I would be willing to bet that our author has never seen combat or served in the military. As a liberal and a veteran, it often annoys me when conservative members of the military dismiss sound criticism simply because it comes from someone who has not served. This is not sound criticism.

I operated in a small team that ran extended (2-4 day) missions with limited security. Sometimes there was only one guy posted to watch our backs, he didn't get much sleep, and if he dozed off it could leave us all dead. This has happened, entire teams were wiped out.

The Pentagon's report seems to understand how crucial sleep can be in combat situations. The author doesn't really dispute that fact, but he seems against research on the subject anyway.

I would be right there with the author, criticizing the Pentagon if there was evidence that the research methods were overly aggressive and dangerous; or if new drugs were being rushed into service members hands with insufficient testing. This article doesn't really show evidence of either.

The military RESEARCHING sleep deprivation aids is not the same as ENDORSING the sleep aids service members might use. Besides, what's available in the PX (in my experience) is same stuff that's available at 7-11. You're telling me you can down Red Bull and No-Doz in order to drive all night to get home for Thanksgiving, but I can't take it to keep my team alive in Iraq? Why? Because we're becoming some kind of evil storm trooper that your hippie aunt always warned you about?

I guess we're all supposed to agree that this is just. wrong. No intelligent discussion is required. The article doesn't make any explicit counter-points or introduce new information, it just kind of parrots the report in this sarcastic, condescending tone. It is this kind of commentary that turns veterans against liberals. It pissed me off, and like I said, I'm a liberal.

I am a veteran and a retiree. I take you points. However, what bothers me is this statment:

… Suppose a human could be engineered who slept for the same amount of time as a giraffe (1.9 hours per night). This would lead to an approximately twofold decrease in the casualty rate. An adversary would need an approximately 40 percent increase in the troop level to compensate for this advantage.

You say researching is not the same as endorsing but in my many years in the service I found that what was researched was most often adopted.

It's troubling to me that even a consideration of engineering humans specifically for war is considered. After all, who can object if it reduced casualties? Perhaps the best way to reduce casualties is to think very hard and very clearly before starting a war.

We're entering an age where genetic engineering of humans is going to happen. Some people claim it's already happening. It's not a question of if; it's a question of when and who's going to do it first.

A human who requires less sleep isn't necessarily designed for war. I'd love to only need 2 hours of sleep a night. I don't know anyone who doesn't complain that there's just not enough hours in the day.

Requiring less sleep would give people a huge advantage regardless of their vocation. Think of what Franklin, Edison, or Einstein could have accomplished in their lives with an extra 6 hours a day. Even if the extra time is used for R&R; it would increase their performance while working due to lower stress levels and being more rested.

"Perhaps the best way to reduce casualties is to think very hard and very clearly before starting a war." Sounds like a political dig, not a comment on the article.

What if "somebody else" started the war...then would it be OK?

I agree wholeheartedly with the original poster. This article was skewed anti-military from the start, and his snarky tone IS annoying.

If it was stated in the report that the military wanted to engineer soldiers so we could start more wars or whatever, I'd say "yeah, that's wrong" - but it doesn't. It addresses a real issue. If I was stuck over there and having to do battle, I think I'd appreciate the research and be popping pills like crazy if they'd help save my ass. This is research to supplement a soldier while on the battlefield, not full-time...

I disagree with Iraq, but I don't disagree with looking at problems and researching solutions.

It seems to me that no one has started a war that directly involved the US since about 1939.

I still find the idea of people engineered to fight wars troubling. One wouldn't be able to wait until a war started to engineer warriors. They would have to be created first and that makes war all the more likely. Would you like an entire class of people engineered specifically to be better warriors sitting around with nothing to do? I think our founders were concerned about a standing army of unengineered people. We're treading dangerous waters when we start creating a warrior class, something that is already underway in this country.

The problem with the poster immediately before you is that while he may like to be engineered to sleep only 2 hours a night, such engineering would likely have to happen before birth. Is it moral to engineer a person without their consent? If there is a class of people who can work 10 hours a day, what happens to those who can't?

One need only look back to an old Twilight Zone to some of the issues that can arise in this brave new world of engineering. <link>

As a veteran I agree with you about doing what it takes to keep soldiers alive.

However, engineering a person who sleeps only 2 hours a night is not something that can be done with popping a pill. I have my concerns about pill popping soldiers anyway, but engineering implies a redesign of the human body, or gentics, not a quick battlefield fix.

If the military were to chose to employ only people who were engineered to sleep 2 hours per night they would quickly build a very elite warrior class. It doesn't take a lot of hard thought to see the pitfalls with that. What if the military identified people before birth for re-engineering? Is that moral? How safe are we with a class of warriors waiting to go to war?

Just some food for thought.

Here's the first paragraph.

You don't have to worry anymore about the possibility of an arms race in pharmaceutical enhancement of combat troops. It's already here.

I don't see what's anti-military about that. The military IS giving soldiers Prozac now so they can return them to duty faster. They are looking a pharmaceuticals that will help them forget battlefield trauma.

All this implies the military trying to develop a soldier specifically to fight long hours with little sleep and no trauma. Sounds good. But what do you do with this person when there is no war? Just send him or her home to work at Wal-Mart? The VA can't support the vets it has now much less offer long term drug support for this class of warrior.

I have issues with a warrior class. I spent 24 years in the military and I see a warrior class already in this country. The average person has not served, has no vested interest in the military and would like to contract that nasty little duty out. Why not develop people specifically to be warriors and then we won't have to worry about fighting, period.

You just don't have to think too long and hard about this scenario to see the pitfalls.

Adrasteia,

IMVHO, the military giving drugs to help soldiers for mental strain for whatever reason is better than the prior alternative of not doing anything at all about it.

And I don't think the army will be engineering soldiers, way too many paranoid people would stop the .gov from doing that. The Rich will be the ones engineering bad traits out of their genome first, and if the commoners are lucky, some of that technology will eventually be used to get rid of their bad traits as well.

I'm not convinced about the Prozac, Bondsman, especially if the goal is, and I have heard tell it is, to return them to duty quickly. Not send them home and give them counseling along with the drugs, but return them to duty. There's not a drug in the world that is going to keep the demons at bay forever.

Once upon a time the US agreed not to militarize space. They still have that agreement in place. I know from my military experience that the US is poised to put weapons in space. The ultimate high ground. Agreements and morality means nothing.

I also disagree that the military would be stopped from engineering soldiers. Talking about it and putting out studies is the first step in making the idea commonplace. Since the vast majority of Americans don't want to serve in the military they will be less than interested if the military "engineers" humans. I'm not saying it will happen tomorrow, but it will happen.

I agree wholeheartedly about not just using Prozac to get soldiers back on duty. On engineering people though, some day soon (soon-ish) we'll likely have the technology to change genes in newly conceived humans. If your child had a gene that would (for example) likely lead to sudden cardiac death, and the technology existed to replace the mutated gene with a good one, wouldn't you take it?

Most people will, regardless of the theory that some bad genes are good overall for the species. I don't think the army will NEED to make future soldiers for future wars. Once people have the technology to do so, we'll all be supermen compared to today's standards... until some virus wipes out everyone.

I’m more worried about the 40,000 people who die every year in traffic accidents than the 4,000 or so total war casualties since the inception of the Middle Eastern wars. Perhaps we could engineer people to drive better? Or we could engineer people to be leaner to avoid obesity caused deaths? Also, I’m against shark caused deaths, so I endorse engineering a more shark repellant human. The moon hinders my sleep as well.

The writer had no point other than to profligate anti-military bigotry.

You make good points but is it moral to engineer people, not for life threatening issues such as cancer, but simply to for monetary or military gain, such as sleeping less? Is it moral to engineer people before they are born, without their consent?

What happens to those who choose or whose parents choose not to have them engineered? If they need a full 8 hours of sleep how can they be competitive?

In one of my earlier posts I linked to an old Twilight Zone where everyone had the opportunity to choose how they will look when they reach 18. One girl does not want to look like every other woman and refuses the procedure. They pressure her and finally do it against her will. In the end, she is so happy with her perfect appearance. Is this what we want and is it moral?

Life threatening genetic alteration aside, I think we would be heading down a very bleak road if we altered people just so they could work longer hours or carry heavier loads.

I for one don't get your point, Ralph. I see nothing anti-military in the article. I read anti-human engineering and particularly in order to cause more deaths in the enemy. Where does that end?

Your post seems to be anti-human engineering but I can't quite figure it out. If you think the military won't try and press every advantage it can you are wrong. They may never actually engineer a human but the research they conduct has applications to the civilian population and to corporations too.