but not for a political agreement from Heinlein (imo; Heinlein is the same author who writes Stranger in a strange land): it's a good description of the kind of thinking of all the elite corps of all the armies.
The training in Kubrick's full metal jacket, comes from something real: S.A.S., Seals, etc., i don't think that the mentality is so far from the one depicted in ST.
That said, i think that "the Moon is a harsh mistress", is maybe his better work.

[Killer Angel]

Anyone read the Forever War? I've heard its a good counterpoint to Heinlein but never got round to it myself



It's interesting.
The base concept is that humanity is fighting this galactical war against a slug-like alien race.
Fights are nothing similar to the vaste clash of ST: are almost platoon skirmishes (very short and bloody, ala Vietnam-like); the interesting part is that the distances are, well, on galactic scale, and there is no things such "warp speed".
Soldiers goes on a mission for 6 months, and on hearth, thanks to relativity, are passing 30 years.
Every soldier is an outcast: the world they knew don't exist, and so their only reason to live is to fight this eternal war. Even when they're out of service, they spend the free time in a orbital station, with every commodity, but with other soldiers: no one like to go on an unrecognisable Earth.
And there is no thing as "military fanatism"... they are sad people.

[thepsyker]

It's interesting.
The base concept is that humanity is fighting this galactical war against a slug-like alien race.
Fights are nothing similar to the vaste clash of ST: are almost platoon skirmishes (very short and bloody, ala Vietnam-like); the interesting part is that the distances are, well, on galactic scale, and there is no things such "warp speed".
Soldiers goes on a mission for 6 months, and on hearth, thanks to relativity, are passing 30 years.
Every soldier is an outcast: the world they knew don't exist, and so their only reason to live is to fight this eternal war. Even when they're out of service, they spend the free time in a orbital station, with every commodity, but with other soldiers: no one like to go on an unrecognisable Earth.
And there is no thing as "military fanatism"... they are sad people.Oh, yes Forever War is really good. The whole disconet from the fact that what to them seemed to be months or year was to their superiors and earth decades and centuries, is real interesting. I understand that it was partly based on the feeling of disconnect the author felt from the rest of society upon returning from Vietnam.

[Alleine]

Am I the only one who read ST twice and thought it was a just plain fun book?
I detected no political agenda either time, but then again I am quite naive/inexperienced/lacking in knowledge in the area of politics and I was pretty young when I first read it.

I loved the movie as well, though I'd like there to be a remake that's just slightly more on track with the book. Or I'd like the movie to have had power suits. That's pretty much all I wanted when I first saw it. The comedy was great, and the bugs were pretty awesome too.
I haven't heard anything good about the subsequent cartoon movies. Kinda sad, really.

[Kato]

Wow, great feedback. But it's Heinlein, after all...

Yeah, okay, we all know that Heinlein loves author filibuster. But as mentioned in my starting post imo a lot is left to the reader. Back then I really thought it was a critic on the system how over the top it was displayed with the argumenting on capital punishment and the all too common flogging. But nowadays... okay, I'm still not much of a friend of capital punishment. But on the other hand some aspects of the society are pretty good I guess.
Sure the fact of it being a military novel can create the expression of a militaristic society (and the fact that you can gain citizenship without serving in the military is hard to notice even on the second read) but there is no real indication the whole world is made completely of a Facist Federation. (The movie tends to imply it, but again... movie=/= book) The probably best idea in all of the book is the thing about the requirements for full citizenship. It's just... I'm not sure about US laws but in Germany it's really hard to get a human without the right to vote, no matter if he is a murderer or another kind of criminal or if he is mentally disabled to the state of a breathing vegetable (okay, that sounds offensive, but how can someone who can not even properly grasp any paert of politics be allowed to vote?) And doing some kind of 'term' e.g. social work or the like is a good proof someone tends to think of others as well of himself which is at least an indication to being a responsible person. But enough of that.


Sadly Heinlein is not nearly as popular in Germany as he is elsewhere (or so it seems). Hard to get your hands on a book, so i've only read ST, Stranger and All you Zombies so far (the latter after I read the massive spoiler on tv-tropes) Guess I will have to get some books shipped here to finally read them. And... yeah, it's hard to assume Heinlein really wants to propaganda for everything in his books. Otherwise some major thing must have happened in those days between ST and Stranger to change from 'lets create a society found on war veterans' (or so it seems) to 'lets all have sex with anyone who cant run away fast enough'. I guess he's really just coming up with idea(l)s which he wants to sugest to people and therefore writes books around them.


'Nother one. Due to the book I also watched the anime. It is far closer to the book than the movie, yet still way off. Bugs are no bugs at all, e.g. Also, it's more a 'How I became a soldier story' (and ignore the first episode, it's horribly lame) At least the get powered armor (cute little Gundams, yay) and they do some of the 'apart from service' scenes. Though, it is not really great, but a few scenes are worth being seen.

[Satyr]

Well, I can't explain at all why a book seemingly favoring a strong militarism would be unpopular in Germany...

When I read the book (ten years or so ago) I found it horribly written. I just don't like the style, I guess.

I'd actually like to read the book with a class of students some time. Have to check how difficult the language is. Discuss the content and morals presented in the book would be interesting, and a diversion from the standard high literature. There isn't enough pulp literature in class rooms. And even if I am right and the book is not very well written, this should also be read in a class, just to show how to identify a bad book and debate it.

[Om]

I submit that the society Heinlein describes in Starship Troopers is not actually fascist. As best as I can determine, it is a republic with a government service requirement for voters.*

Features of fascism not present include: a dictator, close alliance between the organs of government and some particular political party, paramilitary organizations run by the party (equivalent to German Brown Shirts or Italian Black Shirts), and major civil rights violations by the government.**This could well be getting into real-world politics territory. So I'll limit myself to noting that fascism as we understand it is a specific political strain of the 1930s. There's a lot of historical baggage/colouring there that can be stripped out. Also remember that this is a 'mature' society so it may simply have outgrown these. In fact I think I argued in a previous thread (long since lost to the forum underworld) that some form of open caste dictatorship would have been inevitable after the 'Veterans Coup/War', or whatever it was called, that established the current system of government

More to the point though is that in my view the core of fascist ideology, the master-slave relationship, remains present in SST. That is, the 'strong or worthy' have the right to rule the weak. Government should be the preserve of those strongmen capable/willing to hold it. That is a highly reactionary philosophy that is completely at odds with Enlightenment thought and ideologies derived from the latter. It is very much present in SST - it is hardly a functioning democracy when the vast majority of the population has been disenfranchised. But maybe I've said too much


*Soldiers can't vote while in the military; there is no conscription; and lots of citizens despise the military (including Rico's own father). Some militarismAnd what happens to Rico's father? :smallwink:

Leaving aside the book's potential as a real-world recruiting tool, its made clear in SST that the military occupies an elevated position in society. In the first place veterans are indeed the only true "citizens" and the society is run by a military caste. Frankly, that's probably as militaristic as you can get. Secondly we have examples (the cop who lets the soldiers off after the beat up some local youths springs to mind) of the very positive connotations associated with the military. And that's not even going into the constant drivel being fed by his teacher


**People who don't vote in this government still have civil rights, as far as I can determine; they retain things like freedom of speech and cannot simply be thrown in jail at random.I'm not sure if that's actually pointed out. Certainly freedom of speech would imply some input into the political process... democracy and freedom of speech tend to go hand in hand. I'm not sure if any historical society has ever divorced the two or indeed if it would be possible


In short... genocidal treatment of an enemy that is itself genocidal and refuses to stop trying?Exactly. Its the only possible way in which a reasonable argument for genocide could be constructed. And once again Heinlein's universe provides - wipe them out before they wipe us out. I think I'm almost directly quoting Rico there

And indeed its worth noting that a grand galactic war is also the only way in which the basic premise of this society (proving yourself to get the vote) is acceptable. I think one of the characters notes that they try and make service as difficult as possible for this reason but this is still not a military designed for sitting around polishing its guns. Its possible, and here I'm venturing out on a limb, that Heinlein's society is one that could only exist in a state of permanent war


What regimental society? The only society we actually see is the military, which is supposed to be regimented! For a start the categorisation of 'Citizen' and 'Civilian'. Secondly, the military is a huge element of this society. It provides the ruling caste and the only road to 'citizenship'. You are telling me that a society controlled by the military is not going to far more structured than today's democracies?

[WhiteHarness]

While I like and admire the society that Heinlein presents in Starship Troopers, I generally hate preachy entertainment (of whatever medium), even on the rare occasions that I happen to agree with the author's message.

Also, powered armour rules.

[Dervag]

I would also echo those that say that he seems hard to pidgin hole as an author at times when it comes to the political slant of his writing, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress for example has always struck me as rather Libertarian, Stranger in a Strange land has a New Age feel, and his first book which was only published after his death, For Us, The Living has always to me felt slightly socialistic in regards to the social credit system.As well it should. In the late '30s and early '40s, Heinlein was a politically active non-Communist socialist. That changed after the Soviets got the bomb and the Cold War started to kick into high gear. By the late '50s and early '60s he was a libertarian. In the mid-'60s, he moved into his "dirty old man" stage of authorship, writing characters who combined libertarianism with unnerving taboo violations.


The probably best idea in all of the book is the thing about the requirements for full citizenship. It's just... I'm not sure about US laws but in Germany it's really hard to get a human without the right to vote, no matter if he is a murderer or another kind of criminal or if he is mentally disabled to the state of a breathing vegetable (okay, that sounds offensive, but how can someone who can not even properly grasp any paert of politics be allowed to vote?)Similar standards apply in the US; aside from convicted felons, it's almost impossible to lose the vote once you've got it.


And... yeah, it's hard to assume Heinlein really wants to propaganda for everything in his books. Otherwise some major thing must have happened in those days between ST and Stranger to change from 'lets create a society found on war veterans' (or so it seems) to 'lets all have sex with anyone who cant run away fast enough'. I guess he's really just coming up with idea(l)s which he wants to sugest to people and therefore writes books around them.His ideas did change a lot during those five or ten years, but not as far as you might think. And he still stood by Starship Troopers, even twenty or (almost) thirty years later.

[Worira]

A point I would like to add to this is that, if my memory serves its been a while since I read the book, the point is made in the book that military services is not the only type of government service that can earn one the vote. It seems to me a lot of the criticism stems from the idea that the only way to earn the vote is to join the military which is not in fact the situation described in the book.


There's an excellent essay about that here. (http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/ftp/fedrlsvc.pdf)

[Drakyn]

While I like and admire the society that Heinlein presents in Starship Troopers, I generally hate preachy entertainment (of whatever medium), even on the rare occasions that I happen to agree with the author's message.

Also, powered armour rules.

On reflection, I'm going to have to say that you pretty much summed it up for me too (on both points :smallbiggrin: EDIT Well, on the armour and preachiness. Stupid third points).
If something's written to prove a point, it's often going to contain either an ideal society or an ideal person. The issue with both of these is that in saying "this is how everything/everyone should work" you're (A) announcing that you've solved an old and incredibly complicated social/philisophical problem completely (at least your self-confidence is healthy) and (B) also saying you can point out why everything else is inferior to your stuff (okay, maybe a bit too healthy).

[Kato]

More to the point though is that in my view the core of fascist ideology, the master-slave relationship, remains present in SST. That is, the 'strong or worthy' have the right to rule the weak. Government should be the preserve of those strongmen capable/willing to hold it. That is a highly reactionary philosophy that is completely at odds with Enlightenment thought and ideologies derived from the latter. It is very much present in SST - it is hardly a functioning democracy when the vast majority of the population has been disenfranchised. But maybe I've said too much

Hey, the difference is (mostly) self chosen. Whoever wants can obtain citizenship, as long as he is able to meet really minimum requirements. It's all just a matter of will to do so.


Leaving aside the book's potential as a real-world recruiting tool, its made clear in SST that the military occupies an elevated position in society. In the first place veterans are indeed the only true "citizens" and the society is run by a military caste. Frankly, that's probably as militaristic as you can get. Secondly we have examples (the cop who lets the soldiers off after the beat up some local youths springs to mind) of the very positive connotations associated with the military. And that's not even going into the constant drivel being fed by his teacher

Meh, once more, the system is not ruled by veterans. Maybe the one starting it with the veterans grasping power was, but all you have to do 'now' is do some civil duty thing to get your citizenship. Sure, it's not made to clear in the book, but it's mentioned here and there and Word of Heinlein said so.
About the cop, if you see three people who are sourrounded by a majority of beat up guys, who'd you assume to start to fight? Maybe the thugs even had have trouble often before. I don't think the cop was being soft on Johnny and friends but merely got the right view on the situation.


I'm not sure if that's actually pointed out. Certainly freedom of speech would imply some input into the political process... democracy and freedom of speech tend to go hand in hand. I'm not sure if any historical society has ever divorced the two or indeed if it would be possible

I don't see the neccessarity to combine free speech with the right to vote. uess there are just enough people talking what bs the government is (everywhere) and not voting anyway. You can complain all you want, to everybody, which is in no way connected to being unable to vote. Sure, the government might create laws against it, but it seems it doesn.'t.


And indeed its worth noting that a grand galactic war is also the only way in which the basic premise of this society (proving yourself to get the vote) is acceptable. I think one of the characters notes that they try and make service as difficult as possible for this reason but this is still not a military designed for sitting around polishing its guns. Its possible, and here I'm venturing out on a limb, that Heinlein's society is one that could only exist in a state of permanent war


Objection. As noted before, a citizen can only vote once he has finished his term. This means a soldier needs to either retire or be send out of service due to being unable to fight on. Since both are rather hard to achieve (you usually die when there is permanent war) there'd be no voters left after a certain period, at least of those which seerve in the military but only from different terms. So, a permanent war would either change the balance of power towards those against war (in SST-verse this'd probably mean extinction for the human race, at least if we assume there'd be no change in the war going on) ot it would mostly wipe out the government.


For a start the categorisation of 'Citizen' and 'Civilian'. Secondly, the military is a huge element of this society. It provides the ruling caste and the only road to 'citizenship'. You are telling me that a society controlled by the military is not going to far more structured than today's democracies?

Yet again (because many ppl not notice neither did I at the first read and hardly at the second) it's not all ruled by soldiers but by people who have served some kind of term, which also includes other things as social work or so. Though, it might be probably that a government initially created by veterans would be more structured than todays, but there is no proof of it in the book (or none I would notice since life outside of the military is hardly ever mentioned)



@ Satyr:
Interestingly, Starship Troopers seems to be about the ONLY book of Heinlein popular in Germany *cough* Though, I'd not judge anything on my people from it, since a vast majority doesn't care about such books and I don't think just because someone likes the book he'd favor the government in it.

I can't agree on the badly written part, but that might be up to everyone to deice in hir own. But including it nto school literaute seems a nice idea to me, since itÄs something to properly discuss in opposite to the stuff I had to read (about the only book I actually enjoyed was something from Pratchett and two or so other books throughout 12 years of scholl)

[magellan]

I've been exposed to 2 forms of Starship troopers.
First i saw the movie.
I went out of the cinema thinking "Oh my god, is verhoeven serious?"
Then i saw it a second time and breathed a sigh of relief:
"Thank god, he isn't serious"
Then I read the book and thought
"Oh my god, Verhoeven wasn't but Heinlein *is* serious"

Yes: it is one of those cases where the movie is better than the book.

Edit to add:
The "idiots shouldn't vote" argument sounds good until you think about who should decide who is idiotic enough to not vote. Could it be that some person think your voting behaviour is idiotic? I am fairly certain you will find a good amount of people for that anywhere. So better not get started and suffer the voting idiots. Everything else is at least one step towards dictatorship.

[pendell]

More to the point though is that in my view the core of fascist ideology, the master-slave relationship, remains present in SST. That is, the 'strong or worthy' have the right to rule the weak. Government should be the preserve of those strongmen capable/willing to hold it.


Except it isn't the preserve of strongmen. Anyone can volunteer for Federal Service. It's a requirement; anyone who volunteers for Federal Service needs to be provided with a job commensurate with his abilities -- the recruiting sergeant gives this speech at the beginning of the book. If a blind man walks him, they get him a job counting the fuzz on caterpillars or some such.

Citizenship , in the world of ST, is a right. That is to say, anyone who wishes to become a citizen has the solemn right to volunteer for Federal Service (which is mostly military but includes medical services and other such) and, on satisfactory completion, receive the right both to vote and to hold for political office. If you want citizenship, you can have it.

The concept is, if you want to participate in running the government, you've got to be able to demonstrate that you care enough about it to spend some time at it. If you don't care enough about your citizenship to meet the requirements, why should you have it?



It is very much present in SST - it is hardly a functioning democracy when the vast majority of the population has been disenfranchised.


Remember that ST was written in the 1950s, when just about every able-bodied male served two years in the military between high school and college. In such an environment, just about everyone has the franchise -- people who don't have it don't have it by their own choice.



Leaving aside the book's potential as a real-world recruiting tool, its made clear in SST that the military occupies an elevated position in society. In the first place veterans are indeed the only true "citizens" and the society is run by a military caste. Frankly, that's probably as militaristic as you can get. Secondly we have examples (the cop who lets the soldiers off after the beat up some local youths springs to mind) of the very positive connotations associated with the military. And that's not even going into the constant drivel being fed by his teacher


I disagree.

A militaristic society is one where a counsel of generals run things, where all civilians are dirt beneath the feet of the lowest soldier. Perhaps like Showa-era Japan before Big Mistake #2, where the Kwantung Army was able to dictate military policy. A militaristic society, like Prussia, is an army with a country attached.

That's not the model of ST.

ST is fundamentally 1950s America. Remember, *current* military are disqualified from office -- only *former* military are allowed to serve. So the image is again 1950s America, where every politician from both parties is a former officer -- Lt. Kennedy, Gen. Eisenhower, Captain Truman -- but none of these people were militarists. Eisenhower was the highest ranking of the group before he resigned to run for office, and his warnings against the military-industrial complex were the most strident of any.

Before that, in the era after our Civil War, we had a long run of former military as presidents (Grant, Hayes, Garfield, etc. etc.) and the society was not militarist. In fact, the US army was downsized from more than a million men to a force of about 25,000, and the navy was similarly reduced.

Requiring that a person be former military isn't the same thing as requiring that they be militarist, if you see the difference.

I think that Mr. Verhoeven completely misunderstood the intent of the book. I note also that Heinlein participated in the real-world war against fascism, and I find it astonishing that an author would attribute fascism to a man who devoted so much of his life to fighting against it -- to the point of proposing the bombing of Berlin with a radiological bomb if the A-bomb wouldn't explode.

If we moderns misunderstood the book, it's because we're projecting current-era assumptions on a book written in the 1950s, and the year 2001 is an alien country.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[pendell]

Two other thoughts:

A) Jerry Pournelle's Co-dominium proposed a two-tiered citizenship for the United States as well, divided into Taxpayers and Citizens. In this case, the first category were people who actually worked at jobs, earned money, and paid taxes. The second lived in welfare islands on subsidies, wiling away their days on legal drugs and TV.

Neither Heinlein nor Pournelle were fans of 'direct democracy' in the sense of 'everyone gets a vote' -- the concern being that there were tons of people out there who are flat out unqualified to ride a bicycle, much less govern a country. Terry Pratchett made the same comment in Night Watch -- Vimes disapproved of democracy because it meant he and Nobbs had equal say in the running of Ankh-Morporkh. Vimes could spot the flaw right away.

B) I'm gonna disagree with the overall consensus that 'powered armor rules'.
That may have made sense in the 1950s when Heinlein originally made the stories -- but that predates handheld computers and sophisticated guidance equipment. Heinlein assumed that MI would be able to dodge any punishment they couldn't simply take. The only way to fight MI was with other powered armor or saturation bombing.

In the modern world, we have laser-guided ATGMs, GPS-guided weapons, and a host of other things. I think in the modern world Heinlein's powered armor would simply be targets, especially when they start flying through the air. With the advent of rail guns or other near-C weapons, it gets even worse.

So I suspect that Drake's hovertanks are a better bet. You can't dodge a lightspeed weapon, but you can protect against it, and a nuclear-powered engine can carry a lot more armor, point defense systems, and jamming equipment than a single man in a suit can. So I'd expect mobile battlewagons escorted by infantry riding skimmers.

Doesn't mean there wouldn't be a place for powered armor on the battlefield, but it would be one part of a combined-arms system, rather than the I WIN button Heinlein portrayed.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hamishspence]

Sounds about right. Its pretty clear in the novel that anyone, no matter how lacking in able-bodiedness, can get the vote- if they are willing to put themselves at risk.


I asked the doctors what percentage of the victims failed the physical. He looked startled. "Why, we never fail anyone. The law doesn't permit us to."
"Huh? I mean, excuse me, Doctor? Then what's the point of this goose-flesh parade?"
"Why, the purpose is," he answer, hauling off and hitting me in the knew with a hammer (I kicked him, but not hard), "to find out what duties you are physically able to perform. But if you came in here in a wheelchair and blind in both eyes and were silly enough to insist on enrolling, they would find something silly enough to match. Counting the fuzz on a caterpillar by touch, maybe. The only way you can fail is by having the psychiatrists decide that you are not able to understand the oath."


While the essay correctly stresses that the non-combatant services tend to be "support services" to the military, there are still jobs such as "digging tunnels on Luna" "field-testing survival equipment on Titan" "labouring in the terraforming of Venus" etc.

on the, "its them or us" there is an element of trying to find out if coexistence is actually possible- the reason for the brain bug raid in the first place:

We needed to learn more about Bug psychology. Must we wipe out every Bug in the galaxy? Or was it possible to trounce them and impose a peace? We did not know- we understood them as little as we understand termites.

[Weezer]

on the, "its them or us" there is an element of trying to find out if coexistence is actually possible- the reason for the brain bug raid in the first place:

We needed to learn more about Bug psychology. Must we wipe out every Bug in the galaxy? Or was it possible to trounce them and impose a peace? We did not know- we understood them as little as we understand termites.

Also I'd like to point out that when faced with an enemy that was capable of diplomacy and reasonable contact, aka the skinnies, the course of action was not genocide but raids intended to put pressure on the skinny leaders to seek peace with the federation. This shows that the Federation isn't genocidal until it is faced with a choice between genocide and extinction.

[RecklessFable]

And indeed its worth noting that a grand galactic war is also the only way in which the basic premise of this society (proving yourself to get the vote) is acceptable. I think one of the characters notes that they try and make service as difficult as possible for this reason but this is still not a military designed for sitting around polishing its guns. Its possible, and here I'm venturing out on a limb, that Heinlein's society is one that could only exist in a state of permanent war

That may be true, and in the real world we've noticed that government always gets bigger and more controlling when the society is presented with an outside threat. The society in the book raised itself from anarchy and then grew to be capable of defending itself against a galactic bogeyman.

The real world leap here is if you are a person who fundamentally believes we can become a shiny-happy society without some external force coming in and taking us for easy pickings, then you can never agree with the main character. If you believe that there will always be another group out there who will try to take your stuff if you show weakness, then the premise holds up better as an organized way to deal with external threats.

I'm not sure at that point if the conversation turns to politics, religion or aliens, but I don't think we are supposed to go that far on this board.


For a start the categorisation of 'Citizen' and 'Civilian'. Secondly, the military is a huge element of this society. It provides the ruling caste and the only road to 'citizenship'. You are telling me that a society controlled by the military is not going to far more structured than today's democracies?

Actually, the military wasn't the only way, but it was the "quick" way since it only took "2 years" ... which was actually "No less than 2". Rico does mention other ways to serve that don't involve the military, but doesn't focus on them since his path was pointed at the quick way.

[Prophaniti]

I enjoyed the book, though it's been the better part of a decade since I read it. As for the politics, I would add my voice to others in wondering why people get so worked up about it. Well, that's not quite true, I understand perfectly why people get worked up about it, I just disagree. Heinlein presents what can only be described as a Utopian society. Like so many other political systems (read: all political systems) its quality and goodness is a function of the quality and goodness of the people running it. Though the philosophies behind it and the methods of implementation may differ drastically from other ideologies, it is really no different than, say, Marx's Communism. An ideal that would work wonderfully... IF the people in control could be trusted with that much power.

For the book itself, if one is not bothered by the soap boxing or can separate it out it's not bad, and as has been mentioned we do have this novel to thank for the popularization of things like powered armor and orbital drop strikes. Those are loads of fun regardless of your politics.

[Faulty]

I enjoyed the book, though it's been the better part of a decade since I read it. As for the politics, I would add my voice to others in wondering why people get so worked up about it. Well, that's not quite true, I understand perfectly why people get worked up about it, I just disagree. Heinlein presents what can only be described as a Utopian society. Like so many other political systems (read: all political systems) its quality and goodness is a function of the quality and goodness of the people running it. Though the philosophies behind it and the methods of implementation may differ drastically from other ideologies, it is really no different than, say, Marx's Communism. An ideal that would work wonderfully... IF the people in control could be trusted with that much power.

For the book itself, if one is not bothered by the soap boxing or can separate it out it's not bad, and as has been mentioned we do have this novel to thank for the popularization of things like powered armor and orbital drop strikes. Those are loads of fun regardless of your politics.

Just a nitpick. but there haven't been actual Communist countries. They mostly have entirely different political systems with Marxist influence and a Socialist veneer. The U.S.S.R., for example, was Marxist-Leninist.

[thepsyker]

There's an excellent essay about that here. (http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/ftp/fedrlsvc.pdf)

Uh, yeah frankly I'm not buying his argument. He admits that there is material in the book that supports the idea that Federal Service, even if he dismisses it as weak, personally that was the impression I picked up on my first casual read through of the book so I don't agree with his argument that you have to be looking for it. And seeing as how it was the first Heinlein book I ever read it wasn't like I was trying to be generous because I liked the author. He even acknowledges that the author himself claims that is the way he had meant it to be interpreted and frankly I don't think he presents enough of an argument for why in this case he decides to go for a deconstructive approach of not taking the author at his word, which he states is his normal approach to such matters. Now I haven't reread the book recently enough to comment reliably on his actual argument, so I will restrict my self to those comments on my disagreement with his initial premise.

[Dervag]

There's an excellent essay about that here. (http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/ftp/fedrlsvc.pdf)The gist being that while Heinlein believed that people could get citizenship in Starship Troopers by going into civil service, he didn't actually write it down anywhere in the book in unambiguous terms.

I will take Heinlein's word for the nature of the book he meant to write, because I'm not a deconstructionist, but it does clear up the issue. The book supports the idea of "citizenship only through military service," which is rather nasty, but the author intended to describe a society consistent with "citizenship through any kind of service," which is less so, though I still disagree with the politics.


I've been exposed to 2 forms of Starship troopers.
First i saw the movie.
I went out of the cinema thinking "Oh my god, is verhoeven serious?"
Then i saw it a second time and breathed a sigh of relief:
"Thank god, he isn't serious"
Then I read the book and thought
"Oh my god, Verhoeven wasn't but Heinlein *is* serious"

Yes: it is one of those cases where the movie is better than the book.Could you define "better" for me, please?


Edit to add:
The "idiots shouldn't vote" argument sounds good until you think about who should decide who is idiotic enough to not vote. Could it be that some person think your voting behaviour is idiotic? I am fairly certain you will find a good amount of people for that anywhere. So better not get started and suffer the voting idiots. Everything else is at least one step towards dictatorship.I agree with you- though Heinlein's idea was more about excluding the people who lack public spirit and a willingness to sacrifice for the common good, not about idiots. He did make it clear that all you had to be able to do to get into Service was to be sane and intelligent enough to understand the oath you were taking... which is hardly a stringent intelligence test.

But there are still serious problems of the type you describe. For instance, anyone deemed unfit to be in the Service will never get the vote. But what defines "unfit to serve?" If this system had been put in place in, say, 1950s America, one thing that would definitely get you booted out of the Service would be homosexuality. Which would mean that gay people were effectively disenfranchised... permanently. That's a major flaw in the system right there.

If the same system were put in place today, gay people might not get kicked out of the Service, but anyone caught using drugs definitely would... which creates similar problems. Any group society dislikes enough to bar them from Service winds up with no vote and no good chance of changing their status.

So you're right, even if it isn't about "you must be this intelligent to vote."
______


B) I'm gonna disagree with the overall consensus that 'powered armor rules'.
That may have made sense in the 1950s when Heinlein originally made the stories -- but that predates handheld computers and sophisticated guidance equipment. Heinlein assumed that MI would be able to dodge any punishment they couldn't simply take. The only way to fight MI was with other powered armor or saturation bombing.

In the modern world, we have laser-guided ATGMs, GPS-guided weapons, and a host of other things. I think in the modern world Heinlein's powered armor would simply be targets, especially when they start flying through the air. With the advent of rail guns or other near-C weapons, it gets even worse.Oooh. Good point. Never thought of it quite like that.

On the other hand, as portrayed by Heinlein, MI suits have two chief virtues.

1)They're a huge force multiplier for the infantry, because they allow infantry to carry weapons that are not conveniently portable in real life, and because they render the infantry effectively immune to "antipersonnel" weapons that rely on fragmentation, blast, incendiaries, chemical warfare, or the like. Each individual MI has to be targeted by something that can reliably score a kill against a tank. And since antitank weapons are much more expensive, cumbersome, and limited in their area of effect than antipersonnel weapons, that's a big advantage for the troopers.

2)Unlike heavy armor, they are conveniently air-droppable (or space-droppable). Therefore, they have a major advantage in strategic mobility. In practice, the Federation would be well advised to develop some AFVs that can take more punishment to deal with a pitched ground battle like the one on "Planet P." But when the MI are thought of as being like the airborne divisions of a more flexible military that has heavy divisions to back them up, the concept makes more sense.
____


Actually, the military wasn't the only way, but it was the "quick" way since it only took "2 years" ... which was actually "No less than 2". Rico does mention other ways to serve that don't involve the military, but doesn't focus on them since his path was pointed at the quick way.And, to be honest, Rico isn't especially smart or knowledgeable about social and political theory. Of all Heinlein's protagonists, Juan Rico is one of the most normal- he's not a genius who can engage other geniuses in witty conversation at the drop of a hat, and he doesn't have brilliant theories about how to rearrange society bubbling around in his brain. He's not especially ignorant, and he's not a bad person, but he's definitely not the guy you go to for social criticism.

[hamishspence]

I will take Heinlein's word for the nature of the book he meant to write, because I'm not a deconstructionist, but it does clear up the issue. The book supports the idea of "citizenship only through military service," which is rather nasty, but the author intended to describe a society consistent with "citizenship through any kind of service," which is less so, though I still disagree with the politics.


The evidence is there, just very lightly scattered through the book. Though there is the argument that all the cited non-combatant services are basically just support for the military, it doesn't fit that well with the sample occupations described.

I think the closest to evidence of Heinlein's "nineteeen out of twenty veterans were not in the military" claim in his essay in Annotated Universe, is the bit by the recruiting sergeant about "one in twenty times, you get the job you were looking for. But nineteen out of twenty times, somebody decides you're just what they're looking for to test survival equipment on Titan."

And, at least by implication, whole society gets set up well before the showdown with the arachnids. The unifying event is the "massive breakdown of law and order" world wars- and, in the wreckage, veterans commitees organizing methods of keeping order.

In one sense, its a bit like Star trek. Apocalypse, followed by rebuild, then setting out into space.

Only without help from the Vulcans :smallamused:

[pendell]

The "idiots shouldn't vote" argument sounds good until you think about who should decide who is idiotic enough to not vote. Could it be that some person think your voting behaviour is idiotic? I am fairly certain you will find a good amount of people for that anywhere. So better not get started and suffer the voting idiots. Everything else is at least one step towards dictatorship.


No, it's the first step towards Oligarchy -- rule by the privileged few. "Dictatorship" is rule by the one, which is a different thing entirely.

I would argue that you've got it reversed. It's democracy that leads to despotism, not oligarchy.

Take the example of the Roman Empire. What happens if you have a lot of discontented poor people. Some member of the privileged class makes himself the Friend of the People and offers to change the system for their benefit. WIth the assistance of the People, he gets himself installed in a position to bring the privileged to heel. Since they are so powerful, the Friend of the People gets invested with Ultimate Power. Once in power, he rules with the aid of chosen bureaucrats in the despite of the privileged class. And that's how you get an Emperor. Worked for Caeser. Worked for Napolean III. Worked for a lot of others in other times and places.

I would argue that government is like a wheel. Say you start with monarchy -- an unlimited despotism. That devolves into oligarchy, because the first time a weak ruler comes along the privileged class will put him in his place , as happened to King John at the time of Magna Carta. And so you get an oligarchy. Naturally, all humans believe they are wise enough to govern, and so the masses of ordinary people agitate for a say, too. Thus you get democracy. Then you get some charismatic demagogue to rally the people and install him in power with ultimate authority in order to push through his program, and so the wheel turns back to monarchy again.

That's the natural tendancy. There are exceptions.

I think it's silly to argue that one form of government is inherently 'better' than another, because the weakness of one form of government results in a change to the next form. There's always a weakness. Pure democracy is susceptible to charismatic rulers who can make themselves into despots. It also means minority groups feel the full force of the hatred of the majority. So you get situations where the majority votes punitive taxes on hated groups (like, say, rich people), driving them out so that the system collapses.

Monarchy has the advantage in that the ruler is for life, and therefore takes a longer term view of his country than a politican who's only in for four years. Then , too, the fact that you're handing over the country to family encourages you to take care of it long-term, not simply loot it for your own gain and run, leaving the next guy holding the bag.

Oligarchy has the advantage in that it provides a check-n-balance to the excesses of monarchy, while also ensuring that people making the decisions meet certain basic qualifications.

You ask, 'what if someone said YOU were unfit for the vote'? Since I'm not a landowner, the Founding Fathers of my country would in fact consider me so unfit; if it leads to better decisions than would otherwise be made, I could accept it.

The system, of course, is not fair. No system is. Even democracy is not fair. Ask a Harvard grad how s/he feels that his vote means no more and no less than a high school dropout's. The fact that decisions are made by people whose only qualifications to deliberate on them is a pulse, a place of birth, and an age is no more fair than restricting the vote to the privileged few, or the one.




I agree with you- though Heinlein's idea was more about excluding the people who lack public spirit and a willingness to sacrifice for the common good, not about idiots.


In ST, that is true.

That wasn't true in all his works. In Expanded Universe, he proposed that polling stations would require any voter to solve a quadratic equation before casting a ballot. If the voter got it wrong, the polling station opened ... empty. He called it the 'improving the breed' option. He wasn't always a very nice man.



If the same system were put in place today, gay people might not get kicked out of the Service, but anyone caught using drugs definitely would... which creates similar problems. Any group society dislikes enough to bar them from Service winds up with no vote and no good chance of changing their status.


No good chance of changing their status?

I note that there are lots of minority groups in the past hundred years who didn't have the vote nonetheless were able to change their status. It has happened repeatedly. Just because you don't have the vote doesn't mean you have no power whatsoever. But that leads us back to my wheel theory again -- oligarchy tends to become democracy because people without the vote find ways to force their way into the oligarchy, whether that's through moral persuasion, economic pressure, blackmail, or straight out revolt.



On the other hand, as portrayed by Heinlein, MI suits have two chief virtues.

1)They're a huge force multiplier for the infantry, because they allow infantry to carry weapons that are not conveniently portable in real life, and because they render the infantry effectively immune to "antipersonnel" weapons that rely on fragmentation, blast, incendiaries, chemical warfare, or the like. Each individual MI has to be targeted by something that can reliably score a kill against a tank. And since antitank weapons are much more expensive, cumbersome, and limited in their area of effect than antipersonnel weapons, that's a big advantage for the troopers.


In other words, every infantry men is a light tank. If there's a contest between light tanks and real tanks, I bet on the real ones.

There's also economy to consider. Building a fully articulated power suit with the sensor suite, commo gear, portable nuclear weapons etc. may actually be more expensive than building a tank. Certainly powered armor isn't suitable for conscript armies. You're left with a very small, elite group of people who could actually use it.

Against the MI I will put a levee en masse as happened in Somalia -- lots and lots and LOTS of militia each armed with the high-tech equivalent of an AK-47, some weapon cheap enough to be given out like party favors but with enough punch to go right through powered armor as if it wasn't there.

To stop the Levee en masse I will use hovertanks which have all the MI technology but on a much larger scale, supported by more-or-less standard infantry (better than levee, less than MI) which require a lot less expense to support.



2)Unlike heavy armor, they are conveniently air-droppable (or space-droppable). Therefore, they have a major advantage in strategic mobility.


Erm .. who says they're not space-droppable? I dunno how large the transports in ST are, but interstellar travel isn't cheap. It makes sense to use big ships. Economy of scale.

Hmm ... I'll wager nobody remembers Star Fleet II: Krellan Commander. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Fleet_(game_series)#Star_Fleet_II:_Krellan_Co mmander) It used powered armor infantry to secure landing zones for drop ships, which then brought in armor and conventional troops. I suspect that would work pretty well.



In practice, the Federation would be well advised to develop some AFVs that can take more punishment to deal with a pitched ground battle like the one on "Planet P." But when the MI are thought of as being like the airborne divisions of a more flexible military that has heavy divisions to back them up, the concept makes more sense.


Agree; As I said, MI make a great deal of sense as one element in a combined arms team, but they aren't the I WIN button portrayed by Heinlein.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Faulty]

That wasn't true in all his works. In Expanded Universe, he proposed that polling stations would require any voter to solve a quadratic equation before casting a ballot. If the voter got it wrong, the polling station opened ... empty. He called it the 'improving the breed' option. He wasn't always a very nice man.

My IQ is 150. I'm good with philosophy and literature. I suck at math and probably couldn't solve a quadratic equation to save my life. **** you Heinlein.

Anyway, if everyone is going to be affected by a set of laws, then everyone should have a say in those laws. Even if a person is an idiot, or unpatriotic (as I am), they should be allowed to decide how their society works, as they are part of it.

If we want to talk about some form of special regulations for voting, I think the closest to something good anyone has ever gotten is J.S. Mill's idea. If I recall correctly, he thought that educated individuals should get more votes than uneducated one. He also thought everyone deserved access to a good education, so it would largely become irrelevant for most people old enough to have graduated college.

[pendell]

He also thought everyone deserved access to a good education, so it would largely become irrelevant for most people old enough to have graduated college.


Disagree. "Deserve access" is an entirely different thing from "make use of the access".

What you've essentially done is re-invented Heinlein's ST troopers, with the exception that the gate is now the university rather than Federal Service. Some difficult thing that anyone who wants to can try to do and attempt. Those who aren't interested don't get the vote.

You also introduce the same orthodoxy identified with Heinlein's military -- now the gatekeepers are the faculty of the local university. What if your anthro prof fails you because you don't subscribe to her pet theories?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[KnightDisciple]

Well, to be honest, if humanity controls multiple worlds, resources becomes less of an issue. Asteroid mining likely can come into play as well.

Thus, I'd say that some form of powered armor would be desirable for as much of your army as possible. Elites, regular grunts, whatever. Maybe have a few different models, mind.

Then of course you have things like tanks, APCs, IFVs, etc.

But if you have the ability to give powered armor to every man in your infantry, I say do it. Give them every possible edge.

[Faulty]

Disagree. "Deserve access" is an entirely different thing from "make use of the access".

What you've essentially done is re-invented Heinlein's ST troopers, with the exception that the gate is now the university rather than Federal Service. Some difficult thing that anyone who wants to can try to do and attempt. Those who aren't interested don't get the vote.

You also introduce the same orthodoxy identified with Heinlein's military -- now the gatekeepers are the faculty of the local university. What if your anthro prof fails you because you don't subscribe to her pet theories?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Well, of course they'd be able to make access. You're ignoring that in Mill's system everyone could vote, though educated people could get more. Also, it would basically be a case of everyone getting a full scholarship to any school they could get into, and in most schools failing a single Anthro class wouldn't prevent you from losing a degree, unless it's an Anthro class necessary for your Anthro degree, which you could probably just take again. And I imagine that students could file complaints.

[Philistine]

Well, to be honest, if humanity controls multiple worlds, resources becomes less of an issue. Asteroid mining likely can come into play as well.

Thus, I'd say that some form of powered armor would be desirable for as much of your army as possible. Elites, regular grunts, whatever. Maybe have a few different models, mind.

Then of course you have things like tanks, APCs, IFVs, etc.

But if you have the ability to give powered armor to every man in your infantry, I say do it. Give them every possible edge.

The problem isn't the expense of providing power armor for everyone. The MI power suits as described by Heinlein required extensive training to use at all, even to accomplish simple tasks like walking. From the description, the MI are more like WW2-era fighter pilots than basic infantry of any era.

[TheEmerged]

My Starship Troopers Story.

I had been told by a couple of coworkers to watch the movie the next time I was in the mood to snark something to death. After a bad weekend at work, such a time arrived. I rented the movie...

...and after watching it, I immediately returned it to the video store and stopped at the library on the way home. I found that I absolutely *had* to read whatever it was the movie producer had found such a need to parody.

There were points I agreed and disagreed with. I definitely felt that the author was speaking for the character/world/story, not necessarily himself.

[KnightDisciple]

The problem isn't the expense of providing power armor for everyone. The MI power suits as described by Heinlein required extensive training to use at all, even to accomplish simple tasks like walking. From the description, the MI are more like WW2-era fighter pilots than basic infantry of any era.

How much training do our basic infantry go through now, as compared to, say, World War 2?

I'm actually curious on this, so I can have a mental comparison.

That said, if the benefits are high enough, I'd say non-MI troops are used as a stopgap while you train as many as possible up with MI armor. Slowly rotate MI onto the field, until everyone's in the stuff. Then just keep training people. Basically, if it was up to me, I'd work on getting everyone trained in it. It just seems like too valuable of an edge to lose.

[pendell]

I've gotta wonder how much of the Terran Federation really was the ideal society Heinlein wanted, and how much was simply an artifact of the story. Glory Road has an Empire with an Empress -- who mostly leaves everyone else alone. The monarchy in that story is more 'free' -- in the sense of personal liberty -- than real-world democracies. Farnham's Freehold saw the formation of a racist dictatorship -- after a nuclear war the northern hemisphere pretty much exterminates itself, and civilization is rebuilt by sub-saharan Africans. The civilization they build is a form of reverse apartheid. Revolt in 2100 features a right-wing theocracy.

For that matter, I think that's even brought up in ST itself; LTC Dubois asks a student why their form of government is better than any other. When the student can't answer, Dubois acknowledges that it's a trick question -- that's not a value judgement any of those living could make. The most that could be said for the system was that it worked.

Heinlein's "ideal" society -- IIRC -- was the post-"revolt in 2100" society, part of the Lazarus Long timeline, which he called "the first true human civilization" in his time line. I forget the details of it, but I recall it was neither a democracy nor anything else -- it was supposed to be run on 'rational' lines. Anyone recall?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Weezer]

Heinlein's "ideal" society -- IIRC -- was the post-"revolt in 2100" society, part of the Lazarus Long timeline, which he called "the first true human civilization" in his time line. I forget the details of it, but I recall it was neither a democracy nor anything else -- it was supposed to be run on 'rational' lines. Anyone recall?

I'm pretty sure that the society was based on the idea that people could do whatever they wanted so long as it didn't impinge on others, I dont think it went into much detail about the society itself. The only short story I know that was set in the post 2100 society was about someone who got sent into exile for attacking someone so it didn't focus on the civilization itself, just those who got sent to coventry. I might be missing or forgetting something though.

Oh almost forgot, it seems that most people in that society voluntarily underwent some sort of psychological conditioning to make it so they could function in the society. It was either something you did if you noticed something yourself or if you were convicted of a crime your choices were exile or this conditioning.

[Construct]

IIRC the only person to disagree with the drivel being spouted by the teacher was Rico's own father... who finally relents, "becomes a man" (or something like that), and joins the militaryThere's also a strawman who enlists to gain the citizenship necessary to practice journalism (and thus criticise the system) who quits in predictably ignoble fashion.


While the essay correctly stresses that the non-combatant services tend to be "support services" to the military, there are still jobs such as "digging tunnels on Luna" "field-testing survival equipment on Titan" "labouring in the terraforming of Venus" etc.It's telling that the only non-military paths to citizenship given in the book are blatant death marches. The requirement for citizenship was clearly not sacrifice - however much Heinlein may weasel after the fact - but successful brainwashing. Hence the indefinite terms of service and the risk-everything dogma check to become an officer and thus influence others. Fascism in perpetuo.


The problem isn't the expense of providing power armor for everyone. The MI power suits as described by Heinlein required extensive training to use at all, even to accomplish simple tasks like walking.Rico's sergeant tells him once that his objection to Rico dying would be the loss of the suit not the loss of a trained soldier.

[magellan]

The film was better than the book because it exposed the book. It wasn't exactly subtle while doing it, but neither was ST in preaching.

I think the main complaints i heard against the film were "No cool powerarmor" and "There aren't supposed to be girls there". And i'd wager if heinlein had written the book 20 years later there wouldn't have been the barbed wire fence between woman world and men's world.
And then there is the complaint that it makes fun of the book, but yeah... thats the point :)

As for oligarchy vs dictatorship: If you define it that narrow even kim jong il isn't a dictator, but the head of an oligarchy.

[RecklessFable]

Rico's sergeant tells him once that his objection to Rico dying would be the loss of the suit not the loss of a trained soldier.

Heh, and in WWII the boot camp sergeant told my Grandfather that rifles cost money, but men were free.

[averagejoe]

The narrative of the book was alright when it existed; unfortunately, he spent most of his time not narrativing, which annoys me even if the author agrees with my views in every aspect.

As for the actual views, he suggested that gang violence was caused by people not spanking their children. Enough said.

[Corvus]

It's telling that the only non-military paths to citizenship given in the book are blatant death marches. The requirement for citizenship was clearly not sacrifice - however much Heinlein may weasel after the fact - but successful brainwashing. Hence the indefinite terms of service and the risk-everything dogma check to become an officer and thus influence others. Fascism in perpetuo.



The Carl of the book applied for, and got, a job in Electronic R&D, and on he following page Rico makes a reference to a computer programmer on the skywatch. Neither military jobs and neither death marches.

[Worira]

Except that it's pretty clear Carl was doing R&D for the military.

[Skorj]

My IQ is 150. I'm good with philosophy and literature. I suck at math and probably couldn't solve a quadratic equation to save my life. **** you Heinlein.

Since your life may one day depend on it (hey, you never know), take 2 minutes and memorize the following.

For the equation
ax^2 + bx + c = 0 the values of x that solve the equation (there are usually two) are given by
x = (-b ± sqrt(b^2 - 4ac))/2a How hard would that be to memorize compared to making an informed decision about who would best govern the nation?


There's also a strawman who enlists to gain the citizenship necessary to practice journalism (and thus criticise the system) who quits in predictably ignoble fashion.
Heinlein's character's politics varied a lot from book to book, but in this he was completely consistent: he hated journlists. I find his "newsclowns" who reported wearing floppy shoes and fright wigs (from Stranger?) particularly amusing.

The Starship Troopers animated series (which BTW is great if you get past the crappy animation - all SciFi adventure and almost no politics) had a far more interesting journalist character with actual character development.

[Satyr]

How hard would that be to memorize compared to making an informed decision about who would best govern the nation?

How would the qability to learn a formula by heart and use it repeatedly in any way indicate the ability to make an intelligent decision at the ballots, and to decide the capability to vote on one single question? If Heinlein really believed in this crap, he was a moron.

[Killer Angel]

How much training do our basic infantry go through now, as compared to, say, World War 2?

I'm actually curious on this, so I can have a mental comparison.


I'm pretty sure today's soldiers, are far better trained than their comparison in WWII.
We have more time, more knowledge of the field when we are sending the troops (preparing them accordingly) and we train the soldiers to various kind of fighting.
Maybe they are not really prepared, but our soldiers made a lot of combat exercise; when I was in the army, the year before, my company partecipated to NATO exercitations. Turkey in summer (VERY hot), and Norway in winter (VERY cold).

In WWII, there was nothing comparable: you became trained by not dying on the battlefield.

Heinlein "infantry", represent a (large) group of very trained people, with very expensive equipment. They were not ready to fighting the bugs, but this don't negate the premise.

[pendell]

How would the qability to learn a formula by heart and use it repeatedly in any way indicate the ability to make an intelligent decision at the ballots, and to decide the capability to vote on one single question? If Heinlein really believed in this crap, he was a moron.

People who bet on Heinlein being stupid usually regretted that bet. Call him deranged and eccentric however, and lots of people would agree.

Why a quadratic equation?

The ability to memorize basic information; the ability to apply an abstract formula to a specific case, and come up with a verifiably correct answer is not at all a bad thing to want in a voter.

The critical things about mathematics are, IMO: A) Mathematics is abstract. In order to understand it, you've got to be able to think in other terms than your native language. B) Mathematics has objectively provable correct answers. So it's far easier to ask, answer, and grade the test in 30 seconds or less. Remember ,this is in a voting booth. If you ask someone to write an essay, it'll take awhile .. and if the answers are subjective, it doesn't show anything about your reasoning ability, only your ability to write well.

I think it's fair to say Heinlein was a great believer in mathematics as *the* indicator of abstract reasoning ability. Some of his quotes on the subject -- non-fiction -- are highly insulting, in fact. I believe for him mathematics was one of the things that distinguished 'hard' sciences from fuzzy studies.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Satyr]

The ability to memorize basic information; the ability to apply an abstract formula to a specific case, and come up with a verifiably correct answer is not at all a bad thing to want in a voter.

Only that the ability has absolutely nothing to do wih the topic at hand, and says absolutely nothing about the potential voter's ability to understand political interconnections and the range of decisions. You could just as well test the juggling skills to prove that the voter is intelligent enough to vote.

Then, one single question completely fails to determine any ability. To have something resembling a statistic reliabilty, you need much more questions, to determine anything reliable.

And finally, the relevant thing about an equation is not the solution but the approach; getting the right answer by the wrong way is much less preferable to the right approach of solution combined with a miscalculated final result; the verifiability is therefore highly debatable.


A) Mathematics is abstract. In order to understand it, you've got to be able to think in other terms than your native language.

Politics are concrete, and have a direct, and complex web of interconnections between each other. The ability to understand abstract formulas has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of understanding complex structures, especially because the required knowledge is in many ways completely unrelated to the concrete matter at hand.




Mathematics has objectively provable correct answers. So it's far easier to ask, answer, and grade the test in 30 seconds or less.

If you test the ability of a person to be a full citizen or just a metoikos, time is the least important factor.
Besides, evaluating objective provabilities, is banal, and not the ability a voter needs to make a well thought-out decision at the ballots; for this, the voter needs the ability to evaluate, highly subjective, non-provable and often rhetorically well-presented topics, which is a much higher form of complexity and its actually much more straining.


I think it's fair to say Heinlein was a great believer in mathematics as *the* indicator of abstract reasoning ability. Some of his quotes on the subject -- non-fiction -- are highly insulting, in fact. I believe for him mathematics was one of the things that distinguished 'hard' sciences from fuzzy studies.

The background here resembles strongly a common but nonetheless utterly wrong misconcept of intelegence, mainly that being smart in one area means tat you are generally smart. Intelligence doesn't work this way. What we usually understand as "intelligence" is a vast sum of very different abilities and skills which are often only corelating or completely independent from each other. Stephen Hawkins for example has no hand-eye coordination. The ability to make elemental manual activities and dextrous manipulation is fuly lost to him. Nonetheless, who would ever claim that this man is not a highly intelligent person?

Besides, the whole approach is a practice in idiocy. If you are pretentios enough to think that the common individual is too stupid to vote, the solution is not a math skills based apartheid. That's treating symptoms, not the problem. The glaringly obvious solution would be to make sure that the educational standard of the society is sufficient for a reflected and intelligent vote.

[hamishspence]

I wondered if he was being facetious, since his own character who is on track to win the vote struggles with math (Rico)

and Rico's teacher at Officer Candidate School points out that the "let the scientists run things and you'll have utopia" idea falls flat- scientific skill does not necessarily correlate to social responsibility.

Nor would mathematical skill.

[Dervag]

That wasn't true in all his works. In Expanded Universe, he proposed that polling stations would require any voter to solve a quadratic equation before casting a ballot. If the voter got it wrong, the polling station opened ... empty. He called it the 'improving the breed' option. He wasn't always a very nice man.Actually, he just proposed that the voter not be able to vote if they couldn't solve the quadratic; the "improving the breed" option was a joke. And in-text he recognized that a quadratic equation was too simplistic a test- it was being deliberately simplified as a thought experiment.

NOTE: The "Math Test" idea is in a different book from Starship Troopers, one written years later, purely as an illustration of a general principle.


I note that there are lots of minority groups in the past hundred years who didn't have the vote nonetheless were able to change their status. It has happened repeatedly. Just because you don't have the vote doesn't mean you have no power whatsoever.Yes, but the first step was always to get a vote. Once you have a vote, political change follows quickly; until you have a vote, you're trapped on the outside of the political process.



But that leads us back to my wheel theory again -- oligarchy tends to become democracy because people without the vote find ways to force their way into the oligarchy, whether that's through moral persuasion, economic pressure, blackmail, or straight out revolt.But what about cases like ancient Rome, which was de facto an oligarchy until it became a dictatorship, with no real democracy in between? Or nations where one oligarch bumps off their rivals and becomes king?

I don't really buy this wheel idea, because it seems to spin both ways quite easily, and you wind up with three things, any of which can change into any other.
_______


In other words, every infantry men is a light tank. If there's a contest between light tanks and real tanks, I bet on the real ones.Waitaminute... if infantry with ATGMs can reliably knock out and MI, why can't MI with ATGMs knock out tanks? One MI versus one tank that weighs fifty times more and is built with the same technology would be a losing fight for the MI, but if the same tank takes on a squad of MI with a full complement of heavy weapons, it's got a serious risk of getting creamed.

An MI is not a light tank; he's got the armor and firepower of a light tank (say, a Bradley), but scaled down to an infantry-sized platform. That's why the concept is science fiction.
_______


Against the MI I will put a levee en masse as happened in Somalia -- lots and lots and LOTS of militia each armed with the high-tech equivalent of an AK-47, some weapon cheap enough to be given out like party favors but with enough punch to go right through powered armor as if it wasn't there.That's more or less what the Bugs were doing, as far as I can tell. The catch is that this tactic only works if you can reliably bring overwhelming numbers of militia to bear on my MI. And since the MI are mobile (and can call on orbital fire support), that's a tricky proposition. MI units that get trapped in urban warfare environments are liable to get creamed by superior numbers of mobs armed with RPG-equivalents, but as long as they don't stay in one place long enough for a levee en masse to assemble and cut them off from support, they can do fairly well.
______


Erm .. who says they're not space-droppable? I dunno how large the transports in ST are, but interstellar travel isn't cheap. It makes sense to use big ships. Economy of scale.The problem is not that tanks wouldn't be transportable; I'm sure they are. The problem is that they aren't droppable- you cannot drop something the size of a tank from orbit altitude, have it reenter the atmosphere in a capsule, and then have it parachute to the ground. It will go splat. So, as you describe, you do want to use MI to secure areas where heavy support weapons can be landed. However, this is only one MI tactical role.
_______


How would the qability to learn a formula by heart and use it repeatedly in any way indicate the ability to make an intelligent decision at the ballots, and to decide the capability to vote on one single question? If Heinlein really believed in this crap, he was a moron.First of all, he wrote this before electronic calculators. Arithmetic was trickier for his generation than for ours, and being able to do it under pressure required either real brains, or real mental discipline- enough that you must have a basically sound mind either way.

So the ability to solve quadratic equations is a sign that you've mastered high school math, which is in turn a sign that you're probably not a true idiot.

And, as I said above, Heinlein himself said that this was a simplification. It was the idea that you must pass some kind of intelligence test to vote that he liked, not the specific form of the test.

[Foeofthelance]

It's telling that the only non-military paths to citizenship given in the book are blatant death marches. The requirement for citizenship was clearly not sacrifice - however much Heinlein may weasel after the fact - but successful brainwashing. Hence the indefinite terms of service and the risk-everything dogma check to become an officer and thus influence others. Fascism in perpetuo.


Actually, there was a point to the jobs tending to be dangerous, though I don't recall how clearly it was stated in the book. The first point of the service requirement was "If you won't serve, you can't lead." The other half was putting the volunteers in dangerous positions so that they would understand that any decision they made could and would have long term consequences for others around them. This hopefully demonstrated by Rico's rise through the ranks of officers.

But it also needs to be pointed out that the situations, usually, weren't typically dangerous, they only appeared that way to the canidates which is something I think Rico also points out. Recalling the training portions of the book, the only two deaths I can remember were the kid who jumped the wrong way down a hill and broke his neck, and the soldier they hanged after he went AWOL and raped a civilian. From that we can assume that if someone was field testing new vacuum equipment on the moon, then the equipment had already passed a serious battery of tests in labratory conditions, was being carefully observed, and most likely had an emergency rescue team standing by. Responsibility, through and through, remains a strong theme of the novel.

And didn't his father join up after the rest of the family got killed in an attack on Earth?

[BarroomBard]

As a treatise on the limitations of democracy (which anyone who has tried to run a meeting can attest to) and a sort of "Modest Proposal" for franchisement, the book is a decent read.

As the work which introduced power armor, it wins a half dozen internets. Of course, the MI as presented in the book would not work. That's not the point. They are armed with flamethrowers and nuclear warheads. That's just cool.

As a novel, it is a piece of crap. There are really only two characters in the book, Rico and LTC Dubois. None of the other soldiers recieve any characterization at all, and seem to exist only so Rico isn't an army of one. There is virtually no plot, just scenes displaying how cool power armor is and then flashbacks where Dubois turns into Mr. Exposition and describes that humans and dogs have the same level of moral thinking.

***
I saw the movie first. That said, I enjoyed it as a satire of political propaganda and because the Arachnids were pretty cool.

I was annoyed not so much by the lack of powered armor or the presence of women, but because the tactics used by the MI were flippin retarded. The only advantage they had over the bugs was range. The Arachnids were stronger, faster, bigger, and more numerous. So the primary tactic the infantry used: charging. That would be like a longbowman charging an elephant.

[pendell]

But what about cases like ancient Rome, which was de facto an oligarchy until it became a dictatorship, with no real democracy in between?


There was a stage between Republic and Empire when the plebs had a great deal of power . IIR my civics correctly, the entire history of the Republic was of the plebians agitating for greater and greater political power until, by the time of Caeser, the distinction between Plebeian and Patrician was minimal. That event coincides directly with the rise of the Emperor on the back of the plebeians. A big part of the Emperor's appeal was to 'the poor' -- in the form of a free grain ration -- which he used to secure the loyalty of ordinary Romans. That bargain lasted for hundreds of years until the breadbasket of Egypt was lost to Rome, at which case the entire system collapsed because the economic conditions that made it possible no longer existed.

In fact, Rome was one of the model I was using.



Or nations where one oligarch bumps off their rivals and becomes king?


As in Louis XIV's France, perhaps, where you go from a feudalism to a strong dictatorship?



I don't really buy this wheel idea, because it seems to spin both ways quite easily, and you wind up with three things, any of which can change into any other.


Hmm ... you might be right. Certainly the model needs work.

I think, however, some transitions simply don't occur naturally.

When, for example, has a democracy ever transitioned to an oligarchy?

The only example I can think of was when Athens came under the control of the thirty tyrants, but that was a government imposed by invaders, not a natural evolution of the government by its own citizens.

I can't remember the last instance when a democracy willingly, voluntarily gave itself into the hands of an elite. They have, however, willingly accepted a tyrant, usually because the tyrant in question was a military hero or the Friend of the People.
_______



Waitaminute... if infantry with ATGMs can reliably knock out and MI, why can't MI with ATGMs knock out tanks? One MI versus one tank that weighs fifty times more and is built with the same technology would be a losing fight for the MI, but if the same tank takes on a squad of MI with a full complement of heavy weapons, it's got a serious risk of getting creamed.


I'm guessing that SF tanks would mount significant Point Defenses (http://washparkprophet.blogspot.com/2005/08/point-defense-technology.html). Even today, you can see that there are systems such as THEL on the drawing board which will use lasers to destroy artillery shells and missiles in flight.

That's current technology. Now imagine future technology.

So you bring in MI with ATGMs. They face off with a tank which mounts jammers, spoofers, reactive armor, computer-guided point-defense lasers or rail guns .. you name it. It's conceivable that they could take it down, but you'd either need saturation fire or some other way to knock the defenses off-line. An EMP, perhaps? But won't that foul up your own electronics, too?

Another point is: This is still a combined arms battle. I don't believe it's fair to pit one tank against a dozen MI. Instead, pit that one tank and an infantry escort of , say, 4 soldiers (more protection than current, less than MI) to run interference for the tank. So they're not only fighting the tank, they're having to deal with the escorts as well. The escorts and the tank co-operate to eliminate the threat, the escorts fixing the targets and stealing their attention while the tank decides the battle with its own firepower.



An MI is not a light tank; he's got the armor and firepower of a light tank (say, a Bradley), but scaled down to an infantry-sized platform. That's why the concept is science fiction.


Maybe so, but I still think there's an economy of scale issue involved -- once you've got an antimatter reactor or whatever-it-is that powers powered armor and hovertanks, you can put a LOT more stuff, defensive and offensive, on the tank.

I guess my concern is for the same reason that Tank Destroyers eventually went out of fashion; it's possible to build them more cheaply than a tank, but they are also less capable than a tank. The increase in combat capability from powered armor may not increase as fast as the cost of building such an intricate mechanism which, for all it's benefits, will never be able to carry the armor, firepower, or defenses of a tank.
_______



That's more or less what the Bugs were doing, as far as I can tell. The catch is that this tactic only works if you can reliably bring overwhelming numbers of militia to bear on my MI. And since the MI are mobile (and can call on orbital fire support), that's a tricky proposition. MI units that get trapped in urban warfare environments are liable to get creamed by superior numbers of mobs armed with RPG-equivalents, but as long as they don't stay in one place long enough for a levee en masse to assemble and cut them off from support, they can do fairly well.


Check me on this, but in the modern world isn't urban warfare one of the main reasons you want infantry? IIRC, the Russians sent tanks into Grozny during the First Chechen War, and they were wasted in droves.

By your own argument, MI are useless. In a close-in environment such as urban or jungle terrain, they are vulnerable to ambush by much less capable troops with RPG-equivalents. In open terrain .. that's what tanks are for, yes?

______



The problem is not that tanks wouldn't be transportable; I'm sure they are. The problem is that they aren't droppable- you cannot drop something the size of a tank from orbit altitude, have it reenter the atmosphere in a capsule, and then have it parachute to the ground. It will go splat.


Okay. So what we do is, we put the tanks in a BIG dropship. We make ourselves an LZ with orbital bombardment, then fly the dropships down. They drop off the tanks , go back to orbit.

Hmm .. you mentioned orbital bombardment earlier. In that case, MI would be useful. If you've got a bajillion crowbars-with-sensors in orbit, tanks are fairly useless, because once you detect 'em you can saturate them from orbit. Military operations then become one big game of find-fix-and-destroy, with mobile infantry doing the finding, then calling in orbital support to finish the job.

That works well *so long as you have orbital supremacy*. If the bad guys have some way of interfering with orbital operations so that you don't have a god-gun on call, tanks become much more useful, for those reasons I mentioned earlier.



So, as you describe, you do want to use MI to secure areas where heavy support weapons can be landed. However, this is only one MI tactical role.


Now I'm curious. What other roles might they have? Interested in your thoughts.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Skorj]

I'm guessing that SF tanks would mount significant Point Defenses (http://washparkprophet.blogspot.com/2005/08/point-defense-technology.html). Even today, you can see that there are systems such as THEL on the drawing board which will use lasers to destroy artillery shells and missiles in flight.

That's current technology. Now imagine future technology.

So you bring in MI with ATGMs. They face off with a tank which mounts jammers, spoofers, reactive armor, computer-guided point-defense lasers or rail guns .. you name it. It's conceivable that they could take it down, but you'd either need saturation fire or some other way to knock the defenses off-line. An EMP, perhaps? But won't that foul up your own electronics, too?
Heinlein had the MI in many of the tactical roles we have helicopters in today. Tanks are in no way winning the arms race against helicopters: they are both quite vulnerable to one another, and it's very much a battle of who can detect, react, decide, and shoot first.

MI acted much like helis act on the battlefield today. Everything was "on the bounce", because that bouncing was the key. From a position of concealment and cover, to the air, where the battle happens, and back to concealment and cover within seconds (just like helis today).

Being the one with the initiative, the one acting not reacting, is everything in modern combat. It's the core of modern tactics and operations. Being the one appearing suddenly on the offence means you have the initiative, and the tank is just plodding along and must react.

Now, if you propose tanks that are also bouncing/flying along (which you allude to), they'd be great in a fight, but ground-bound tanks would get slaughtered by MI that could carry tank-killing weapons (even if each man only had a couple shots that could do that - and the MI carried nukes, so they weren't exactly light on firepower).

However, if a tank with 4 guys crewing it had about the same firepower as 4 MI, there's little difference in open ground (but the tank would have trouble in tight quarters).



Check me on this, but in the modern world isn't urban warfare one of the main reasons you want infantry? IIRC, the Russians sent tanks into Grozny during the First Chechen War, and they were wasted in droves.

By your own argument, MI are useless. In a close-in environment such as urban or jungle terrain, they are vulnerable to ambush by much less capable troops with RPG-equivalents. In open terrain .. that's what tanks are for, yes?


We're finding in this decade that tanks are really good against "much less capable" forces, which certainly wasn't true a few decades ago, even in urban environments. High tech weapons are a real menace to tanks, but low tech and improvised weapons threaten infantry much more. Lightweight armor (just enough to stop a low-tech rifle) would push the balance back the other way, I think, but really in a SciFi story I'd buy an argument either way.

MI suits weren't that big. The entire point was that the MI could enter and fight inside normal buildings (though they might be making their own doors). The training in the beginning of the book seemed to be about urban combat as well, IIRC. Ground vehicles are vulnerable to RPGs and such because their maneuver options are quite limited in a city. Armored guys who can move in, out, and through buildings: not so much.

And as far as a jungle or swamp, the single biggest advantage any powered/armorer suit could offer a soldier IMO is to make him comfortable in a swamp or jungle. Those environments can be immensely distracting though simple discomfort, and the psychological need to to cope with that long term. A sentry who's comfortable slogging through the swamp is going to be worlds better than one who can only be comfortable finding a spot of dry land and some mosquito netting. It's like a Ring Of Discipline and Morale +2, which is more useful than a +2 weapon any day.

[hamishspence]

But it also needs to be pointed out that the situations, usually, weren't typically dangerous, they only appeared that way to the canidates which is something I think Rico also points out. Recalling the training portions of the book, the only two deaths I can remember were the kid who jumped the wrong way down a hill and broke his neck, and the soldier they hanged after he went AWOL and raped a civilian. From that we can assume that if someone was field testing new vacuum equipment on the moon, then the equipment had already passed a serious battery of tests in labratory conditions, was being carefully observed, and most likely had an emergency rescue team standing by. Responsibility, through and through, remains a strong theme of the novel.


The actual crimes (though the death penalty was enacted for murder) were- murder, kidnapping, demand of ransom, criminal neglect (strongly implying it was a kidnapping for money, gone wrong)

the person dying from a broken neck through diving for cover, wasn't the only one- two people die in a "survival in the wild" exercise, and "They weren't the first to die in training, they weren't the last."

Douglas Hill's The Last Legionary books, in a prequel short story, had a similar exercise, that society, based on "mercenaries with morals" lifestyle, was the kind to put children through the same exercises as MI, on a planet which is little short of a deathworld, given the numerous dangerous animals on it.

So, MI training, while hazardous, is not exactly the worst in fiction.

[Dervag]

When, for example, has a democracy ever transitioned to an oligarchy?

The only example I can think of was when Athens came under the control of the thirty tyrants, but that was a government imposed by invaders, not a natural evolution of the government by its own citizens.

I can't remember the last instance when a democracy willingly, voluntarily gave itself into the hands of an elite. They have, however, willingly accepted a tyrant, usually because the tyrant in question was a military hero or the Friend of the People.It's not a voluntary transition, but it can happen, especially in environments where the government is already in flux. Remember that the Russian Revolution started with the Tsar being deposed and replaced by a parliament (democracy); for about six months Russia had the most liberal legal code in the world. Then one of the political parties staged a coup and replaced the democracy with a de facto oligarchy.


So you bring in MI with ATGMs. They face off with a tank which mounts jammers, spoofers, reactive armor, computer-guided point-defense lasers or rail guns .. you name it. It's conceivable that they could take it down, but you'd either need saturation fire or some other way to knock the defenses off-line. An EMP, perhaps? But won't that foul up your own electronics, too?So... tanks are immune to infantry-portable antitank weapons now, but MI aren't, so MI are inferior to tanks? That strikes me as a marked reversal of the current status quo. For all we know, tanks are likely to become obsolete soon because they're just too easy to kill... in which case there's a lot to be said for something armored to survive fragmentation weaponry but able to use cover and concealment better than tanks.
________


Check me on this, but in the modern world isn't urban warfare one of the main reasons you want infantry? IIRC, the Russians sent tanks into Grozny during the First Chechen War, and they were wasted in droves.Urban warfare is bad for MI only in the same scenario where it's bad for, say, Army Rangers. If they get trapped in a Mogadishu-like scenario where they're vastly outnumbered and surrounded and the enemy has enough AA capability to make extraction impossible, they die... but so would anything else.

If the urban area isn't saturated with troops and MANPADs, if the MI have the advantage of operational surprise (which they're likely to, because they come in from outer space and you don't have much warning before they arrive)... different story.
_________


Now I'm curious. What other roles might they have? Interested in your thoughts. MI also replace air cavalry and fast-moving light mechanized forces; they're arguably a cross between those two unit types.

They can drop on a target area and lay down firepower up to and including nuclear bombardment with the infantry advantages of long loiter times and a steady firing platform. Once they've done so, they can then retreat faster than anything but aircraft can pursue, break contact with the enemy, get picked up by a dropship, and repeat.

This makes them good for high-speed mechanized raids aimed at causing as much destruction and confusion in the enemy's rear as possible, and pulling out before the enemy can bring together enough heavy weapons to stop the raiders.

In fact, we see exactly such a raid in the first chapter of Starship Troopers. We can compare the attack on the "Skinny" city to the "thunder runs" staged in Baghdad by the 3rd Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade Combat Team during the recent Iraq war.

Of course, in a realistic modern/near-future setting, the MI would have been screwed if the Skinnies had had bunches of guys with rocket launchers scattered all over the city and man-portable antiair weapons on the rooftops- the same force mix would be a problem for helicopter gunships or mechanized raiders, too. But remember the strategic context of fighting MI. They can show up anywhere at a few hours' notice... that level of civil defense isn't going to be applied everywhere.

[Construct]

So... tanks are immune to infantry-portable antitank weapons now, but MI aren't, so MI are inferior to tanks? That strikes me as a marked reversal of the current status quo. For all we know, tanks are likely to become obsolete soon because they're just too easy to kill... in which case there's a lot to be said for something armored to survive fragmentation weaponry but able to use cover and concealment better than tanks....that has limited endurance, limited payload, and a heavy weapon that costs a bomb. Even the book (inadvertently, in the climactic battle) points out the shortcomings of having an armoured force optimised solely for raiding. :smallwink:


Of course, in a realistic modern/near-future setting, the MI would have been screwed if the Skinnies had had bunches of guys with rocket launchers scattered all over the city and man-portable antiair weapons on the rooftops- the same force mix would be a problem for helicopter gunships or mechanized raiders, too. But remember the strategic context of fighting MI. They can show up anywhere at a few hours' notice... that level of civil defense isn't going to be applied everywhere.Good thing it would only take a handful of missile launchers or beam emplacements to take out the incoming drop capsules, then. :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

Thats why the capsules are launched with lots of dummy capsules, and countermeasures.

[Dervag]

...that has limited endurance, limited payload, and a heavy weapon that costs a bomb. Even the book (inadvertently, in the climactic battle) points out the shortcomings of having an armoured force optimised solely for raiding. :smallwink:Yes. It's not a perfect fighting force all by itself. It's just a reasonably effective fighting force, one that is flexible enough not to be completely crippled by its own limitations. It would be more effective when combined with other tactics (orbital fire support, AFVs tougher than an MI suit, et cetera), so it's not an instant "you win" button. But it's not a "ha-ha, you suck" button, either.


Good thing it would only take a handful of missile launchers or beam emplacements to take out the incoming drop capsules, then. :smalltongue:What hamishspence said; an MI drop attempts to recreate the same problems that make effective defense against an ICBM attack difficult: you don't just have to counter the actual threat, but also all the decoys and chaff and jammers and crap that get thrown at you along with the missile strike.

Might also be a good idea to detonate a few large, high-altitude nuclear airbursts above the drop zone to screw with targeting radars.

[Foeofthelance]

Hmm, I think the tank vs. armored infantry argument is spiraling into a simple matter of, "Oh yeah, what if I do this?!" while ignoring the fact that there's a reason we still use both tanks and infantry. They're meant for entirely different roles on the battlefield. The MI, as pointed out, are skirmishers. They raid, then retreat. Maybe they get assigned to holding a specific position after its taken. They do patrols. Tanks are line busters. They take and hold the position until someone shows up to relieve them. You throw them at hard points because they're heavy enough to carry armor and a gun big enough to crack a hard point.

But comparing the two is kind of silly, at least in my opinion. Sure, you can add all those nifty point defenses, radar jammers, and what not to a tank. That just makes the tank bigger, which means a bigger power plant, more fuel for said power plant, and more armor. Being bigger means it also needs more point defenses... Eventually you end up with Bolos, which aren't exactly something you can deploy for a smash and grab, let alone leaving your cities standing once its done defending them.

And the same goes for the infantry. Sure, you can try and give them a bigger gun to crack that tank. Mind you, that generally also means a heavier gun and heavier ammo (as well as quite possibly a lot less), which means eventually you have to develop the exo-skeletons they're working on so the poor bastard doesn't have to carry it all himself. Of course, if you're going to put the guy in an exo-skeleton you might as well add to the armor, and if its powerful enough, maybe some extra systems... Eventually you end up with battlemechs and mobile suits, or possible MI and ACS, depending on how close to the original mission the army ends up sticking to.

It is a rather circular battle...

[Dervag]

Yeah.

As I see it, the MI are what happen when you take modern infantry forces and try to 'upgrade' them to carry more of everything- bigger and more powerful weapons, more sensors and communication equipment, and so on. We've already just about hit the limit of how much crap you can pile into a soldier's backpack without making him into a turtle, and miniaturizing some of the equipment only frees up so much space for new equipment.

So there's a natural niche for a strength-enhancing exoskeleton and really effective personal body armor that can stop antipersonnel weapons reliably. It's a fairly logical development. Some of the more exotic stuff like being able to jump over buildings is questionable, but the basic concept is sound.

And if you have the technical capability to build MI suits that can run and jump at great speeds, then you have an added advantage: MI replaces light cavalry. That's light cavalry in the modern sense, by the way- we're talking mechanized forces here, not horse archers. They don't replace heavy cavalry (tank units) and they probably don't fully replace infantry because of the sheer cost per unit, but they fit well into a battlefield as long as you don't get truly stupid about using them.

Moreover, they'll adapt to other roles well enough that an imperfect military, one that makes actual mistakes instead of always doing whatever the reader thinks is the ideal choice in hindsight, may get mixed up and (falsely) assume that the MI can do everything well. They can't, but if you hum a few bars they can fake it, which means that the non-MI arms may well degenerate in a real army that doesn't have to fight a serious war for a while.

[RecklessFable]

A similar balance of power as occurred with naval warfare. Eventually airplanes (analogous to MI) were able to carry weapons that could destroy a battleship (analogous to tanks).

So as long as the weaponry is light enough and powerful enough that a small mobile unit can carry it, there is no need for the bulk of a large mobile unit. If the large mobile units can be developed to have armor/shielding/countermeasures that makes the weapons of the small units impotent, then the balance shifts again.

[Randaethyr]

Sorry to necro a thread for my first post, but I couldn't help it after reading the arguments against the potential effectiveness of the MI from SST.


You are thinking of the MI as an infantry force, when in actuality they are more akin to an armored cavalry or stryker brigrade combat team we actually currently use in the U.S. Army. That is why their armor is described as fast moving and heavily armed and why their dispersement is half a click between each unit, they act as an armored cavalry unit more than as an infantry unit.

[Construct]

You are thinking of the MI as an infantry force, when in actuality they are more akin to an armored cavalry or stryker brigrade combat team we actually currently use in the U.S. Army.No, everyone gets that the Mobile Infantry are armoured cavalry of a fashion. The issue was whether the lack of any heavier ground armour made sense given in-universe technology, with the Starship Troopers apologists variously arguing that the power armour made the latter unnecessary if not downright inferior in all situations. At least I think that was what was being argued; I could swear the goalposts moved several times in that section of the thread alone. :smalltongue:

[pendell]

Correct; RAH had originally written the book with powered armor being *the* ground side force -- no tanks, nothing else, because uber powered armor pwns them all!!!1!!

I argued that RAH was overstating the capability of the system -- that Powered armor made more sense as part of a combined arms system than as *the* one and only weapons system. I don't believe anyone disputed this.

After that we got into the nuts 'n bolts of how exactly armor and infantry could interact in a future world. It was great fun, but realistically it's a question without an answer. Since none of us have the real-world technology, it's easy to whip up fantasy machines which will whip the other guy's fantasy machine. But it was still fun, and I think we agree much more than we disagree.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Killer Angel]

Sorry to necro a thread for my first post, but I couldn't help it after reading the arguments against the potential effectiveness of the MI from SST.


Thread Necromancy is against the forum rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1), but the time limit is one month and an half, so you'll have no problems. If it were a case of necrothread, saying sorry wouldn't have saved you. :smalltongue:

Anyway, the cavalry hystorically was almost always a support unit (well, exceptions exist), while MI is the main force on the battlefield, and they support no one.

[Fri]

So... why don't we now discuss the other version of starship troopers beside the book and the movie? The one that distilled all the action from the book and movie without the politic and over the top gore?

I'm talking about the PG-13 version of starship troopers, Starship Troopers Chronicles, the CGI series. I'm not the only one that loved that series, am I?

[Dervag]

No, everyone gets that the Mobile Infantry are armoured cavalry of a fashion. The issue was whether the lack of any heavier ground armour made sense given in-universe technology, with the Starship Troopers apologists variously arguing that the power armour made the latter unnecessary if not downright inferior in all situations. At least I think that was what was being argued; I could swear the goalposts moved several times in that section of the thread alone. :smalltongue:I believe that I contended:

MI aren't heavy armor, and aren't the best choice for a heavy armor mission. But they can work well enough. Not well, just well enough that you won't lose every single battle. Which means that it can take a long time for an army to realize that they have a dangerous lack of heavy armor, especially if they're fighting in an environment that rewards them for being highly mobile (which heavy armor isn't).

So if you accept the notion of a "reality" that underlies the author's intent, you can imagine the following "reality" of Starship Troopers warfare:

Historically, antitank guided missiles got good enough that large tanks became obsolete, at least temporarily until someone figured out how to build point defense. "Tanks" are now thought of much as people in the 1800s would have thought of "siege engines": an obsolete concept, because who bothers to build machines specifically for assaulting fortifications? Little did people in the 1800s realize that their descendants would have to reinvent the siege engine to deal with the trenches of World War One...

Anyway, the result was a battlefield dominated by infantry, with any armored fighting vehicles hanging well back. Since nothing the size of a tank could get close to the front without taking a Javelin and blowing apart, someone had to figure out how to make infantry as survivable and well armed as possible without sacrificing their ability to use cover and concealment to avoid being picked out and targeted by heavy weapons. Which is where the MI came from.

Of course, the MI suits are not ideal for high-intensity conflict. They're great at strategic mobility, but if they stay in one place, sooner or later they'll get swarmed by infantry with antitank weapons. So the MI has serious trouble dealing with the Bugs in pitched battles. That may be one of the reasons they lost on Klendathu. A larger number of lesser-armed infantry might have been a better choice there.

But the MI suits are tough enough that even though they are armored cavalry, they can do the missions of infantry and armor... just not as well as dedicated infantry or armor at the same tech level would. They work well enough that the Federation can fool itself into thinking that they don't need a large army of infantry, which they are already predisposed to think for social reasons. And they stand a credible chance of winning the war, despite the disadvantages of their forces, possibly because the Bugs have similar disadvantages.

[Skorj]

Correct; RAH had originally written the book with powered armor being *the* ground side force -- no tanks, nothing else, because uber powered armor pwns them all!!!1!!

I argued that RAH was overstating the capability of the system -- that Powered armor made more sense as part of a combined arms system than as *the* one and only weapons system. I don't believe anyone disputed this.

Most of Heinlein's writing consisted of taking some idea about technology and/or society, and running with it to the logical extremes. People routinely criticise him for having such extreme beliefs (unfairly IMO), when the point of most of his stories was: "if we take this idea as far as it can go, look at the interesting story we can tell". Not "we take this idea as far as it can go, because it's just that good".

Just because an author creates an extreme society, doesn't mean he sees it either as a utopia or distopia. Just because an auther explores a military tactic taken to an extreme doesn't mean he seriously thinks it would be the best (or worst) way to build an army.

The amazing thing about the MI is that they work pretty darn well when taken to the extreme of being the only ground force. Clearly not optimal, but surprisingly better than an all-tank, or all-infantry, or all-helicopter force would today. That's what makes it fascinating.

[Randaethyr]

I agree that being a light armor cavalry strike group only force (My interpretation of their TTPs) would not be conducive to sustained combat. You can't take and hold a built up area without actual light infantry.

That would probably be their weakest area. Now the force set up from the cartoon would probably be the best set up, a mix of light and armored Mobile Infantry/ Cavalry. Each MI companies MTOE being combined MI suits and light infantry to fight in built up areas. The MI suits taking from both light cav capabilities and light infantry capabilities; Or being an evolved form of Shock Infantry akin to the 75thRR.