Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/43959
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/43959
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

What makes a battle scene tense and visceral is the immediate danger and the fast-paced action and reaction. For that, the human soldier needs to be on the battlefield, in the action.

Here's the problem though: as technology advances, we move soldiers away from the battlefield, if we can. As an example, once we had ace pilots. Now, instead of aircraft vs. aircraft dogfights, there's anti-aircraft missiles, and anti-missile missiles, and drones so the pilot needn't be in the cockpit at all. (I am well aware that soldiers are still present on the modern battleground. I'm looking at the direction we're going - not saying we've reached it yet.)

Once, we'd write stories about aliens landing on earth (or us landing on an alien planet), and then there would be fighting on the ground. Now, why wouldn't the planet shoot the unwanted spaceship before it ever entered atmosphere? (Again, an example of a problem, not necessarily the particular problem I'm trying to solve.)

Many horror stories start with some contrived something making it so the phones (including mobile phones) don't work, because if they did, there would be no story. _How_ to contrive a similar excuse for why boots are needed on the ground is a question better suited for [Worldbuilding. SE](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/). But here's a question for this SE: **should we even contrive this excuse for soldiers' presence on the battlefield, or should this situation be abandoned? Are we stuck telling yesterday's stories, beating a dead horse?** Does the contrived excuse stick out, boring the reader, however it is executed? Or is the horse not dead yet?

Original score: 4