History Headscratchers / StarshipTroopers

** Look at it from the other angle. If our modern political systems had restrictions on exactly who could vote (and who could be voted for), some problems might just clear themselves up. Don't let the film confuse you. . . the government Heinlein was talking about wasn't a jingoistic military dictatorship brainwashing people to follow their ideals. His idea was that voting and political service were power, and power without responsibility will ''always'' be misused. Thus, the only people who should have power (the ability to vote or run for office) are those who have proven they have the responsibility to wield that power well. If real-life modern politicians (and voters, for that matter) had a greater sense of responsibility about their power, it's safe to say it would be lot easier to get things done.

*** In 2015, a blatantly-obvious prosthesis isn't usually a status symbol ("I served and was wounded, ergo I'm a citizen and to be honored."), so they're built to be more lifelike.

** Due to the coffee tilting at the distance they first noticed it, the asteroid had an impressive gravity field; if they fired the thrusters too early then they'd fall into the gravity field, too late and they slam side-long into the asteroid at full speed. They had to wait for the right moment to fire the thrusters and curve around the asteroid in a slingshot, much like the ending to the movie Armageddon

** There is mention in the book that "federal service" allows one to become a full citizen and get the right to vote, not just military service. What sort service qualifies one for a vote and what doesn't is a point of debate among the books readership. Also mentioned is that anyone who can understand the oath qualifies for service and can earn their franchise. The government is required to find duties they can perform and allow them a reasonable opportunity to earn their citizenship, even if it's just busy work. So the voters are not all combat veterans.

*** It depends from the model and their use. B1 battle droids (the ones without rank markings introduced in the first prequel) ''are'' shit, but are made to take on blaster-less primitives with ridicolous numerical superiority and invulnerability (they were giving the Gungan a hard time in spite of the 'boomas' being able to wreck them), and later models react to the lack of a control signal by killing everyone who is not in their 'to spare' list instead than deactivating. The OOM-series (those with markings) had decent smarts and would have been a capable opponent against most infantry, but costed too much and was relegated to either piloting or jobs where their opponents were Jedi. Droideka models are all-but undefeatable in closed environments thanks to the combination of rapid-firing blasters and shields capable of taking most blaster fire (including their own, to the Jedi's dismay), and can be deployed in groups to cover for their vulnerable behinds (they still excel in closed environments as security when lethal force is authorized, though). And the B2 (the armored ones introduced in ''Attack of the Clones''), being a B1 with sligthly better intelligence and much superior armour (capable to take a few shots from their own weapons, at least) and rate of fire, are something you don't want to fight unless you have ''big'' blasters, and can take on both Clonetroopers (they will lose, but the troopers will learn they are in a fight), stormtroopers (same as the clonetroopers), ''Wookie'' (they won the first battle), Jedi (unless the Jedi is near enough to get into melee range, he's toast), and Yuuzhan Vong bio-mecha (they won).

** I would agree that "based on the cover of a book" is overly charitable. "Actively undermining the point of the book" is closer to the mark.

** This is more of a film editing issue. The events that have taken place show the passage of time. Consider the statement, "Boots pretty tough, sometimes I think I won't make it" in the video letter for example. That doesn't sound like something a person would say after a week.

** Secondly, yes the book does promote the idea that if you're not willing to sacrifice your limbs, or even your life, for your society, you don't deserve to have a say in how it is run. If you want to read literature that exactly conforms to the values of say, the average New York Times reader, then don't read Heinlein. Personally one of the things I like about Heinlein is that he often explicitly disagrees with my values. He doesn't necessarily convince me (he rather handwaves the argument for that idea in the book by just asserting that it works pretty well in his SF story, just like assserting that FTL travel works pretty well), but personally I find it refreshing to have my assumptions challenged.

* The books political system never made any sense to me. The only people who are allowed to vote are the ones who have performed military service? So the ruling party has essentially ensured that it will never be voted out, because the only people who can oust them are likely to either agree with everything they do, or die before they get a chance to vote at all? And this is a GOOD thing? Not to mention there's that whole "taxation without representation" thing that's a big deal in some places. It seems a lot like the book promotes the idea that if you arent willing to get yourself mutilated for it, you dont deserve to have a say in how your society is run.

*** OP here, thanks for that. That part of the movie always bugged me.

** It's called anti-war and anti-military because 1) it doesn't show any actual division between the military and fascism, 2) it portrays the majority of the military as callous, vicious, stupid, or some combination thereof, 3) the director said it's an anti-war movie and that he thinks Heinlen was a fascist.
** It's anti-jingoist and anti-authoritarian, maybe anti-fascist, if you assume certain values of fascism that the movie didn't make clear. But on plain military tropes, it portrays virtues like courage and self-sacrifice, as well as the intense comradeship that develops between brothers in arms. I could see people being drawn to military service by the film -- just not the find where you get torn apart by bugs.

** They probably do, but this was something taken from the book. In the book, the recruiter is similarly crippled and takes applications exactly like that. Immediately after he clocks out for the day, he puts on prosthetics that work perfectly and explains to Rico that he goes without them while on the job so that potential recruits know ''exactly'' what they're getting themselves into, as a way to weed out the squeamish.

* So we see robotic hands that seem to work as well as human hands. When we see the soldier that processes Rico and Carmen's paperwork at the beginning of the movie, he has no legs. So no robotic legs in the future?

** No. Carmen decided to stay with Rico when they were going off to not see each other for two years, maximum. She decided it wasn't going to work out when she decided she wanted to go career.