Real Warriors Trained In Virtual Worlds 312
The Washington Post has a piece looking at the U.S. military's increased reliance on gaming for training the next generation of soldiers. From the article: "'The technology in games has facilitated a revolution in the art of warfare,' says David Bartlett, the former chief of operations at the Defense Modeling and Simulation Office, a high-level office within the Defense Department and the focal point for computer-generated training at the Pentagon. 'When the time came for [a solider in training] to fire his weapon, he was ready to do that. And capable of doing that. His experience leading up to that time, through on-the-ground training and playing 'Halo' and whatever else, enabled him to execute. His situation awareness was up. He knew what he had to do. He had done it before -- or something like it up to that point.'"
Re:Hesitation (Score:3, Interesting)
A 5.1 Surround System with a subwoofer set on high should fix that problem. When I recently started a Quake 4 game, and firing the machine gun in the game, I had no sound. Turned up the volume, still no sound. Unplug the headphones... WTF! I was on the floor as the machine gun firing at high volume blew me out of my chair. I was surprised that the police didn't surround my apartment since it was so OMG LOUD!
So, on the one hand... (Score:4, Interesting)
So, which is it?
Enders Game (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hesitation (Score:3, Interesting)
At what point do you draw the line? (Score:4, Interesting)
We all know that "simulations" - be it games, VR, or whatever - are getting more and more realistic. And that trend will continue until things are VERY realistic. We all also know that many simulations are based on a wide variety of behaviors that society would not want to encourage. (ie: killing someone in Doom is fine, doing it in the real world is obviously bad)
So how do you draw a line between these two? Or is there even a line? Obviously a simulation is just that -- a fake environment that mimics a real environment. But from the sound of this article, simulations have a very REAL effect on those who are participating in them - at least according to the military. So their impact stretches beyond their own environment and "spills out" into real, quantifiable behaviors, actions, and feelings.
So, I guess my question is this: is there ever a point where we have to draw some lines about what is and is not allowed in simulations? Be it violence based. Or sexually based. Or behaviorally based. Is there ever a point where we have to say NO?
Re:Hesitation (Score:3, Interesting)
From the beginning our training was about dying and killing. The songs we sang and a lot of what we learned in our training was about that. And you know what ? With sleep deprivation, this kind of training work pretty well. I never had to shot someone, but I know that in a combat situation I would have done it without hesitation. And except for a few who were against violence, everyone was like me.
So this "hardest thing was to get people to pull the trigger" is plain bullshit.
I wonder one thing... is this game thing really for training or simply to get people to join the army ?
Re:Why just the soldiers? (Score:2, Interesting)
We're talking battlescape monitoring and management all via a free 3D interface. You can dispatch orders to deploy tanks, jets, etc.. and also monitor each units' vitals remotely.
When I saw it in action and saw the jets and helis moving around, I expected to see a little "life" bar under them.
They are already suppling the DOD with technology, so this is not some far-off idea.
The employees demoing it flat out told me that many of the soldiers and officers had been trained using video games, so this was a pretty natural progression and interface.
Personally, I was hoping it to work a little more like Total Anihilation and have the ability to build units using nanobots. I was told though that is in the works for the next version.
training in the art of violence... (Score:2, Interesting)
which is the law of the Beast, it is more possible to train them
in the white art of non-violence, which is the law of regenerate man.
Human dignity is best preserved not by developing the capacity to
deal destruction but by refusing to retaliate. (Gandhi; I-228)
Re:Finishing the Quote (Score:1, Interesting)
I understand that you might find that discomforting, but have you ever wondered what this planet would be like if the US didn't have a dominant military? http://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3
Lack of self-preservation (Score:1, Interesting)
> could make you feel "immortal" (at least subconsciously, which
> could affect your behavior).
Is that a bug or a feature?
Seriously. Now, obviously, armed forces don't want their soldiers to get killed (for many very good reasons); however, I can't help but wonder if dampening the self-preservation instinct by exposing soldiers to these games where they're effectively immortal isn't useful in terms of helping to make them think of personal danger as an obstacle to be avoided, rather than as the more natural OMFGI"MGONNADIE!!!
On Killing (Score:2, Interesting)
He brings up some interesting points, including only 15 to 20 percent of the individual riflemen in World War II fired their own weapons at an exposed enemy soldier and Conditioning in flight simulators enables pilots to respond reflexively to emergency situations even when frightened. And similar application and perfection of basic conditioning techniques increased the rate of fire to approximately 55 percent in Korea and around 95 percent in Vietnam.
In other words, simulation and conditioning absolutely has an effect on people.
Re:At what point do you draw the line? (Score:3, Interesting)
Probably not, except for designing safety protocols for the Holodeck so nobody really gets hurt. Aside from that, no I think we will continue to try improving simulation regardless of subject matter, to the point of it being BTL (Better Than Life), and that the motivation to pursue virtual reality will continue until we get there. If we never do get there, we will probably still keep trying as long as our species exists. We started all this a long time before computers, through plays and other writing, vocal traditions of storytelling, etc. We are ever seeking fantasy escape, always wanting to put our minds somewhere other than where we are. Subject matter is a secondary consideration. If something can be simulated, rest assured someone somewhere will want to simulate it. A bunch of people saying you shouldn't simulate subject x y or z isn't going to change that.
On Killing (Score:5, Interesting)
Firing rate? Contrary to what you may think of the typical Civil War battlefield, most soldiers did not fire their weapons. On a big field running with blood, cannons booming and everyone screaming, most soldiers would not fire a single shot. Battles would end with literally thousands upon thousands of loaded muskets on the ground. Fast forward to WWII, where we have the image of brave American soliders firing automatic weapons under terrible conditions. The nonfiring rate among infantrymen was 80-85%. Further, only 1% of airmen accounted for over 40% of all downed enemy aircraft. Most pilots did not shoot anyone down or even try to.
The Army decided to look into this. What they found out is that people generally don't want to kill anybody, and would often rather die themselves, even in battle when they are scared to death, than shoot someone. Not that the soldiers were cowards. On the contrary, the same soldiers that would not fire a shot would repeatedly take terrible risks to rescue a wounded comrad. But the Army wanted them to pull the trigger and hit something, and they figured out how. The only way someone that scared would be able to do anything in that situation is if they had been subject to operant conditioning. They would need to program the soldier's midbrain to fire the weapon, since the forebrain is no longer in use under that much stress. They began to make training as realistic as possible in terms of exposure to violence, and make the thought/action of killing part of a soldier's reflex, so that when the bullets started flying, the American soldier would respond.
It worked. During Korea the nonfiring rate among infantrymen rose to about 55%, and by Vietnam it was an amazing 90-95%. The American infantryman was a killer on the battlefield, and only later did the Army realize that fully 98% of soldiers who experience close combat and pull the trigger would be psychiatric casualties. The 2% that weren't mentally crippled are people who, outside the military, would be locked up.
The author makes an excellent study of how this sort of operant conditioning for violence exists outside the military, in movies and video games. Before you knee-jerk and say that violent video games have no impact on the children who play them hours and hours a day, and who then go watch violent movies and television, you should check out this book. It's hard to dismiss the data out of hand.
Re:Hesitation (Score:2, Interesting)
I know I'm lucky that I never had to kill anyone and I'm strongly against war.
But back to the point. I agree that a significant percentage of soldiers still don't shoot at the enemy. But this is still a minority. And a lot of those who don't shoot, don't do it because they are paralysed with fear of dying, not fear of killing. A video game will never change that.
Re:Hesitation (Score:2, Interesting)
More interestingly, from a gaming point of view, while games represent the sound of the explosion quite accurately, what lacks from the realism are the associated sounds, like the sound of debris falling back into the water, the fat that you go partially deaf for a few moments after the explosion etc.
Re:Experience with combat simulations (Score:2, Interesting)
However, I have to ask: What do they do with the guys who were addicted to things like Tribes?
(When *playing* Tribes, its all too fun to shoot a few spinfusors at a teammate, particularly one who is standing still)
I wonder if skiing or rocket jumping works in these simulations... [Yes, I realize this is far beside the point, but it brings up some amusing ideas].... Seems like people who are used to shooting+strafing+turning all at the same time might have some advantage....
Hesitation may be a good thing (Score:2, Interesting)
Soldiers should remember that they are fighting wars, and killing people: if they forget that they become (expendable) tools that can be used for any purpose.