
A violently true depiction of what war really is  - sberder
http://www.mediumdifficulty.com/2012/03/01/call-of-apathy-violent-young-men-and-our-place-in-war/
======
Cushman
Reminds me of my father (who was in the Airborne) looking over my shoulder
playing the training in America's Army.

"That's pretty realistic. Do they have a level where you have to go knock on
somebody's door and tell them their son was killed in a training exercise?"

That said, I feel like this article, like the censors, gives video games much
too much credit. Glorification of violence is everywhere in our culture and
fiction; I'd imagine at least 95% of gamers understand intuitively that the
games they play bear very slight likeness at best to the reality of war
(although probably more in the sense that they might be killed themselves
rather than that they might kill others.)

After all, one of the things (multiplayer) video games _do_ teach you is that
combat is _seriously dangerous_. Pop out of cover for one second and you can
get shot in the head, bam, you're dead. In a game, that means respawning;
nobody seriously believes that's how it works in real life. In that sense, I
have to think that these games, as unrealistic as they are, are still the most
realistic fictional depiction of war you can experience-- and the lessons you
learn are much more valuable than those of, say, comic books.

Which is not to say that we don't have a bit of a violence problem in our
culture (though I'm on the side of Steven Pinker in thinking that our violence
problem is probably better than it ever has been). But the problem is not the
kids running around playing cops and robbers. The problem is the kids who
never properly learn the distinction between playing and hitting-- and worst
of all, those who learn it by the maxim that "If you hit your brother, I'll
hit you even harder."

That's what we should be talking about.

~~~
ilaksh
"A bit of a violence problem in our culture"

Fighting games are incredibly realistic and advanced.

Games like Battlefield, with the right mix of realism and "fun", are the
greatest possible war propaganda instruments ever created.

The "Department of Defense" and other agencies have too many smart people
working in them and too much recruiting pressure not to be funneling money
into these "video game" projects.

Iran is specifically depicted in Battlefield 3. This isn't an accident,
whether it was simply the fact that video game designers knew that Iran has
been a coming target for years or they were given instructions.

War propaganda is a real part of contemporary American media and video games.
Its not something that happened in the 1940s and 1950s and then stopped as
soon as color television arrived.

Our media is saturated with violence, but this isn't unexpected.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)
We are constantly at war.

We are at war right now. There is a large multi-decade (multi-century
depending on how you look at it) military campaign going on in the middle east
and its surrounds that most people are completely unaware of because of how
powerful the grip of the propagandists is on American media.

Take a look at this map, and think back to all of the lies we have been told
about the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and everywhere else.

<http://www.zeemaps.com/326199> Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria.
All of these countries just happen to be adjacent to eachother.

We are told that these are all noble missions, vital emergencies involving
"weapons of mass destruction", or glorious democratic revolutions, and led to
believe that each is basically a separate case.

The order of the invasions and other deployments across these countries and
regions continues to be tactical. The motivations are many -- territory,
resource control, money control. The lies told to justify the next step, in
each case, are not very material to the actual overall mission objectives.

Afghanistan -- a foothold, limited resistance, and it was key to restore the
heroin funds used to back intelligence/covert operations and establishment
bank accounts.

Iraq -- A key battle, money control, resource control. Made an Iran sandwich.

Eqypt / Libya

February 21, 1987

Early last year, President Reagan approved a secret directive under which
United States military forces would support Egypt in the event of a ''pre-
emptive'' attack on Libya...

...In March 1986, the semiofficial Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram said Cairo had
rejected three requests from American delegations for joint military action
against Libya...

...But several Administration officials who support President Reagan's policy
on Libya insisted today that the meeting with President Mubarak and the
subsequent planning were not an attempt to press Cairo to invade.

[http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/21/world/egypt-us-plan-to-
rai...](http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/21/world/egypt-us-plan-to-raid-libya-
reported.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm)

In April 2011, Mubarak was removed from power by a "democratic uprising" and
by July rumors circulated that he was "in a coma".

Also in July 2011, "Libya Rebels" get formal backing by the United States and
$30 billion. Within a relatively short period of time Qaddafi was killed.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/world/africa/16libya.html?...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/world/africa/16libya.html?pagewanted=all)

Syria -- A key strategic ally of Iran, tactical position.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7GVSx7yMaA> Battlefield 3 Launch Trailer
illustrating storyline in which noble American fighters rescue one of their
own from "Iranian terrorists" while searching for "the nuke". Players are to
act out exactly the myth presented by the propaganda on other popular media.

~~~
Cushman
There is certainly a propaganda campaign being run to encourage Americans to
support war. It is being run by powerful people with vested political and
financial interests who spend millions of dollars to project their message
across all forms of news media.

If you think video games are anything more than a sideshow to this, you're
delusional.

~~~
otisfunkmeyer
I don't think it's delusional at all. It is long known that if you can
indoctrinate children at an early age (bonus points if you make it fun) that
their beliefs will often have been shaped without them knowing it.

For instance, framing Iran as bad guys without giving it much thought--it just
seems "self-evident" somehow...

~~~
phaus
The use of Iran as the enemy in a video game is not due to the fact that Dice
is being manipulated behind the scenes by the government in an effort to breed
a legion of living robots. This idea is in fact delusional.

When you look at the history of entertainment, from novels to video games, the
most memorable content gives us something that is plausible and realistic,
allowing us to relate better to the experience. This is why the political
enemies of the United States are often featured in games, movies, novels,
etc... Because they are currently extremely unfriendly to our country, it
seems far more realistic that we may end up in a conflict with them in the
future.

The most successful shooters are often the ones that follow this principle.
The people who play them aren't a bunch of xenophobic, extremist, right-wing
fascists, they are ordinary people who like the games for their realistic
graphics and engaging stories.

------
mattdeboard
As a former Marine infantryman, and a former Marine PR idiot, I think his
numbers are off but a lot of the concepts are right, with a caveat. It's not
sociopathy of the organic sort. It's the kind of detachment from prolonged
exposure to extreme, unmitigated stress. So don't take this article as
justification to feel like there's something mentally wrong with people who
join a combat arms unit.

~~~
bdunbar
Former 0311.

After I EASd I realized that a _lot_ of perfectly normal behavior in the
service is downright _weird_ in the civilian world.

It was perfectly normal to make my rack (bed), tuck those hospital corners in,
get the folds just so ... then sleep on top of the made bed, wrapped in a
poncho liner or a comforter from the PX.

Because you save time and hassle in the morning. Toss the blanket in the wall-
locker, tighten up the green wool blanket and you're good to go.

A perfectly normal adaptation to circumstances.

As with sleeping on top of the covers, so goes a lot of behavior that
civilians would (do) label sociopathic: laughing at grisly crap. Gallows
humor. A cynical narrow view of the world. And so on.

You'd be mentally defective to NOT adapt to those circumstances.

Me .. I think about some of the stuff I thought was funny, some of the things
I did when I was 20, and I'm appalled. I've got my funny sea stories - other
things I don't talk about. Or think about, much.

~~~
gnosis
_"After I EASd I realized that a _lot_ of perfectly normal behavior in the
service is downright _weird_ in the civilian world. ... I think about some of
the stuff I thought was funny, some of the things I did when I was 20, and I'm
appalled."_

This is part of the brilliance of the military: they mostly use young people
who are still maturing and often don't know any better and brainwash them in
to doing their bidding. Older, more experienced people are not so easily used.

I have a feeling if humans were physically feeble and infirm for their first
25 or 30 years and became fit and healthy afterwards, we'd have a lot less
war.

~~~
bdunbar
_Older, more experienced people are not so easily used._

Meh. You can manipulate anyone - it just takes different triggers to
manipulate an older more cynical person.

------
roboneal
Being ex-military and not a sociopath -- he lost me when he said that the
"vast majority of us are straight up sociopaths"

We constantly made decisions that increased the risk to ourselves while trying
to minimize the risk to civilians. That is not a mindset of a sociopath.

~~~
cobrausn
From what I could tell from my time in the service, your view of your
situation is highly dependent upon who you are serving with. I'm willing to
bet it is highly likely that the group this supposed sociopath served with had
no such compulsions. Without proper oversight, I could easily see a group
mindset of this kind developing. As such, I'm willing to bet he thinks all
soldiers are like him, when the reality is that he is likely the outlier.

~~~
PakG1
There's data about a lot of gang members entering the service these days and
receiving a lot of military training, but then taking that training back to
the gang (as well as smuggling some weapons). If it's reliable data, I wonder
if the number of sociopaths in the military could be growing, if it's also
possible that gang members have a higher probability of being sociopaths. A
lot of conditionals there, I know.

~~~
fdschoeneman
Sorry, what data are you talking about? I haven't seen it. I'm sure there's a
journalist who wrote something like a) a the number of gang members who
wouldn't normally join the military are b) allowed into the military because
of the dire need for same and then c) all kinds of hijinks ensue. But I don't
think it happens very often, and I really doubt the transfer of mad military
skilz is going back into the gangs.

~~~
PakG1
[http://www.fbi.gov/stats-
services/publications/2011-national...](http://www.fbi.gov/stats-
services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment)

------
jakeonthemove
Street fights and other violent encounters are the same.

There is no honor, no right way to fight and nothing good comes out of it
except you surviving.

It's nothing like video games - martial arts won't help (well, beyond helping
keep you in shape), a bullet will kill you in a horrible, slow way (dying
instantly means you're lucky) or leave you with a disability for life, a
simple knife slash will leave you in a hospital for a long time and a simple
hit with fist can dislocate your jaw, which is really terrible (you can't eat,
can't speak, your face is swollen, you drool all the time).

Sadly, kids don't seem to understand, and most people laugh when I tell them
the best strategy is RRF - Reason (give them the wallet, try to solve it with
words), Run (as fast as you can and don't look back), Fight (only if all else
fails, and fight as if your life depends on it)...

~~~
angrycoder
>martial arts won't help

This is patently false and completely ridiculous. Someone who is trained to
take and give a hit will always have a significantly better chance in a fight.

~~~
Nitramp
How so? All I ever heard from people who did serious martial arts is that an
attacker with a weapon will always be in advantage, and an attacker with no
moral qualms even more so. Your karate won't help you much if someone attacks
you with a knife, or a shattered bottle.

~~~
muhfuhkuh
Low-level, trained MMA fighters would wreck a street brawling toughman 10/10
times. If they rush the MMA fighter with a broken bottle, they'd get slammed
to the floor on their own velocity and the MMA fighter would twist around,
take their back, grab and arm, get their legs around it pull. Good luck
fighting with a broken arm.

We saw it play out recently. Remember Kimbo Slice? If you don't, he used to
post videos of him beating the crap out of regular dudes in street fights for
money. He became a legend. People were saying he was unstoppable. He went to
the UFC based on that and lost just about every major match he was in. Why?
Because he doesn't train for the various martial arts the way even the
lowliest fighter does there. He's currently in boxing, now, and likely will be
back fighting normal people in the street for 500 bucks again.

Seriously, you think guys who train 8 hours a day in Muay Thai and Jiu Jitsu
aren't going to be good at beating you up? You think some street thug would
rough up Junior Dos Santos or Anderson Silva? They would KILL the common man,
likely in short order. A broken glass would just make them more careful about
it (and piss them off even more).

This isn't even to say if Silva grabbed a glass, too. Then what?

~~~
gaius
While the MMA fighter is going for side control, what's he planning to do
about his attacker's 5 mates?

This is how a pub fight does down: you go to the gents, and a bunch of guys
pile in after you. None of them can fight on a martial arts sense but it
doesn't matter, there's no room anyway for fancy high kicks. They drag you to
the floor and stomp on you 'til you stop moving. Then they go back into the
bar, calmly finish their drinks, and quietly leave.

The true martial artist sense trouble brewing, phones a taxi to come right to
the front door of the pub, and gets straight into it.

~~~
muhfuhkuh
I have never seen gang street bar fights in my life. I've seen guys jump
another to rob/intimidate one person, but they'd do that to anyone just
randomly walking through their hood. That's not a street fight, that's
criminal scum. Where are you that dudes are ganging up on one guy?

And, why is it always in hypotheticals that the trained guy is going to sit
there doing katas and flowery BS belt presentation moves? I can't think of a
martial art that doesn't practice (at one level or another) dirty, close-
quarters, and stick-n-move fighting. You can _always_ tell a skilled fighter
vs drunken haymakers, which looks alot like this:

<http://youtu.be/yZL-cxhw0w0>

------
nonce43
The Onion has its own take on the difference between real war and video game
war: an "ultra-realistic" war game featuring endless paperwork, awaiting
orders, and repairing trucks: [http://www.theonion.com/video/ultrarealistic-
modern-warfare-...](http://www.theonion.com/video/ultrarealistic-modern-
warfare-game-features-awaiti,14382/) (I don't mean to trivialize war by this,
and I should point out that The Onion is satirical.)

~~~
GFischer
I read a post by a Marine once that said that a realistic war game would
simulate guard duty by staring at a black screen for hours, and then send a
minute flash of light several hours into the game when you're numb and tired.

Reminds me of the description of the game Desert Bus...

<http://www.popmatters.com/pm/post/152110->

------
ObjectiveSub
On a similar note: I recently watched the movie "Act of Valor". I had no idea
it was one big propaganda piece before I got in. As soon as the movie started
I thought "Yep, here we go. 110 minutes of pure army PR".

What I thought was more interesting were the comments on the reviews on Rotten
Tomatoes. You can check them out for yourself here:
<http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/act_of_valor/> It is a shit movie; no doubt
about it. What I find interesting are the comments on the reviews that the
critics gave.

Critics of course correctly pointed out how this movie is basically an
advertisement paid for by the Navy. However, any critic that dared to give a
bad review or even mention the word "propaganda" was attacked by countless
posters that were shouting how he is a "damned liberal" and how the soldiers
"die for [him] everyday to protect [his] freedom".

I do not understand the glorification of soldiers and I probably never will.
War is a horrible, horrible thing. Soldiers are professional killers. As
Voltaire said: "All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers
and to the sound of trumpets"

There is no glory or honor in war (more specifically the current situation in
Afghanistan/Iraq). The soldier sure as hell did not die for you. He most
likely died protecting his comrades that he has been living with for the last
4 years. The soldier probably doesn't even give a shit about you. The Army is
not defending America's "way of life". Terrorists do not hate you because of
your "freedoms". As a Canadian, I really don't understand why my opinion is so
frowned upon in the US.

~~~
doktrin
This is a sentiment I also have had a hard time sharing and even
understanding. The adulation and worship of the military that has risen in
recent years is a strange bird indeed.

It's essentially unpatriotic to not consider every single service member a
"hero", or fail to thank them for their service. It doesn't make sense to put
the military on an unrealistic and imaginary pedestal.

------
JS_startup
I like one point in particular that he touched on. That is, the military's
careful manipulation of the media and public perception and the lens through
which we view military personnel.

I know I'm supposed to laud infantrymen as brave and patriotic (which is why
I'd never voice this in public), but frankly..nearly every frontline veteran
I've ever met seems like an uneducated, violent and scary thug. I know that's
basically what you have to be to fight on the frontlines, but the disparity
between public opinion and reality is shocking.

~~~
bdunbar
_but frankly..nearly every frontline veteran I've ever met seems like an
uneducated, violent and scary thug._

I never went to war, but I was a rifleman in the Marines, spent eight years
there.

One thing I've noticed about me, and other guys like me, is that you'd never
know on first acquaintance that I was a Marine. Commonly heard: But you don't
look/act like a Marine!

I suspect you've met more so-called 'frontline veterans' than you think.

~~~
cglace
I spent a lot of time near Beaufort, SC on a nearby island after college. All
the marines from Parris Island would go to downtown Beaufort on the weekends.
Most of the marines were dicks looking for a fight. Some were cool but I
remember thinking they were the exception not the rule.

~~~
bdunbar
Sure. And except for the 'looking for a fight' part I might have been one of
those guys.

My point was that _some_ guys may be stupid thugs but not all of them are, and
most of us grow out of it.

------
DanielBMarkham
I am very tempted to flag this. the sociopath thing really rubs me the wrong
way -- there are logical flaws with using that label. War is a part of
society. If society tells you to go kill somebody and you do, you can't be a
sociopath.

Having said that, it's a great first-person account of what real combat is
like, at least for this one guy. I am concerned the effect on HN discussion
will be negative. Hopefully I'm wrong.

The United States made a huge mistake in moving to an all-volunteer army in
the 1970s. With a draft and mandatory conscription, _everybody_ had the common
experience of serving and perhaps doing really bad things in the line of duty.
As it is now, the vast majority of civilians have absolutely no idea what
military service is like, as the author points out.

In this lack of context everybody becomes really impressionable. Not only can
the military manipulate public opinion through selective release of
information, other soldiers like this one can also. When the majority of
people don't have context, they'll believe anything.

This is why you couldn't get away with writing a really negative article about
WWII right after the war. It wasn't that somehow the war wasn't terribly
horrible, it was that the average Joe reading it would immediately say
something like "yeah, but that's not the way it was for most people" or "you
think that's bad? I remember when..."

We don't have that kind of audience now. Once again, as the author points out,
most of the readers only know cartoon violence and have never even hunted an
animal. So people are left substituting other experiences and trying to draw
rough analogies. The one thing I know for sure is that different people in
different units can have vastly different impressions of a conflict. In my
mind, this article would have been better with less "I'm the sane one and the
other soldiers are crazy" and more "Here's another view"

I would also note that it has become fashionable for authors to say they have
all sorts of combat experience when they don't. I'm sure this author isn't one
of those people, but I've learned over time to be suspicious of people who
wear the grisly warrior mantle as a way to get around my critical thinking
skills. This area is just really difficult to discuss, especially when it's
about an ongoing operation.

~~~
gizmo
> War is part of society

War is part of society? To barbaric ones maybe. Civilized societies don't
settle disputes by mass murder.

> If society tells you to go kill somebody and you do, you can't be a
> sociopath.

Are you kidding me? Society can't tell a person to go kill somebody. A
_person_ tells another person to kill somebody. It is this absurd respect for
authority that makes these wars possible, combined with a lack of personal
accountability. Didn't we learn the lesson of the second World War?

> The United States made a huge mistake in moving to an all-volunteer army in
> the 1970s [...] As it is now, the vast majority of civilians have absolutely
> no idea what military service is like, as the author points out.

That was the entire point of ending conscription! Vietnam became a huge PR
nightmare because average kids from middle class families had to fight in it.
That's why it got constant media attention. That's why people protested in the
streets. The people don't mind war as long as it doesn't affect them
personally, and poor people have no say anyway. So now poor kids with few
options are recruited into the military. Problem solved.

~~~
spindritf
> War is part of society? To barbaric ones maybe. Civilized societies don't
> settle disputes by mass murder.

It's quite the opposite -- only civilized societies can have the kind of
logistics, range, military culture, ability to support the warrior class (or
standing armies), and numbers to engage in organized warfare. Conflicts
between small bands of foragers can hardly be even called war.

Not to mention mass murder which absolutely requires the kind of discipline,
organization and leadership only a very cohesive and civilized society can
provide. It just doesn't happen outside of civilization, no one has the means,
or could benefit from it. Anything of the scale of holocaust is only possible
in a highly industrialized country.

> So now poor kids with few options are recruited into the military. Problem
> solved.

Actually, poor kids seem to be enlisting at lower rates (relatively) to richer
kids:

> Enlisted recruits in 2006 and 2007 came primarily from middle-class and
> upper-middle-class backgrounds. Low-income neighborhoods were
> underrepresented among enlisted troops, while middle-class and high-income
> neighborhoods were overrepresented.

This and much more on the topic:
[http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-
serves-...](http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-in-
the-us-military-the-demographics-of-enlisted-troops-and-officers)

~~~
gizmo
I present to you: Ghengis Kahn. 40 million people died as a result of his
campaigns. Civilized society? Not at all. Just organized tribal warfare.

> Actually, poor kids seem to be enlisting at lower rates (relatively) to
> richer kids

Huh. I stand corrected.

~~~
qohen
> Civilized society? Not at all. Just organized tribal warfare.

The story may be a bit more nuanced that that:

From a review of "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World"

([http://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/books/reviews/genghis-
kha...](http://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/books/reviews/genghis-khan-and-
making-modern-world)):

"Arguably, however, Genghis Khan and the Mongols were the dominant force that
shaped Eurasia and consequently the modern world. Not for what they destroyed
– though they wrought much destruction all over the continent – but for what
they built. They came close to uniting Eurasia into a world empire, and in so
doing they spread throughout it technologies like paper, gunpowder, paper
money, or the compass – and trousers. They revolutionised warfare. More
lastingly, in the word's of the author: ' ...they also created the nucleus of
a universal culture and world system. (...) With the emphasis on free
commerce, open communication, shared knowledge, secular politics, religious
coexistence, international law, and diplomatic immunity.' ".

[http://www.amazon.com/Genghis-Khan-Making-Modern-
World/dp/06...](http://www.amazon.com/Genghis-Khan-Making-Modern-
World/dp/0609809644/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1330718928&sr=8-1)

~~~
qohen
>> Civilized society? Not at all. Just organized tribal warfare.

> The story may be a bit more nuanced that that:

Make that a lot more nuanced:

(From the same review cited above):

"The Mongols' was the first modern army. It was built on a rational structure
(based, like the Roman legion, on units in the multiple of tens) and promotion
was strictly on merit. Thoroughly disciplined and highly mobile – infantry was
unknown – it could execute complex tactical manoeuvres in silence upon orders
from centralised command. Speed and efficiency in conquest were their
trademark, and the source of the fear they struck in the enemy. Horse and bow
where the Mongol warriors' strength – and it the end their weakness. Forests
hindered the deployment of mounted armies, in the humid heat of India the bows
failed, and the horses' strength faded when they could not find pastures in
the Syrian desert.

Warfare technology and logistics were other factors in the Mongols'
superiority. The gunpowder formula was changed to yield explosive force,
rather than slow burn as in fire-lances and rockets. Guns and cannon were
developed. Specialised troops of craftsmen were skilled in building complex
siege machines from local materials – obviating the need to move them over
long distances. They perfected sapping of walls, thus making static defence
impossible. A dedicated medical corps looked after the wounded. The army and
its horses spread across the plains for forage and sustenance, thus obviating
for the need for supply lines – yet a sophisticated communication system based
on melodies to ensure accurate memorisation allowed the scattered troops to
regroup at short notice and to remain in touch with the distant leadership.

The intelligence system was second to none, and the Mongols knew much more
about the lands they were about to invade than the defenders knew about the
Mongols – if nothing else because the latter lived off the land and needed to
know where water and pastures were to be found. In addition, the Mongols
developed highly sophisticated methods of psychological warfare, spreading
rumours about their cruelty and destruction. This unsettled the rural
populations that then fled before the advancing army, hamstringing the defence
efforts."

~~~
vacri
That says 'discipline' and 'military forethought', but it doesn't say
'civilised society'.

------
lukifer
I have a cousin coming of age who's downright excited to join the military and
become a sniper. I have little doubt that war video games are partly
responsible for that.

Now, I don't think violent games are inherently bad, and relatively few people
playing them will actually sign up to go blow up insurgents in the desert.

But there is a significant difference between Modern Warfare and Hitman, Doom,
GTA, etc.: most other violent games are either clearly fictionalized, or you
knowingly play a villain. While a few nutcases might emulate the game, no
reasonable person, not even most children, will draw the conclusion that the
game activity is normal, real or justified.

But wars really happen, and they are seldom sexy or heroic. Even if you
accomplish the most kick-ass mission ever, you probably lost friends in the
process. Any soldier anywhere would happily give up their medals and glory if
it meant the fallen got to go home to their families.

War is hell. While I would never advocate any form of censorship, selling
video games that hides this reality is socially irresponsible.

~~~
gnosis
Many violent video games are, in effect, murder simulators.

I wonder how much more realistic they'd have to get before most people who
gladly play them now would object to them.

In many games you can already hear the screams of the victims and even the
victims pleading for their lives, and see quite a bit of gore as the murder is
carried out.

However, you can't yet feel your hands around someone's throat, feel the blood
pumping in their veins as you slowly squeeze their throat until they die. You
can't feel their warm blood spurt out of their bodies or feel the knife plunge
in.

It's probably just a matter of time until improvements in virtual reality _do_
let you experience just that. You will be able to more effectively feel just
what it's like to kill somebody.

Would you object to those sorts of games? Would they even still be games at
that point? What effect do you think such realistic experiences of simulated
murder have on the players?

------
Sakes
Wow, awesome read. If this guy consulted on a video game I would never play
it. Mowing down Russian civilians in the game MW2 was more than F'd up enough
for me.

~~~
dlikhten
If they want to make a video game depict war...

Have a bad guy escape through some civilians, you shoot after him. Then after
coming closer find a parent/child dead with another child screaming over
his/her family's body.

That would be a scene that makes people remember what war really is. But war
games are not about war. They are about shooting things and feeling justified
about it.

~~~
Splines
I'd be very interested to know if it's even possible to create a game where
you genuinly feel remorse for killing an innocent person while chasing "the
bad guy".

Many games have innocent bystanders, and there is a spectrum of consequence,
from none (GTA), to inconvenience (Oblivion), to an instant game-over (Ghost
Recon). In any case, I've never _felt_ bad, since it's just a game.

Can a game elevate the characters to a point where you feel, even for a
moment, real loss? I don't think it's very easy, if even possible.

~~~
Jach
Even just a small reminder that "you might want to consider the moral
consequences of what you've been doing" is beyond what most games do. It
doesn't necessarily require branching consequence paths and other silly
mechanics, it doesn't require building up an attachment to the fictional
character, just a small reminder that makes the player think about something
in a broader context instead of focusing on the action. Of course game content
around these things is fine, it's just not usually done that well.

One thing that stood out for me while I was playing Lord of the Rings Online
(noting that the LotR universe is a very black-and-white-morals one) was a
bounty hunter quest line where I made money killing some wanted thugs. This
led to a bounty poster on _me_ :

"For the death of Jachad, Hunter of no account, Cuthbert Sprunt offers two
gold pieces.

This Elf has come to Evendim and caused nothing but trouble. Just ask Mrs.
Idden where her boy Andy is, or the widow Tripper why her son Will is missing
a brother!

If you think you've been wronged in this, Jachad, "bounty-hunter," then you
come talk to Mr. Sprunt at the Sparring Circle. We'll sort it out, fair-like."

Of course the game quickly reminds you that Sprunt is a low-life villain, and
I subsequently defeated him (though he lived since he gave up in the fight).
But it was one of the few times the game ever questions the morality of
player's actions, and even though it was incredibly brief it stood out for
that reason.

------
unknsldr
I am an experienced soldier with combat experience in several corners of the
world. I have a distinguished service record. The only units I've ever known
are Special Forces units. I've operated in several tiers of the community. I
was medically discharged following injuries sustained in combat operations.
You deserve a better account than M provides. Please understand some detail
must be left out.

I am not an academic any more than M or his psychologist. It's important to
include the psychologist that asserts violent personality disorder outside of
the DSM.

There are a lot of guys like M floating around special operations (the
community) but perhaps many of you do not understand the community. The
special operations umbrella is pretty large depending on how you classify. To
simplify, there are several degrees (tiers) divided by purpose and
specialization. The degrees might look like a pyramid if you represented them
by the number of soldiers in each. M would be near the bottom of a special
operations pyramid, meaning he's a highly proficient infantryman, probably
supporting a higher unit. A good guess for M would be Ranger Battalion. He
mentions Special Forces (Green Beret), which is at least branch consistent.

M wouldn't make it at a higher level of the community. The community would
correct the matter if he did. In special operations, psych evaluations are
routine. There are evaluations for aptitude and there are evaluations for
disposition. If you are a sociopath by clinical standards, you will not climb
the pyramid. You will be told that this is why you were denied ascension. At
lower levels of the pyramid, a clever man can influence the evaluation but not
considerably so. At higher levels, the evaluations are much harder to 'game'
because they are conducted over time in a range of dynamic scenarios. The
higher tiers need a pool of exceptional candidates to use as a baseline. In a
class of elite SOF operators, the higher tiers are looking for standouts.
Those standouts are further evaluated. M never made it that far, which is why
he thinks there are no heroes. I'll only discuss the lower tier to address M's
depiction. It differs considerably at higher tiers.

One of the many problems with M's depiction is the misrepresentation of the
community. An FNG is much more common in a line unit than in a proper special
operations element (furthering my suspicion that M came from a support
element). There are no FNGs in the community. Each SOF operator, regardless
the branch, spent 18-24 months in a pipeline training specifically for special
operations costing the government more than $1 million per candidate. If they
complete the training, they go to a team a 'cherry'. They need real world
experience as an operator and they need advanced training beyond their
generalized training. This does not mean walking point in a mine field. This
means developing the training plans for the rest of the team, coordinating
cross training with the senior members, and accounting for equipment. The
entire experience prepares the cherry for the demands of sustained operations
far from the flag pole (built up bases) during a deployment. The cherry is one
of maybe 15 men who are going to be fending for themselves throughout the
deployment.

The sensation is nothing like sex but your first fire fight is a lot like
losing your virginity. You'll always remember. The adrenaline dumps. Your
senses heighten and you become acutely aware of your 'anchors'. Cheek, pad of
your trigger finger, your shoulder pocket (where your long gun is firmly
tucked) or maybe your elbows. Whatever your problem points were during
exercises. Between engagements are lulls, mag changes. You move. You
communicate. You decisively engage yet you hardly think. Hours go by before
the engagement is over. You feel exhilaration. Consider the state you are in
emotionally, chemically. And at this moment you have your first coherent
thought in hours. What do you think about? Does it suggest anything about you?

I wish I felt something for the people we expired in my first fire fight. I
didn't. This isn't sociopathy. This is pragmatism. We are all going to die. In
that moment, the person most likely to die is my adversary. My training is
superior. My firepower is superior. I have the strategic advantage. In order
to achieve success in the objective that brought me to the patch of earth I
meet my adversary, I must first know that one of use will expire- the one that
is least present. You accept mortality so that you can control your emotions
during the engagement. Why fear death when you can elude it? At the conclusion
of the fire fight, you don't have time to think. The end of the fire fight is
not the end of the day. Are there any casualties? Do you have all of your
equipment? You have to establish communications with command. They may have
guidance for follow on actions. They may have intel of a quick reactionary
force descending upon your location. The avenues of approach and egress from
your location may have been rigged to blow while you were engaged. Command
mind know a better route for exfil. There remains a tremendous amount of work
before you'll be in a position to reflect. It could be hours. You'll probably
sleep first. When you wake up, the feeling is gone. You remember the
exhilaration. You remember the triumph. In my first deployment, this was the
routine every other day for three weeks before we were pulled from the area to
decompress. My thoughts were, "keep calm" My emotions would only ever cloud my
judgment and performance. It was crystal clear to me that they were useless in
a war zone, including malice.

The situations that I have encountered have been horrific. I would not propose
that we expose the youth to these horrors. Help us all if we ever go down such
a road. We should focus on effective management of a crisis. For me it is
perspective. For others it might be something else. Nothing could have
prepared me for my first fire fight. That, like losing your virginity, is
something you must experience to ever really understand. The rest of the
horrors of war are handled through live tissue training. If you understand
basic medicine and tissue trauma, you'll be able to stomach what you'll see
along the way. To suggest that video games should more realistically depict
war is to suggest that we should practice applying a condom to a dildo rather
than a cucumber. It doesn't prepare anyone to lose their virginity but it does
increase the comfort with going down that road. Teach children stronger
critical thinking skills and you'll prepare them to avert more conflict in the
first place. Failing that, you'll prepare them to handle the horrors of the
conflict.

~~~
rdl
This is in line with my experience (I spent a bunch of time with tier 2 SOF
(Army SF) and other parts of the military) -- the people who seemed like the
mentally unhinged were either in line combat or combat support units which
experienced a lot of combat, not the SOF crowd.

The Army SF guys (and the higher level people, who I didn't spend as much time
with, and who you can't really talk about; the tier 2 missions were largely
public like training, medical outreach, etc. and sometimes had reporters when
they could get them...) were among the most mentally balanced, generally
respectable, and moral people I met in the military. They were also a lot
older than the majority of line infantry -- 28+. (Generally, Army SF, medical,
and aviation were the people I found most intelligent, sane, and worth being
around, but the medical people were in a lot of cases barely thinking of
themselves as military, just as doctors who happened to be deployed.)

Some of the biggest dirtbags were the support troops assigned to SF (I think
for JSOC/tier-1, you get tier-2 and some specialist JSOC parts for support, or
Rangers when they need a large blocking force, but for tier-2, you would get a
wide variety of detached troops as cooks, mechanics, etc.); and these guys
acted like they were operators, and were a lot more likely to get in trouble.
It was pretty hilarious.

The weirdest thing is that Army SF doctrinally has the Foreign Internal
Defense mission (training local troops), which requires a high level of
cultural sensitivity, etc. Yet, in a lot of Iraq/Afghanistan, they picked
rank-compatible line units for that mission (i.e. an O-6 from an infantry unit
advising an ANA general running an infantry unit), and often from the National
Guard (where they were more "local" in their NG recruiting area, and thus even
less culturally aware than regular army), and used even Army SF for direct
action type missions. Then brought in contractors to do the direct mentoring
mission, wtf.

------
huhtenberg
I can't imagine how it is for a person like W to try and live a "normal life"
after he leaves the war zone. And if he'd want to to begin with.

~~~
majelix
There's a lot of bullshit in Hurt Locker, but the scenes where he's grocery
shopping aren't.

------
philwelch
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." --Wittgenstein

That's my reaction to most of these 182 comments. I grew up with a combat
veteran, and between listening to his stories and reading those of many other
vets, including the OP, the only thing that's clear to me is that there are as
many ways of coping with combat as there are combat veterans. Instead of
arguing about whether or not people are sociopaths, go listen to few veterans
sometime.

------
wallawe
I have a friend in the special forces who has changed as a person completely
since his first deployment.

The last time we hung out, we went to a casual bar for a drink. He brought his
pistol everywhere he went now out of paranoia. He spoke in jealousy of the
British mercenaries who were allowed to kill anyone without permission. "I
wish we could do that," he said. I was honestly baffled.

It truly is amazing how much war can change someone. He lives and loves to
kill now. He says there is no better rush in the world.

------
skeltoac
"the vast majority of us are straight up sociopaths"

Society can't function without socially acceptable outlets for this and other
anti-social behaviors. That is the best justification I have found for a long
list of things that don't seem to make sense in an enlightened society.

What would the world be like if we didn't have the Army and NFL? A lot of
people would find new, more chaotic outlets for their aggression.

~~~
munin
I think fewer people would have a problem with this if the outlet for
sociopathic aggression didn't involve detonating women and children

~~~
skeltoac
Few people will like this, too, including myself, but the truth is that as
long as they aren't "our" women and children...

I'm kissing my hard-earned 198 away here by speaking truth. Hate the truth,
not the speaker.

~~~
philwelch
One thing I vividly remember from the Iraq war was how much everyone seemed to
care about a couple thousand US casualties, and how little everyone seemed to
care about a hundred thousand Iraqi casualties.

~~~
lotharbot
One thing I remember is how accurate the US casualty number was -- we had
names and hometowns for every US casualty, and usually a cause of death. In
some sense, this is to be expected, as we have records of everyone who gets
shipped out, and most have at least some family or friends who awaited their
return.

We weren't even sure how many Iraqis had died, nor how they died. Some of the
more common estimates of Iraqi deaths vary by a factor of ten or more. Records
in Iraq are spotty, at best. Most Iraqis don't have a great deal of family and
friends in the US, so we don't feel their loss in quite the same way.

------
rhaphazard
I don't have first-hand, or even second-hand experience of war. I can only go
by what I read in articles like this.

But logically, the author is making a lot of sense. Any apathy or
desensitization to killing is either a result of social conditioning
(sociopathy) or a psychological predisposition (psychopathy). There are of
course other ways this could come about, and the author's 80% figure is
probably an over-estimation, but I think the proliferation of military
contractors really increases the chances that what the author says is true.

I wonder if there has ever been a study that tries to figure out how prevalent
these kind of issues are.

Kids are going to have a hard time unlearning the fake reality presented to
them by video games.

------
itmag
As a personal development junkie, I find war to be very problematic (well
duh). Killing people is just so... unenlightened.

Then again, I find the warrior ethos or what you might call the male Warrior
archetype to be of great interest. It's pretty obvious that this is something
that the modern world very much lacks, at least we don't have any formal
initiation rites for it (going to Marine boot camp might qualify though).

For more reading, check out this book: [http://www.masculinity-
movies.com/articles/king-warrior-magi...](http://www.masculinity-
movies.com/articles/king-warrior-magician-lover)

~~~
angersock
_"Killing people is just so... unenlightened."_

Care to elaborate? As far as I know, war practiced at the societal level is
usually not for personal development.

------
Tossrock
Whoa, I know the guy who runs this website, along with several of the authors.
He actually just launched it a few days ago, primarily for the Penny Arcade
forum readers. Small internet.

~~~
pavel_lishin
You ought to let him know that it seems to be down right now:
<http://i.imgur.com/FnZYn.png>

~~~
karlnp
I'm doing what I can, but given my limited means cloud storage, better
hosting, and the like are unavailable to me. The site is cached & is still up
- CloudFront is just throttling bandwidth, as far as I can tell.
Recommendations would be appreciated.

------
a_a_r_o_n
I think we make too much of video games and movies.

They don't make us violent. We're already violent. That's why we buy them.

"We have met the enemy, and he is us."

------
dasil003
He hasn't really convinced me he's a sociopath. More like he's suffering from
PTSD and coping with it by acting out sociopathic tendencies. I mean obviously
I don't have the first clue, but I ask myself would a real sociopath write
something like this?

------
run4yourlives
I suggest anyone intrigued by this pick up a copy of LCol. Paul Grossman's
work: On Killing.

------
MasterScrat
Off topic, but it's really annoying when the actual content of a page
represents 1/5 of its length and the rest are comments. The scrollbar is made
to give you a hint of how much of the article is left. This completely defeats
this purpose.

------
toadi
like playing these games. But it's a game... I thaiboks also and like it.

But would never be a soldier in any army. Can't kill people of do any of this
shit. Except if there was immediate threat for my family....

------
dfc
How common is it for someone in the UK to drop out of school at 16?

~~~
philwelch
From what little I know about the UK school system, there's actually a natural
stopping point at 16 after the GCSE. Between 16 and 18 one would study for
"A-levels", or not as the case may be.

------
winter_blue
Violent video games & media must be banned. It should be treated like child
pornography.

A federal law prohibiting the dissemination of such material and people who
develop or make such games and movies should be given the same punishment
those filming child pornography receive. I personally recommend a minimum of
10 years.

The social and psychological corruption of society must come to an end.

I know many of you will not agree with my opinion, but I think you don't
understand how bad an impact blatant violence in games and media has on
people.

~~~
viraptor
Where does the violence start? Modern warfare? AA? CS? What about fantasy like
World of Warcraft? If hitting someone with a giant hammer ok, if you don't see
the blood? Then what about car racing? If you can crash the car, do you assume
people will think about the guy inside who has shards of glass inside his
skull now? Is that violent? What if you don't see it? And animal cruelty? Is
the frogger with cars running over the main character violent, or not? What
about the games which depict whole wars but need only your imagination to add
2 and 2 together and realise that in chess you aim to kill as many soldiers of
the opponent as possible (some skilled and specialised, half of them just
cannon fodder - it's ok to sacrifice those), until the king is left alone and
captured by the enemy...

Actually it's hard to find games which do not imply violence in one way or
another. Even cards symbolise opposing kingdoms on them. Even Go happens
around life, death and taking liberties...

------
facorreia
With all that said, games like "Brothers in Arms" helped me experience, to a
degree, the sacrifices brave men made.

------
atc
This is one of countless ways the military carefully shapes the public opinion
of the troops. It’s a shameless PR exercise. One of our guys got a Military
Cross (a medal for bravery) awarded after he got shot in the bum and continued
to fight. His platoon was isolated on a rooftop with no escape for hours, and
there was literally nothing else he could do but fight. This does not make him
a hero. It makes him a soldier with a sore bum.

Kinda sobering.

------
bootload
_"... your lead guy gets blown up and you spend the next hour or so
casevac’ing [ed note: casualty evacuating] him ..."_

that's CASVAC. Correct pronunciation. A portmanteau or joining of _"CASualty"_
and _"EVACuation"_. The difference b/w MEDIVAC and CASEVAC? The former is by
medical vehicle, the later ad-hoc.

------
cpursley
I can't imagine how anyone enjoys games like these unless they really are
sociopaths. War is when young men go die for the old men's mistakes and kill a
lot of women in children in the process.

~~~
orbitingpluto
You have empathy issues. Plain and simple. :P

I find the source of most of the fun is the initial hit of adrenaline that
lasts for about 10 minutes when playing multiplayer. It gets pretty old after
that so I rarely play them. I have a large stack of shrinkwrapped freebies
including war fps that I haven't yet touched dating back to 2009. Usually I
just give them away.

I prefer the fps games where complete suspension of disbelief is required like
the Dooms/Quakes. First time I played that and I raised the flashlight to see
that I was about to get mauled I almost wet myself. No empathy required as it
is so clearly not real. I however start to feel guilty about leading units in
Civ to die. I empathize with you. :P

Edit: Since this is getting downvoted I'll add another bit to clarify. Games
that simulate anything are still pretty simple and if you don't bring your
imagination to supplement the experience, it gets pretty boring pretty
quickly. I find it more fun to play who I am than to go with the assumed
pigeonhole for success.

