Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military Stats XBox (Games) Games Politics

72% of Xbox 360 Gamers Approve of "More Military Drone Strikes" 446

Posted by timothy
from the ok-but-what-about-pepsi-drinkers? dept.
An anonymous reader writes "During the latest presidential debate, Xbox 360 owners were being polled live, as the debate was progressing, on a number of different questions, and asked to answer 'Yes,' 'No,' or 'Don't Know' using their gamepad. Out of these questions, one particular question produced a surprising result: Xbox 360 owners were asked 'Do you support more use of drone aircraft to attack suspected terrorists?' 20% answered this question with 'No'. 8% answered 'Don't know.' And a whopping 72% answered the question 'Yes.' This raises an interesting question in and of itself: Is the average Xbox 360 player at all aware that drone strikes in countries like Pakistan cause a serious number of civilian deaths on a regular basis? Or do Xbox 360 gamers live in a parallel, game-inspired universe, where a real world 'Drone Strike' is something seriously cool, just like it is cool to use it in popular games like Call of Duty? In other words, does playing simulated war games like COD on a game console on a daily basis, and enjoying these games, cause gamers to become blinkered to the at times seriously dire real world consequences of using military tactics like drone strikes for real?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

72% of Xbox 360 Gamers Approve of "More Military Drone Strikes"

Comments Filter:
  • by phorm (591458) on Thursday October 25, 2012 @11:06AM (#41764879) Journal

    How many military-esque games have civilians (particularly in multi-player mode)?
    In any of the games I've played where drones etc were an option, it's just "your team" (good guys) and the "other team" (bad guys).
    A drone strike/airstrike/satellite bombardment/etc only hurt military characters. Heck, on many settings you don't even get friendly-fire.

    Is your average gamer going to know what a real drone strike is like? Probably not. Accompany the poll with some documentation + pictures of mangled civilians and see if what approval rate you get.

  • Re:Or... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by crazyjj (2598719) * on Thursday October 25, 2012 @11:11AM (#41764979)

    It probably didn't help that that question was more loaded than an Irishman at a wake on St. Patrick's Day. If you ask "Do you support doing X to attack suspected terrorists?" you could pretty much get at least a two-thirds majority no matter WHAT the "X" in question was.

  • Re:Or... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SMoynihan (1647997) on Thursday October 25, 2012 @11:32AM (#41765379)

    Or, as so well put in "Yes, Minister":

    I was somewhat naive in those days. I did not understand
    how the voters could be both for it and against it. Dear old
    Humphrey showed me how it's done.

    The secret is that when the Man In The Street is approached
    by a nice attractive young lady with a clipboard, he is
    asked a "series" of questions. Naturally the Man In The
    Street doesn't wants to make a good impression and doesn't
    want to make a fool of himself. So the market researcher
    asks questions designed to elicit "consistent" answers.
    Humphrey demonstrated the system on me. "Mr. Woolley, are
    you worried about the rise in crime among teen-agers?"

    "Yes," I said.

    "Do you think there is a lack of discipline and vigorous
    training in our Comprehensive Schools?"

    "Yes."

    "Do they respond to a challenge?"

    "Yes."

    "Might you be in favor of reintroducing National Service?"

    "Yes."

    Well, naturally I said yes. One could hardly have said
    anything else without looking inconsistent. Then what
    happens is that the Opinion Poll publishes only the last
    question and answer.

    Of course, the reputable polls didn't conduct themselves
    like that. But there weren't too many of those. Humphrey
    suggested that we commission a new survey, not for the Party
    but for the Ministry of Defence. We did so. He invented the
    question there and then:

    "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"

    "Yes," I said quite honestly.

    "Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments?"

    "Yes."

    "Do you think there's a danger in giving young people guns
    and teaching them how to kill?"

    "Yes."

    "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms
    against their will?"

    "Yes."

    "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
    I'd said "Yes" before I'd even realized it, d'you see?

    Humphrey was crowing with delight. "You see, Bernard," he
    said to me," "you're the perfect Balanced Sample."

  • Re:Or... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 25, 2012 @11:50AM (#41765647)

    Soldiers are supposed to risk themselves, that is what all the guns are for. If we are pissing our panties over protecting them then we shouldn't send our troops anywhere except Chuck-E-Cheese.

  • Re:Or... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by vux984 (928602) on Thursday October 25, 2012 @11:58AM (#41765783)

    With the constant "civilian shielding" enemies use

    You mean, in that the "enemies" are living out their lives in their own country far away from any direct military conflict with us?

    Did you know our very own generals often sleep in the very same house as their families? If the 'enemies' decided to attack them directly for leading the attacks on their countries, why, we're shielding them with civilians: women, even children. -gasp-

    I dont see one good solution here.

    Realizing that the "war on terror" isn't won by killing people indiscriminately who are thousands of miles from our borders would be a good start.

  • Re:Or... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MightyYar (622222) on Thursday October 25, 2012 @01:26PM (#41767485)

    How fast would the strikes stop if they used drones within the US and had ANY so-called civilian deaths.

    So fast that they won't even start using them!

    How many children have they killed accidentally with drones over there? And they wonder why the US is losing what little respect they ever had.

    How many children died in Berlin, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Hanoi, or Baghdad? The US is not new to the killing children game, so that's kind of a straw man. The issue is whether drone children killing is less in our interest than more established methods of children killing. I think there may be a good argument that drones are pissing people off more, but I haven't seen anything that passes scientific muster.

"Help Mr. Wizard!" -- Tennessee Tuxedo

Working...