This video analyzing more advanced forms of technological warfare is very informative and provides multiple examples representing the values present during this time. The development of the radio as a long distance form of communication and form of control was a good advancement to focus on when examining the main image of a radio controlled tank. You made multiple interesting points regarding the idea behind these robotic forms of warfare. One comment that I particularly liked was when you said that even in a futuristic utopian society, robots would fight to save human lives as opposed to the idea of world peace. I had not thought of that and it helped open my eyes to the flaws associated with these aspirations. Also, the connection to current robotic warfare such as the MQ9 Reaper helped the viewer understand that these predictions are becoming a reality. One improvement that you could make to your video is to discuss the average american opinion on these bold predictions to give a little more cultural context. This video was executed very well and allowed the viewer to gain a much better understanding for the reasoning behind these technological warfare predictions.
This slidecast is a very engaging presentation of the development of technological warfare. I particularly liked how it began with futuristic ideas of gigantic battling robots in the 1930s and unmanned machines to establish context regarding society’s values and aspirations as they projected into the future. You did an excellent job highlighting how advancements in radio communication provided hope that there is unlimited potential for warfare technology in the future. It was very interesting to see that as we look back and reflect on the visions of the past, we have come a long way in terms of the powerful tanks, aircraft, and other weapons that are utilized today, however they are not exactly what people had envisioned back in the 1930s. As you pointed out, we do not have gigantic unmanned robots that shoot flames to destroy its enemies. This comes to show how limited society’s perspective can be when imagining the future, which further emphasizes how our world is constantly evolving. I really enjoyed the second to last slide where you drove your point home that though futuristic visions of technological warfare can be possible from a technical standpoint, they may not be realistic on the battlefield. I think adding a clip or two portraying how these technologies are operated will also clearly demonstrate to the viewer the distinction between the futuristic visions and reality.
You presented this information very well in terms of images and content. Your pronunciation was clear and you engaged the viewer with your expertise and interest in the topic. Great job!
This presentation really started off well and was really engaging because it could have gone in so many directions. It is interesting that even at that time people were thinking of how to take humans out of war. It seems obvious thinking about it, but it did not occur to me as much because the propaganda from the era showed so much pride in warfare. As talked about in books like “All Quiet on the Western Front”, the soldiers themselves seemed to be the only ones who thought that the idea of going to war because their leaders wanted them to was really crazy and stupid.
I like the idea that people even then were thinking of the idea of mutually assured destruction, and if the flame tank had worked I think it would have satisfied that goal because it is a machine on the ground which can be used on soldiers rather than a massive bomb. With the destructive power of today’s nuclear weapons, MAD seems to only stop the use of those weapons, but it has not stopped warfare itself.
I also like your look into current technology. I wonder when the switch to using the technology to control cars rather than tanks began to take off. Overall, a really interesting presentation that left me a lot to think about.
I think the format of this presentation was set up extremely well. I really enjoyed how you started off describing the futuristic technology that people during that time period imagined. By doing this it allowed us to see what values people during that time wanted to have incorporated into their machinery such as: less human intervention in warfare equipment. Also, it shows how people pretty much hated the aspects of war such as people getting killed but they still thought that war was something that was inevitable to happen in the world. I really liked your line about how people, during that time, saw these “utopian views saw a war with no deaths instead of a world without war.” Having this viewpoint emphasizes how strong people’s desires were for control .
Also, I believe this format was very well executed because it shows us how many feasible technological systems that we still have today that these people wanted during their time period and how many of them were not feasible. It is very interesting to see that contrast because it makes me think what the future is now in warfare. In addition, I think their fascination of automation in warfare was very interesting to mention because we still have the same fascination with automation but just for different cultural reasons.
This video analyzing more advanced forms of technological warfare is very informative and provides multiple examples representing the values present during this time. The development of the radio as a long distance form of communication and form of control was a good advancement to focus on when examining the main image of a radio controlled tank. You made multiple interesting points regarding the idea behind these robotic forms of warfare. One comment that I particularly liked was when you said that even in a futuristic utopian society, robots would fight to save human lives as opposed to the idea of world peace. I had not thought of that and it helped open my eyes to the flaws associated with these aspirations. Also, the connection to current robotic warfare such as the MQ9 Reaper helped the viewer understand that these predictions are becoming a reality. One improvement that you could make to your video is to discuss the average american opinion on these bold predictions to give a little more cultural context. This video was executed very well and allowed the viewer to gain a much better understanding for the reasoning behind these technological warfare predictions.
This slidecast is a very engaging presentation of the development of technological warfare. I particularly liked how it began with futuristic ideas of gigantic battling robots in the 1930s and unmanned machines to establish context regarding society’s values and aspirations as they projected into the future. You did an excellent job highlighting how advancements in radio communication provided hope that there is unlimited potential for warfare technology in the future. It was very interesting to see that as we look back and reflect on the visions of the past, we have come a long way in terms of the powerful tanks, aircraft, and other weapons that are utilized today, however they are not exactly what people had envisioned back in the 1930s. As you pointed out, we do not have gigantic unmanned robots that shoot flames to destroy its enemies. This comes to show how limited society’s perspective can be when imagining the future, which further emphasizes how our world is constantly evolving. I really enjoyed the second to last slide where you drove your point home that though futuristic visions of technological warfare can be possible from a technical standpoint, they may not be realistic on the battlefield. I think adding a clip or two portraying how these technologies are operated will also clearly demonstrate to the viewer the distinction between the futuristic visions and reality.
You presented this information very well in terms of images and content. Your pronunciation was clear and you engaged the viewer with your expertise and interest in the topic. Great job!
This presentation really started off well and was really engaging because it could have gone in so many directions. It is interesting that even at that time people were thinking of how to take humans out of war. It seems obvious thinking about it, but it did not occur to me as much because the propaganda from the era showed so much pride in warfare. As talked about in books like “All Quiet on the Western Front”, the soldiers themselves seemed to be the only ones who thought that the idea of going to war because their leaders wanted them to was really crazy and stupid.
I like the idea that people even then were thinking of the idea of mutually assured destruction, and if the flame tank had worked I think it would have satisfied that goal because it is a machine on the ground which can be used on soldiers rather than a massive bomb. With the destructive power of today’s nuclear weapons, MAD seems to only stop the use of those weapons, but it has not stopped warfare itself.
I also like your look into current technology. I wonder when the switch to using the technology to control cars rather than tanks began to take off. Overall, a really interesting presentation that left me a lot to think about.
I think the format of this presentation was set up extremely well. I really enjoyed how you started off describing the futuristic technology that people during that time period imagined. By doing this it allowed us to see what values people during that time wanted to have incorporated into their machinery such as: less human intervention in warfare equipment. Also, it shows how people pretty much hated the aspects of war such as people getting killed but they still thought that war was something that was inevitable to happen in the world. I really liked your line about how people, during that time, saw these “utopian views saw a war with no deaths instead of a world without war.” Having this viewpoint emphasizes how strong people’s desires were for control .
Also, I believe this format was very well executed because it shows us how many feasible technological systems that we still have today that these people wanted during their time period and how many of them were not feasible. It is very interesting to see that contrast because it makes me think what the future is now in warfare. In addition, I think their fascination of automation in warfare was very interesting to mention because we still have the same fascination with automation but just for different cultural reasons.