Thursday, September 21, 2017

Cordwainer Smith: "War No. 81-Q"

Cordwainer Smith
"War No. 81-Q"
from The Rediscovery of Man


In the future, humanity has progressed to the point that, while they can not completely eliminate war, they have restrained it sufficiently, at least in most cases, so that it has become harmless and a game telecast on TV, a spectator sport.  War No. 81-Q is an example of this new type of war.

America believes that it has a valid complaint against Tibet and has applied for  a license to conduct a limited or "safe" war.

"The Universal War Board granted a war permit, subject to strict and clear conditions.

1.  The war was to be fought only at the times and places specified.

2.  No human being was to be killed or injured, directly or indirectly, by any performance of the machines of war.  Emotional injury was not be be considered.

3.  An  appropriate territory was to be leased and cleared.  Provisions should be made for the maximum removal of wildlife,  particularly birds, which might be hurt by the battle.

4.  The weapons were to be winged dirigibles with a maximum weight of 22,000 tons, propelled by non-nuclear engines.

5.  All radio channels were to be strictly monitored by the U. W. B. and by both parties.  At any complaint of jamming or interference the war was to be brought to a halt.


6.   Each dirigible should have six non-explosive missiles and thirty non-explosive countermissiles.

7.  The U. W. B. was to intercept and to destroy all stray missiles and real weapons before the missiles left the war zone, and each party, regardless of the outcome of  the war, was to pay he U. W. B. directly for the interception and destruction of stray missiles.

8.  No living human beings were to be allowed on the ships, in the war zone, or on the communications equipment which relayed the war to the world's television.

9.  The 'stipulated territory' was to be the War Territory of Kerguelen,  to be leased by both parties from the Fourteenth French Republic, as agent for Federated Europe, at the price of four million gold livres the hour.

10.  Seating for the war, apart from video rights belonging to the combatants, should remain the sole property of the lessor of the War Territory of Kerguelen.

With these arrangements, the French off-lifted their sheep from the island ranges of Kerguelen--the weary sheep were getting thoroughly used to being lifted from their grazing land to Antarctic lighters every time a war occurred. . . "


As you probably guessed from the list of limitations, no humans were placed in jeopardy.  The actual fighting was confined to remote radio-controlled dirigibles, the drones of their day, I guess.  Dirigibles were chosen because they moved slowly enough to be visible on TV screens (always an important issue) but complex enough to require real skill to operate.   The war was fought in a confined space with spectators.  Non-explosive missiles were used for obvious reasons.   I am reminded of the games in the Roman Coliseum, only less bloody.

Each side had five dirigibles.  The limited number of ships reduced the advantages that large and prosperous countries had over smaller and possibly poorer countries.  That a country with a large population would have a greater pool from which to find skillful pilots was still an advantage, although mitigated by the rules which allowed for the hiring of mercenaries.  

.The Americans, confident in their pilot, elected for the one-pilot rule.  Therefore, Jack Reardon, a very skillful pilot, would control all five dirigibles in the contest against the five pilots controlling the Tibetan ships.  It was a risk, but the advantage was this:  in this type of contest, all the one pilot had to do was down only two of the enemy ships to be victorious, regardless of the number of ships he had left. 

A brief introduction indicates that this situation lasted for a few centuries only.  When the population reached thirty billion, war stopped being a game and once again became real--an interesting commentary on the role of war, I think.


18 comments:

  1. What is it about human beings that makes wars inevitable (and necessary)? Ancient literatures and histories are full of examples. The ending of your highlighted story intrigues me: full scale war (with deaths) was inevitable in spite of rational options devised and tried. Is the author suggesting something about our hard-wired bellicosity? Sad but true, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We're an easily led aggressive species with a seemingly insatiable desire for more. Given that background war is, I'm afraid, inevitable.

      Delete
    2. CyberKitten--unfortunately, history seems to prove that you're absolutely right.

      Delete
  2. R.T.--yes, when the population reached 30 billion, they dropped the game format and returned to real war. The implication was that something had to be done about overcrowding, etc., and war was the solution.

    Even during the Game Period, real war was always an option, but the countries preferred to Game format. At the beginning of the story, America had threatened to go to a real war against China in order to free Tibet. China backed down and freed Tibet. Tibet then double-crossed America shortly afterwards, which is what precipitated this game war. America elected to go the game route.

    ReplyDelete
  3. i've read several by CS, but not this one... maybe i'll check it out... interesting post choice compared to your last one...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mudpuddle--what do you find especially interesting?

      It's one of his early ones. I have the complete collection and the stories are arranged in order of publication. His stories are well worth reading.

      Delete
    2. just the difference between Durrell's fractured world and Smith's global cyberwar; although come to think of it, there as many similarities as differences...

      Delete
    3. Mudpuddle--yes, it's still a fractured world, isn't it? And still betrayals and suffering.

      Delete
  4. This seems so creative and is an intriguing idea. I have thought about similar scenarios myself. If only we could fight "wars" like this now!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We can! Just imagine a real war fought using Call of Duty? Entertainment plus no actual carnage.... [lol]

      Delete
    2. Brian Joseph--I read somewhere long ago that the Olympics was an attempt to do just that.

      Some forms of sport seem to be more or less controlled warfare--hockey, soccer, rugby, football. . .

      There's always chess. . .

      Delete
    3. CyberKitten--sometimes in my bleaker moods I suspect that the carnage is absolutely necessary.

      Delete
    4. Warfare does seem to be something we are built for - and we are very, very good at it. I sometimes wonder if the planet is a training ground and we're going to be the vital element in saving the Galaxy at some point from some *really* nasty invaders.

      Delete
    5. CyberKitten--I think I read an SF novel with that very premise. Can't remember author or title, though.

      E.E. (Doc) Smith's Lensman series has a variant of that theme, wherein some humans become the proxies for the good aliens to use against the baddies and their proxies.

      Delete
    6. Smith seemed very prescient about Cold War proxie wars.... considering her was writing in the 1930's. I think his books where the first place I came across human 'computers'.... (that just flashed into my head for some reason).

      Delete
    7. CyberKitten--human computers? I'm not sure what you mean by that. AIs?

      Delete
    8. The very first computers where human beings who were *really* good at maths. The machines we know as computers where named after them. Smith used human computers (if memory serves) as navigators on his spaceships as they zipped around the Galaxy.

      Delete
    9. CyberKitten--OK. Don't remember those in the Lensman series, but I don't remember machine computers either. Heinlein had a short story in which spatial navigation was performed by a math genius, if I remember correctly.

      Delete