
Let’s Play War: Could war games replace the real thing? - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/issue/28/2050/lets-play-war
======
teddyh
There’s a classic argument against this:

“ _Death. Destruction, disease, horror. That’s what war is all about, Anan.
That’s what makes it a thing to be avoided. You’ve made it neat and painless.
So neat and painless you’ve had no reason to stop it._ ”

— Captain Kirk, _A Taste of Armageddon_ , 1967¹

①
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon)

~~~
hliyan
In a way, haven't we already done this? Our media and movies rarely depict
death and grievous injury directly anymore. Everything is cut out so as to not
upset or offend viewers. For example: "The War Photo No One Would Publish"
[http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/the...](http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/the-
war-photo-no-one-would-publish/375762/) , and recent movies such as the
Avengers, where a massive attack on New York is depicted without showing a
single on-screen civilian death.

War has become a thing that takes place far away from those who vote in favor
of them. Soon, thanks to drone technology, it'll become a thing that takes
place far away from those who wage it as well.

Perhaps, if both sides do it remotely, it will be a good thing. A lot of
technological assets will be lost, but the victory criteria will be that,
rather than loss of life.

~~~
LesZedCB
Those photos from that article are truly powerful. It's a shame that media
coverage of war isn't more like that. It is brutal and disgusting, and if you
are going to support it, at least look it in the face.

I'm not convinced that remote war will ever be a good thing, however. It is
still fundamentally about controlling people and territory, and that comes as
the cost of human lives, both civilian and enlisted.

~~~
talmand
Reminds me of reading a story about the first uncensored photographs of the
aftermath of Civil War battles hitting the North. Often just a few days after
the fighting. It removed some of the "charm" of war for the people who saw the
results that they never really heard about.

------
quietplatypus
One of the interesting ideas from this article is how simulations can map out
how a war is going to turn out _badly_ for the people who wish to engage in
it, such as Vietnam. Of course, the wargamers' advice was not heeded in the
case of Vietnam, but this strikes me as probably one of the best ways in how
war games could "replace the real thing", because a computer simulated it, and
turns out the war is a terrible idea.

This leads to the other interesting idea from Buckminster Fuller: that Earth
is a (ONE) spaceship, and we need to quit acting like each nation is on a
different ship...

------
ctdonath
The article's section about "peace games", with its hopeful notion that if
countries _really_ cooperated everything could turn out wonderful, completely
misses the point that _sometimes there is no good outcome for everyone_. If
resources are limited, and people are going to die without them, and there
isn't enough for everyone to live on, people WILL (as individuals and/or
organized groups) abandon civilized rules and engage in any means necessary to
acquire what's needed to _not die_ , willing to risk death to win because they
will die if they lose.

The section also conveniently avoids any discussion of the human tendency
toward acquiring power over others for power's sake. ISIS is currently leading
the way, literally killing anyone who does not abjectly subject to theocracy;
these are not people interested in "peace games".

"Let's play war" is childish naivety about the ways of the world. That the
needs of the many may outweigh the needs of the few does not mean the few will
meekly accept suffering and death, as human nature is (generally) to survive
at all costs.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
True if that's how it happens. But in this modern post-scarcity world its
ideology that causes wars, not lack of bread and milk. Look at the Kurds
gassed under Sadam. The wars between Iraq and Iran - two peoples who, from
safely here in American, I couldn't even tell apart - spent a generation
fighting to the last man in the 80s. All over border disputes and worries
about religious uprising - totally imaginary things (vs real things like food
and water).

~~~
ctdonath
Hence my second paragraph: power for power's sake, frequent human desire to
dominate others. Witness the political "progressive"'s desire to make the
world a better place by unilaterally deciding how to achieve it and
threatening to incarcerate (even kill) anyone who dissents.

------
cmdkeen
One of the problems is briefly touched on in the article - human ingenuity
finding new ways of waging war. From the Japanese Kamikaze to more modern
forms of "hybrid warfare" currently being waged by Russia in Ukraine. Western
leaders don't fully appreciate quite what hybrid war is yet, so wargames can
help play out ideas about it but if you don't know what your opponent is
actually conceptually capable of doing it is very much in the "free game" end
of the spectrum and not necessarily of any assistance.

Humans are far more complex than mere games can compute. Many WW2 strategy
games have to artificially adjust forces involved in the Battle of France in
1940 because rational AI players should not be beaten by the Germans.

------
zyx321
So, how do you get people to accept the consequences of such games?

How do you explain to Japan that one of their inhabited islands belong to
China now, because the Computer says so? And what do you do when it turns out
the initial simulation was wrong, but since China moved half a million people
over in the mean time, there's really no way to take it back any more?

~~~
Someone
The simulation wasn't wrong; the Chinese hackers clearly beat the Japanese
ones in the cyberwar fought over the control of the simulation program that
decided the outcome of the war. So, they won the war.

~~~
ryangittins
I think OP is asking about enforceability. Okay, your country loses. So what?
Why must you comply with what the computer says?

~~~
sliverstorm
My country loses. I don't like that, so I give my people guns, invade your
country, and kill your people.

That's what I imagine would happen, anyway.

------
ctdonath
Answer: no.

Player one: "You lose." Player two: [shoots player one] "No I don't."

The proposition presumes all parties involved adhere to abstract rules and
consent to the outcome thereof, whatever the cost. This is known as "rule of
law" and "consent of the governed".

The whole _point_ of war is rejection of rules and refusing to consent
thereto, or compelling other to submit thereto - both positions carried out on
the premise that one's death is an acceptable risk, and killing is an
acceptable means to that end.

------
cletus
This topic comes up in one of the Culture books, Surface Detail:

[http://www.amazon.com/Surface-Detail-Culture-Iain-
Banks/dp/B...](http://www.amazon.com/Surface-Detail-Culture-Iain-
Banks/dp/B007K4K8YC)

I won't spoil it but as you might imagine... There are issues. :)

~~~
seren
I enjoyed the book. However, I have a minor complaint : even if it describes
extensively virtual hells, it never mentions what determined if you went to
hell or not, and for how long. Even if its a minor plot detail missing, in
itself it could have been an interesting topic.

~~~
arethuza
In the case of _Surface Detail_ the characters who were in Hell had chosen to
go there - I thought it was reasonably clear that the other souls in Hell
there were there because they were "bad" (for some suitable local definition
of "bad").

~~~
seren
That's the bad part that is bothering me. Did they replay your whole life once
you died and gave you some score for each event or decision ? Who established
the rules and the scoring ? Would it change with societal change in a given
society ? Could you evaluate yourself at any point if your life to see if you
were a "good" or "bad" person ? Could you hack the system by implanting false
memory ? Or could you wipe out some embarrassing parts? You could write a book
on that topic only.

~~~
arethuza
I agree those are interesting questions not directly addressed by Surface
Detail.

However, on a related topic the novella _A Colder War_ by Charlie Stross has a
particularly creepy ending if the idea of virtual hells bothers you - the idea
that an intelligent entity actually enjoys running simulations of minds and
exploring the ways they can end:

 _There is life eternal within the eater of souls. Nobody is ever forgotten or
allowed to rest in peace. They populate the simulation spaces of its mind,
exploring all the possible alternative endings to their life. There is a fate
worse than death, you know._

[http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/colderwar.htm](http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/colderwar.htm)

Vernor Vinge hints that transcendent Powers can sometimes do similar things
with the minds of lesser entities:

 _" This innocent's ego might end up smeared across a million death cubes,
running a million million simulations of human nature."_

------
triplesec
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of
chess?

~~~
johnchristopher
Quoting time !

 _If there is a flaw in chess as a game of war, it is this. Unlike war, the
rules of chess are constant; the pieces - unchangeable. You 'll never win the
heart of a rook or the mind of a knight. They are deaf to your arguements. And
so be it. The goal of a chess game is total annihilation. But in war, even as
the blood beats in your ears and you race after your enemy, there is the hope
that saner minds than yours will stop you before you reach your target. In
war, unlike chess, rules can be changed. Truces can be called. The greatest of
enemies can become the best of friends. In war there is hope._

~~~
jandrese
> The goal of a chess game is total annihilation

This isn't true at all. The win condition in Chess is undeniable threat of
assassination of the King. You can win without taking a single piece.

~~~
johnchristopher
I won't argue your point. _Domination_ would be a better world.

------
kriro
For anyone interested in this a good search term for GS is "serious games".
"Simulation and Gaming" is a good journal to browse.

------
flohofwoe
Another related sci-fi pointer and one of my favourite books:

Stanislaw Lem's 1987 novel "Peace on Earth" (
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_on_Earth_(novel)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_on_Earth_\(novel\))
).

------
abledon
It's interesting to note that the title of this article is the idea behind the
esports behemoth known as "League of Legends". Players dispute wars around the
fictional world by battling on a 'Rift' to decide the fate of nations.
Furthermore its impressive that last years culminating Worlds match up drew in
more viewers than the NBA finals [1]. This year's should be even greater.

[1][http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/12/league-of-legends-worlds-
vie...](http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/12/league-of-legends-worlds-viewership-
esports-world-series-nba-finals)

~~~
Sumaso
Actually that's been retconned. The characters within the game "League of
Legends" are slowly getting their own story, in the fictional world of
Runeterra. However Summoners Rift, and the League of Legends itself does not
exist within the canon. There is no central battlefield where the fate of
nations is decided anymore.

------
spacecowboy_lon
No because who will enforce the result - outwith the Culture/ Alien Space Bats

~~~
arethuza
Actually, even with the Culture there was a virtual war over the Hells, with
the Culture naturally being very much on the anti hell side and even that
carefully managed virtual war broke out into the real when it didn't go the
"right" way.

------
emmelaich
Tangential, but it reminded a little of the crazy black humour novel "Year of
the Angry Rabbit"

    
    
        "Wars are soon conducted as harmless arena games
        which are heavily promoted like the Olympics"
    

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Year_of_the_Angry_Rabbit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Year_of_the_Angry_Rabbit)

------
Nursie
See Cordwainer Smith's "War no 81Q" for a sci-fi exploration of this.

~~~
huxley
For those that don't know Cordwainer Smith (and maybe even some that only know
him for his beautifully weird stories) in real life was Paul M. A. Linebarger,
one of the pioneers of psychological warfare and wrote one of the classics in
the field, "Psychological Warfare"(1948).

His father was a lawyer and activist that supported the 1911 Chinese
Revolution, and had such strong connections with the revolution that
Cordwainer Smith's god-father was Sun Yat-sen, the first Provisional President
of the Republic of China (Jan-Mar 1912), then Premier of the Kuomintang of
China (Oct 1919 - March 1925).

"As a Far East specialist [Linebarger] was involved in the formation of the
Office of War Information and of the Operation Planning and Intelligence
Board. He also helped organize the Army's first psychological warfare
section." \- John J. Pierce, Science Fiction critic/historian

~~~
Nursie
Certainly an interesting chap, as he managed all that, and then in his spare
time came up with quite a number of short stories (and one novel) set along a
time-line he had mapped out several millenia into the future. The stories
themselves tend to centre around events and people and only illustrate the
larger/longer universe incidentally.

I love it, personally, though it is all very weird and often quite funny (see
"From Gustible's Planet").

~~~
JoeAltmaier
His complete works fit in one fat volume. I recommend Buy it. One of the
finest collections ever written.

~~~
Nursie
Does said fat-volume usually contain the novel "Norstrilia" ? I had to buy
that one separately.

But yes, go buy it!

------
sigzero
See original series Star Trek episode "A Taste of Armageddon".

------
coldcode
A better plan might be to let women decide on fighting a war or not. Or my
favorite plan which is to assign the congresspeople who vote for war a spot in
the front.

~~~
branchless
I quite like the idea of politician's kids fighting to the death (if over 18).
In the event of a mexican standoff we start sending in friends and then
increasingly distant relatives.

This would have seen George Bush Jr fighting Sadam's kids. I think it's hard
to reject this idea.

------
vannevar
War generally happens when two clashing social systems are trying to occupy
the same physical space. As long as the systems are tolerable to each other,
then war can be replaced by a game called democracy. If they are not, then no,
war cannot be replaced by a game.

~~~
dmichulke
Time to start playing it then! Where can I go to participate?

~~~
vannevar
Most of the world. You just need to be prepared to lose quite often. As long
as you don't react to losing by grabbing a gun, you're still playing.

------
jstx
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)

