Apparently there was a recent NPR piece on how solders are playing war like it's a videogame. One example cited is the CoD4: MW mission where you're in the AC130. Now, obviously, they made that mission in the game based on the real experience - that was the point.
Here's an article discussing the program:
http://kotaku.com/5514633/the-real-cons ... -virtually
And the actual program:
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/04/09/02
I'll weigh in with my opinion later. What's yours?
Seious topic
Moderator: Moderators
-
XMEN Ashaman DTM
- Inmate
- Posts: 2369
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2000 12:09 am
- Location: Silverdale, WA
My opinion is that "they" have always known that when the people doing the killing are removed from the front line, that the psychology is different.
I've talked to pilots with combat experience. And I've talked with soldiers with combat experience. Heck, Jester could weigh in on this one because he probably knows what I am talking about.
The point is that the pilots had a different experience than soldiers when it comes to ending life. It's more clinical when you are sitting in a vehicle and dropping bombs or strafing. Whereas infantry gets right in there, up close, and very personal. I'd imagine that Jester and other tankers would say a similar thing about shooting folks from their vehicles versus if they were out on foot.
So the extension of the psychology to a "video game" is likely true. But the generals have known about this sort of thing for quite a while. Personally, I side with the generals: whatever it takes to kill the enemy or reduce their will to fight is what is needed. And if I'm a one or two star and I can get a training program and weapons going that increases the ability of my folks to kill, I'm going to use it. People tend to forget that fighting in a war is not pretty, it's not ugly, it's just the way the business is done.
The military's job is to break the oppositions will to fight with overwhelming violence if necessary. If that means killing every enemy in sight, or leveling whole bases/towns/villages, then that's what it means. I heard the NPR piece and was impressed by it because they're stating the truth.
But, it's my opinion that the general population and politicians need to understand the military (and its way of doing business) in order to know when to use it effectively.
My outgoing Commander was an enlisted Marine, though he's now a Navy LCDR, and he probably stated it best: the Marine's job is to go in and kill everything in sight, then ask questions/setup a base. This is why I disagree so strongly with the government's use of the military servicemembers as a police force or in police-like actions around the world. And why I think that the folks that wear lots of brass don't really care so much about our troops "playing war like it's a videogame".
I've talked to pilots with combat experience. And I've talked with soldiers with combat experience. Heck, Jester could weigh in on this one because he probably knows what I am talking about.
The point is that the pilots had a different experience than soldiers when it comes to ending life. It's more clinical when you are sitting in a vehicle and dropping bombs or strafing. Whereas infantry gets right in there, up close, and very personal. I'd imagine that Jester and other tankers would say a similar thing about shooting folks from their vehicles versus if they were out on foot.
So the extension of the psychology to a "video game" is likely true. But the generals have known about this sort of thing for quite a while. Personally, I side with the generals: whatever it takes to kill the enemy or reduce their will to fight is what is needed. And if I'm a one or two star and I can get a training program and weapons going that increases the ability of my folks to kill, I'm going to use it. People tend to forget that fighting in a war is not pretty, it's not ugly, it's just the way the business is done.
The military's job is to break the oppositions will to fight with overwhelming violence if necessary. If that means killing every enemy in sight, or leveling whole bases/towns/villages, then that's what it means. I heard the NPR piece and was impressed by it because they're stating the truth.
But, it's my opinion that the general population and politicians need to understand the military (and its way of doing business) in order to know when to use it effectively.
My outgoing Commander was an enlisted Marine, though he's now a Navy LCDR, and he probably stated it best: the Marine's job is to go in and kill everything in sight, then ask questions/setup a base. This is why I disagree so strongly with the government's use of the military servicemembers as a police force or in police-like actions around the world. And why I think that the folks that wear lots of brass don't really care so much about our troops "playing war like it's a videogame".
-
XMEN Gambit
- Site Admin
- Posts: 4122
- Joined: Thu Nov 18, 1999 12:00 am
Ok, my turn I guess.
So, the way I see it, the original "news" story containing the military video compared war and video games, and complained about how dehumanizing it is, etc. And the NPR story looked at that issue, rather than "Why did the first news organization run the story?"
Sum it up in two words. One is "media." The other is an adjective. I was going to use Stupid but they're not really stupid. Sensationalist might be better. While we're on the letter "s," how about Shortsighted?
Mainstream Media wants to do two things:
1) Make money. One vehicle is advertising, which requires eyeballs. Another is fame, which also requires eyeballs. News used to be reporting verifiable facts. Now it is all about market share, and so what if the source isn't confirmed?
2) Educate / brainwash. Someone makes decisions about which stories get aired and which get buried. Some try to be objective, but we're all human beings and have biases, and you honestly can't print/air everything. Some try to only maintain the illusion of objectivity so they can stay "credible." Some don't give a hoot and even manufacture "news" items. You've all seen it, and I don't mean from the National Enquirer and its ilk.
The basic point about war and video games is somewhat true. To Jester's point, on the battlefield I'm sure it doesn't feel much like a game whether you're wearing an Abrams or a flak jacket. However in an AWACS or AC130 or the like, you'd rarely be under direct fire and the environment is more, well, clinical. To paraphrase an earlier point, DO YOU WANT TO PRESERVE THE LIVES OF OUR OWN SOLDIERS, OR DO YOU WANT TO GIVE THE ENEMY A "FAIR SHOT?" Er, duh? Now who's acting like it's a game?
Wouldn't you like to pose a few direct questions, on camera, to the "journalist" who created this non-story and their editor/producer?
So, the way I see it, the original "news" story containing the military video compared war and video games, and complained about how dehumanizing it is, etc. And the NPR story looked at that issue, rather than "Why did the first news organization run the story?"
Sum it up in two words. One is "media." The other is an adjective. I was going to use Stupid but they're not really stupid. Sensationalist might be better. While we're on the letter "s," how about Shortsighted?
Mainstream Media wants to do two things:
1) Make money. One vehicle is advertising, which requires eyeballs. Another is fame, which also requires eyeballs. News used to be reporting verifiable facts. Now it is all about market share, and so what if the source isn't confirmed?
2) Educate / brainwash. Someone makes decisions about which stories get aired and which get buried. Some try to be objective, but we're all human beings and have biases, and you honestly can't print/air everything. Some try to only maintain the illusion of objectivity so they can stay "credible." Some don't give a hoot and even manufacture "news" items. You've all seen it, and I don't mean from the National Enquirer and its ilk.
The basic point about war and video games is somewhat true. To Jester's point, on the battlefield I'm sure it doesn't feel much like a game whether you're wearing an Abrams or a flak jacket. However in an AWACS or AC130 or the like, you'd rarely be under direct fire and the environment is more, well, clinical. To paraphrase an earlier point, DO YOU WANT TO PRESERVE THE LIVES OF OUR OWN SOLDIERS, OR DO YOU WANT TO GIVE THE ENEMY A "FAIR SHOT?" Er, duh? Now who's acting like it's a game?
Wouldn't you like to pose a few direct questions, on camera, to the "journalist" who created this non-story and their editor/producer?
-
Starmage21
- Inmate
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:35 am
- Location: Houston, Texas
- Contact:
I saw a show about soldiers in a small "camp" in afganistan i think called arrow head or arrow's point or some shiat. From what I understand, for a short while after they get into it, soldiers DO enjoy the firefights, and that it takes time for shit to sink in before they start to realize that it's a bit nuts to be enjoying it.