My work colleague is correct. The movie "Starship Troopers" bears little resemblance to Robert Heinlein's book, which is the narrative of man who joined up for 'Federal Service' to find himself in the Mechanised Infantry (MI).
Unlike the movie, there's no sex or graphic violence. Although women are in service, they're not in the MI, and there's certainly no mixed showering as was depicted in one memorable scene.
In Heinlein's fictitious society, the only way to gain a voting franchise (gain 'citizenship') is to enlist for 'Federal Service' for minimum term of two years. 'Federal Service' can be anything the government wants you to do, but in the book it seems that most volunteers do some sort of military service. Only a small percentage of the population enlist, and many fewer complete the obligation that ultimately allows them to vote.
Society is run by an authoritarian government where corporal and capital punishment is allowed, crime is almost unheard of, and the disenfranchised 'non-citizen' population is affluent and content under the rule of the ex Federal Service elite. This situation comes about after global wars destroyed most world governments, and the military veterans found themselves in control. Rather than cede power to a democracy with universal suffrage, they decided that only people like themselves possessed the necessary skills and should be eligible to vote.
Apparently Starship Troopers was written after the US government banned atmospheric atomic weapons testing. Heinlein vehemently disagreed with this move and wrote the book soon after. I suppose it was written to convey his social theories describing how things would be run and how well off we'd be if only 'no nonsense,' clear thinking, ex military types were in charge.
Although Heinlein goes to a lot of effort to justify the philosophy of his social model, I can't help thinking that it's flawed.
Regardless of the ruling classes' life experiences, power concentrated in the hands of a few will eventually corrupt. No differently to many corrupt military regimes both past and present.
In summary, it's not a bad book, but the movie was more entertaining.
