[James cannot read this. Banjo has always provided deep thought. Here he is.]

James,

Today I watched a video taken from a drone dropping a bomb onto a tank, killing one person that was with his head above the hatch. The tank then moved away so not everyone was killed and the tank was not disabled for whatever that is worth. The same day I saw another video of a guy in arizona running heavy machinery remotely via computer. The machinery looked to be doing strip mining or some similar task.

So why run a tank via manpower? Why run any war machinery with manpower. Why not run it all remotely? I'm sure there are some logistical reasons like small localized emp attacks or something but put that aside for this question.

Now consider this quote from McCarthy's Blood Meridian: (or listen at

"The good book says that he that lives by the sword shall perish by the sword, said the black.

The judge smiled, his face shining with grease. What right man would have it any other way? he said.

The good book does indeed count war an evil, said Irving. Yet there's many a bloody tale of war inside it.

It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way.

He turned to Brown, from whom he'd heard some whispered slur or demurrer. Ah, Davy, he said. It's your own trade we honor here. Why not rather take a small bow. Let each acknowledge each.

My trade?

Certainly.

What is my trade?

War. War is your trade. Is it not?

And it ain't yours?

Mine too. Very much so.

What about all them notebooks and bones and stuff?

All other trades are contained in that of war.

Is that why war endures?

No. It endures because young men love it and old men love it in them. Those that fought, those that did not.

That's your notion.

The judge smiled. Men are born for games. Nothing else. Every child knows that play is nobler than work. He knows too that the worth or merit of a game is not inherent in the game itself but rather in the value of that which is put at hazard. Games of chance require a wager to have meaning at all. Games of sport involve the skill and strength of the opponents and the humiliation of defeat and the pride of victory are in themselevs sufficient stake because they inhere in the worth of the principals and define them. But trial of chance or trial of worth all games aspire to the condition of war for here that which is wagered swallows up game, player, all.

Suppose two men at cards with nothing to wager save their lives. Who has not heard such a tale? A turn of the card. The whole universe for such a player has labored clanking to this moment which will tell if he is to die at that man's hand or that man at his. What more certain validation of a man's worth could there be? This enhancement of the game to its ultimate state admits no argument concerning the notion of fate. The selection of one man over another is a preference absolute and irrevocable and it is a dull man indeed who could reckon so profound a decision without agency or significance either one. In such games as have for their stake the annihilation of the defeated the decisions are quite clear. This man holdgin this particular arrangement of cards in his hand is thereby removed from existence. This is the nature of war, whose stake is at once the game andthe authority and the justification. Seen so, war is the truest form of divination. It is the testing of one's will and the will of another within that larger will which because it binds them is therefore forced to select. War is the ultimate game because war is at least a forcing of the unity of existence. War is god. "

So let us suppose that war endures. It is evident that games of chance are defined not by the game but by what is wagered. A bet on roulette odd or even for a dollar will not garner any attention. The same bet for a million will attract a crowd of lookyloos. Same bet, different wager.

To War

If war becomes increasingly a remotely performed task what is wagered? What can be won? Taken to an absurd level it would be similar to the program from the 90s "Battle Bots" in which robots were made gladiatorial contestants. While it went for a number of seasons even the public grew weary of the battles and it was canceled.

Here are a couple things that might happen.

Militaries are a few men that are genetically, chemically enhanced and use bionic suits to increase strength etc like the old Japanese cartoons of the man in a huge robot suit that fought other robot suit men. The rest of the military will be at home on their couch or in a strip mall spot next to a slave labor nail salon, running drones in Ukraine, Taiwan or wherever. But again this continues to diminish the wager. Who cares if 6 million drones were shot down? No one. But the public must care, they must be forced into caring, their wager must be increased purposefully to keep making money via the war machine. One possibility is that war becomes focused on taking out infrastructure, geoengineering droughts and crop failures, attacking financial infrastructure and ultimately causing the most amount of chaos to the civilians.

Venturing a guess here but the tech has probably been here for decades to remotely run war machines but tptb have to consider that they need men to die to keep the wager up. Just like the tech for self checkouts at retail stores has been here for a couple decades but was never rolled out because it would raise unemployment and robots don't buy loofas. But now they are rolled out as the population declines and there aren't enough workers.

So what do you think? In an age of robotics how will humans be forced to ante up or wager something of real value? Or how will they be forced to believe they have skin in the game?

Banjo