Ender's Game Influences US Army Training 679
PortWineBoy writes "Although we've been bombarded in the last few weeks with techno tales of the U.S. Army, I found this
story in the NY Times (FRRYYY) to be quite interesting. The director of the Army's simulation technology center said that Ender's game influenced how and what they will build for future training." Begin Mazer Rackham Analogies...
Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hmm (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Informative)
(Orson Scott Card's joke, not mine.)
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Informative)
In the end, xenocide was a result of his actions, but not his intentions. That's what the rest of the books were about!
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Ender at least didn't try to evade responsibility for his actions. They were done in ignorance, but he admits he did them.
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Interesting)
** Spoiler Alert **
(Though if you RTFA its already spoilt it)
That's why they had to resort to deception at the end of the novel. Because if Ender had known that he was actually killing the Buggers, his natur
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but the point was that Ender did not know that. He thought he was training on a simulation. The situations they put him in kept getting harder and harder until they reached the homeworld of the "buggers" where the odds became impossible and so he just blew up the planet. He thought he was being tested and he was angry that they would give him such an impossible task, so he completed it the only way possible, by killing everyone, including his own men.
It worked, but the point was that Ender wouldn'
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually that was one of the points of the book. Another key point is that the child soldiers were used by the adult soldiers to perform an action that the adult soldiers were unable or unwilling to perform.
"You had to be a weapon, Ender. Like a gun, like the Little Doctor, functioning perfectly but not knowing what you were aimed at. We aimed you. We're responsible. If there was something wrong, we did it." Ender's
Orson Scott Card's genocide connection (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe I should have. I knew Card was a Mormon. So was the founder of Cardston, one Joseph Ora Card. His little homestead is preserverd at the southern end of town. There is a little plaque there, saying he was the first Mormon to leave Utah and settle in Canada.
Orson Scott Card's book "Seventh Son" takes pl
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
i hope they are not (Score:2, Funny)
Why is this so hard? (Score:5, Informative)
Like so [nytimes.com]
Re:Why is this so hard? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is this so hard? (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, I think they might eventually piss of the nytimes if they did that. Free Reg to the paper of record isn't really such an evil thing, btw, imnsho, ymmv, ald fa;bb b.
Re:Why is this so hard? (Score:2)
archive.nytimes.com hosts entry (Score:2, Informative)
199.239.136.212 www.nytimes.com
199.239.136.212 nytimes.com
to your hosts file to fix the "problem" for all normal nytimes.com URLs. The only negative side effect is that the front page no longer works.
Check out http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ [someonewhocares.org] for more hosts file goodness.
Re:Why is this so hard? (Score:2)
Locating the "any key" on the keyboard qualifies as computer science for many people
-
but didnt (Score:5, Insightful)
ummm (Score:4, Funny)
Re:ummm (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're fighting for something you love (Not necessarily your leader, but your home, or your country) against a superior force, you do anything. Suicide bombers, chemical weapons, torturing POWs, anything you think might give you a chance.
That's why it's so bloody dangerous to back people into a corner. When they've got nothing to lose, they can throw it all against you.
Re:ummm (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you right up to the point of where you start intimidating, torturing, and mass murdering your own people. Then, exactly whom are you protecting?
What I remember of Ender's Game. (Score:4, Insightful)
What parts were they emulating?
Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. (Score:5, Informative)
This xenocide correlation bullshit is just assanine, that's not what the article is saying. It actually says very little about "ender's game", but... the point is using High-Tech Simulations to train Army and MARINES. The post says Army when a big part of the article is talking about Marine sims too.
As a former Army Captain... Sims work, and save you tax money. Our Military is the best fighting force in the world... and the most compassionate and ethical. Simulations also help soldiers learn how to deal with media, civilians and wounded enemy. That's why we are the best.
Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>>>>>>
I doubt anyone is questioning the soldiers here. But the reality of the situation is that a soldier does what he is told, and the people giving the orders aren't necessarily as ethical as those carrying them out.
Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. (Score:5, Insightful)
Where the hell do you get this pathetic thinking from? The attitude of the leaders trickles down to the lower levels. The military literally reflects the attitudes of the top generals, the president, and his advisors.
Ask anyone in the military. You will see slight differences in the behavior of each unit that precisely reflect the leadership of that unit.
You want to know why the Iraqis are putting pregnant women in car bombs? It's because the people in the military are just as brutal, sick, and demented as Saddam is. They largely reflect their leadership.
When you see a private run for cover with a child in his arms, he is doing that because he knows that is what his sergeant and lieutenant would do. The sergeant and lieutenant would do the same because they are told to do that by the captains and colonels. The captains and colonels do that because that is the ethics taught to them by the generals. The generals teach those ethics because that is what the president wants them to do.
Your stupid argument that the little guy is good but the top brass is bad is idiotic. The little guy reflects the behavior and morals of the top brass and commander in chief.
In fact, the true hero of this entire conflict is President Bush. He sticks to his morals. He did what is right despite public opinion polls and opposing pressure. He refuses to bend his ideals to satisfy a few people for a few days. He refuses to go back on his word. He is bringing dignity and freedom to a country that has been ravaged for twenty years. What is in this for him? What is he going to take home at the end of the day? The answer is nothing. In fact, he stands to lose a lot more than you imagine. How would you like to know that you were directly responsible for young men and women being tortured and brutally killed? Yet, despite this, he pushes on, not because it is easy, but because it is right.
He is doing all this, sacrificing his political career, sacrificing his peace of mind, all to bring freedom to a couple of people in a faraway land that nobody seems to care about. He does this to ensure that our children will grow up without planes crashing into their office buildings, and without worrying about being burned alive by savage terrorists.
It's people like you that make Saddam Hussein think he stands a chance, and give aid and comfort to the enemy. If you would've stood with your president from the beginning, Saddam would've left long ago, and we would've ended the torture that is the daily lives of the Iraqi people years ago.
Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I contest your point that Bush is good because he refuses to bend his ideals. History has shown that an inflexible man is the worst kind.
Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just a few examples:
Hitler knew what he wanted. Among other things, the Jews dead. And he didn't bow to all these other countries saying he was a genocidal maniac, he did what he thought right.
The Worldcom et al CEOs knew what they wanted. Money. And they did whatever they could to get it. The rest of the world called them corrupt thieves, but they bravely ignored them.
Osama Bin Laden knows what he wants. Dead Americans (Well, a liberated homeland, but dead Americans are a nice intermin step). And he did whatever he could to get them.
Determination is not a replacement for moral fortitude.
Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. (Score:2)
YHBT.
YHL.
HAND.
Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. (Score:2)
-- Bob
Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. (Score:2, Interesting)
Point is, the Buggers weren't always ramen, they were originally quite dangerous, in the same way a kindergardner with a shotgun is dangerous. They didn't know they were going to cause harm by doing
Re:What I remember of Ender's Game. (Score:2)
military leaders all under 15? (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, the whole book is basicaly about child abuse sponsored by the governemnt. Interesting reading, but maybe not the ideal way to create well-adjusted officers.
Re:military leaders all under 15? (Score:2, Insightful)
My Lord, have you even read the book? Card was getting at the disconnect that people have about children. If you listen to the people today, children need to be wrapped up in bubblewrap so they don't hurt their little selves. In reality, many children are smart, shrewder, and wiser than many so called adults in the world.
Ender was by far the m
Orson Scott Card rules! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Orson Scott Card rules! (Score:4, Insightful)
I really don't mean to be an ass, but the principles represented by Ender's tactics were the military equivalent of nine o'clock, day one. Surprise, initiative, misdirection... these are not complicated or revolutionary ideas. The very first thing you learn when you study tactics is to figure out what the enemy expects, and then to do the opposite. Even taking into account the fact that the enemy knows you're going to do that, and is anticipating it.
It's not some big insight that comes with genius or years of experience; it's the first thing you learn. Well, the second thing. The first thing is always to wear clean socks.
I'm not trying to put you down or anything like that. I just want to make sure you don't read Ender's Game and come away thinking you've learned something about military tactics.
Re:Orson Scott Card rules! (Score:2)
Nobody expected aeroplanes to be used as a weapon. But they were. Guerilla warfare/terrorism is all about using unconventional weapons and tactics.
Commander (Score:5, Interesting)
Leadership (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.usna.edu/Library/Marineread.htm
The main focus of the book for me was that Ender's primary character trait was the ability to get people to want to do as he asked them to do (OK, ordered - it took place in a military setting). As they did so, they learned that their abilities were more than they'd ever imagined. The conclusion of the book is a warning that Nuremburg was real, and that everyone is responsible for his own actions. And yes, that war is not a game.
Leaders or Sociopaths? (Score:4, Interesting)
Life is much MUCH harder now that I've decide it's wrong to behave that way. It seems you can't really advance much in life unless you are an asshole. (I can say that about sociopaths since I am one.)
The main reason I decided being manipulative was wrong ss that it's very easy to have less and less respect for the people you manipulate. It becomes easy to abuse them in other ways. You tend to think of people as belonging to you as livestock might. It's easy to get into brutality and sexual abuse and things such as that.
When I see somebody that seems to have a lot of power or be some great leader I have to wonder how they got there.
http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/so
Actually... (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, these are in their infancy, but the Army plans to expand upon this to help soldiers expand their ability to make sound decisions. I.E., think about the consequences before you do something. The goal here is that if you can become comfortable with making logical, thought-through choices at the computer, then in battle or what-have-you, you will fall back on this "naturalized" ability.
Others (Score:5, Interesting)
The Marine Corps also encourages the reading of Sun Tzu's Art of War - centuries old and still a great set of military insights. Also encouraged is Starship Troopers - which is best read as an ode to the infantry, and exemplifies the esprit de corps that the Marines strive for.
Re:Starship Troopers? (Score:2)
Whoa! (Score:2, Funny)
In other news...Thirds rule!! (Score:5, Funny)
"First-borns tend to have strong world domination tendencies" says Dr. Oliver Knapthf, one of the contributors to the book, "they are frequently deceptive geniuses who should be watched closely and never trusted."
In chapter five, "Embracing the Seconds", second-borns (called "Valentine's") are referred to as the glue that often holds families together.
Though the book seems to favor third-borns (a surprising number of the authors are "Thirds"), giving them such titles as "the Saviors of mankind" and "misunderstood saints", Dr. Knapthf claims this is not true. "They are all necessary. The evil first-borns and the torn, empathic second -borns; you can't achieve a Third without a First and a Second."
"We aint a gonna study war no more" (Score:5, Interesting)
History has always demarked a division between civilians and military, both in the traditions of service, and deeper, in the psyche. Plato demarked the guardian's education as beginning with fiction [337a [evansville.edu]]. And it was a key to this education that it twisted the basic nature of those who would be guardians, demarking them mentally from the populace. This is a key concept in the training of warriors that has survived in literature and drama through the ages (in our time, you need only see the unifying concepts behind group-identity put forward in studies of the German troops of WWII, or Card's work, let alone the psych studies that _do_ point out a greater tendancy to follow orders and act cohesively with a rigorous group-constructed identity).
Is it any wonder that a society adept at mass production would find ways to mass produce those things that still must be men and not machines?
Is this a criticism of the men and women who serve? By no means. The psychological conditioning they receive is no less responsible for their survival and success than their physical training.
Is it grounds for a critique of an immature, and childlike race (mankind) who still finds war regrettably necessary? Perhaps. At least, however, it's highly unlikely that the children of those so trained will value war as highly as we do today.
I can't go to this war . . . (Score:2, Funny)
Brit/Irish/UK fsckup offers comment (Score:2)
Born in Leicester. USAF Dad, Irish Mother. Raised mostly in the West of Ireland (but also in France, Germany, UK, Ireland, and U.S.), gaelic speaker, love the English, and the Irish, ex-US-military.
And I'm not unique. In fact, I'll bet you'll find that a majority if the U.S. troops in the field today have a personal family history that goes back to Central America, Vietnam, and beyond.
In other words, the U.S. soldiers of today are the Tommys of yesteryear.
So please, quit with the snotty Brit
Did anyone bother (Score:2)
This is the article, in concentrate form:
The use a Half-Life/Quake3 engine game (think America's Army) to run "simulations", no games
They tell them the story of Ender's game, about a group of soldiers who think they're fighting video game aliens but are actually killing real life forms.
This explains to them, in terms they can understand, that when you're playing America's Army (or whatever the simul
Americas Army (Score:2, Interesting)
Conspiracy Theory (Score:3, Funny)
Not new to use video games: BattleZone (Score:4, Interesting)
Ender's Game? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ender's Game? (Score:3, Insightful)
The SPICE, er, OIL must flow!
Curiouser and Curiouser (Score:5, Insightful)
I read a few pages of Ender's Game everyday at work. It's one of only a small handful of non-technical books I keep on my desk. It's a very worn paperback copy, and it rests between my two copies of Paradise Lost and my well-worn copy of Christopher Marlowe's Dr. Faustus. I've probably finished the book 10 or 12 times in the past four years. And I think I know the reason we keep referring to the story as if it were fact.
Ender is a geek. He's bright and talented to the point where the only way people in competition with Ender can hope to succeed is by bringing him down. I know we've all read story after story and post after post about how difficult it is to grow up exceptional. (Remember the post-Columbine stories?) We don't simply relate to Ender. We aren't simply empathizing with him. Ender is us, and we are him.
Now that I've said all of that: It's cool that Mr. Card wrote a book that tells some of the truth about leadership and building a team. It's neat that he got it so right. But let us not forget that it is a work of fiction, and it worked out for Ender because that's the way the author wanted it to. Just because it worked in the story doesn't mean that it'll work in reality. We should glean what we can from Orson Scott Card's insight into human nature, but I can't imagine using any work of fiction as a training manual.
Ender's emotions and reations are real to me. I relate to his experience in some way. But we can't lose sight of the fact that Ender's actions and successes were part of a plot in a work of fiction. Any similarity between the fictional environment of the Battle School and reality is a testament to the imagination of the author, and not a sign that this book should be taken as Gospel.
Re:Curiouser and Curiouser (Score:3, Insightful)
You might enjoy the Honor Harrington series by David Weber, then. Honor is a fictional character, but a strong "true to rules of war" style character. She treats her enemies with compassion even after she's finished stomping on them; even the scum (tho she gives them only one chance).
Buy the book "War of Honor" and you get all the previous books, and much more, on CD. Great reading and highly recommended. Weber is fantastic.
Great post, BTW.
SB
well, that explains (Score:3, Funny)
Video Game Warfare (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting off the ship in San Diego was a huge wake up call... I had been "creating" the USS Rubin James, USS Ingersol and others. But as I walked down the pier, there they were, very real ships with hundreds of very real people walking off heading out to the bars and night clubs...
Scared the hell out of me.
Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game (Score:5, Insightful)
See, Americans go into war with one objective: to win. They bring bigger guns, better trained forces, and strategies that will ensure complete and total victory with a minimum of casualties. The interaction with the people is more of an afterthought. After all, if you can't win, it doesn't matter how well you interact with the local populace.
The British treat it like it is a damn dress-up game. I've even heard that they take off their helmets and put on those ridiculous berets when they enter a city. They say it is to show respect. I think it is to do the Americans a favor and draw out the snipers. Sure, they may interact better with the people, but dead people aren't as nice as live ones.
And the British can joke about the Americans all they want. They came all dressed up in uniforms and organized neatly not too long ago. A bunch of farmers kicked them out for good. I don't think those farmers knew the first thing about manners, but you know what, it was only their skill with the musket that mattered.
And your silly comment about war not being a video game just isn't true anymore. Most of the killing and destruction is done from miles away in the cockpit of a jet fighter, from the cabin of a tank, or on board a missile carrier. It sure seems like a video game from that range.
is ruthless efficiency the answer? (Score:3, Interesting)
While I think it would be absurd to be less efficient than possible, the spirit of American warfare must be upheld. We are not interested in conquest. After WW2, America could have taken over the world. McArth
Re:MacArthur's gotten a bad rap (Score:2)
>>>>>>>>>
Careful. A lot of people just see that situation as an example of American imperialism streching out through history. I don't completely agree with that idea (America was hardly imperialistic, in the traditional sense, compared to countries like Great Britain or France) but tact is somewhat important here. That said, we lucked out with Japan. The Japanese were the kind of pragmatic (thin
Re:MacArthur's gotten a bad rap (Score:2, Interesting)
Indeed. Here's what happens when it goes wrong. [google.ca] Looks/sounds sadly familiar, don't it? (Start with the top item.) Right down to bickering over who gets the spoils of war.
Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! (Score:3, Insightful)
Or did we just luck out with Japan? I guess we also lucked out with Kor
Re:Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! (Score:2)
Now, let's see if I can clarify for you. We lucked out with Japan because we went into their country and imposed our system of governme
Re:Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure what your post was arguing with the discussion of Vietnam, China, Cuba, UK, Taiwan, etc. Are you arguing that US former economic (and now military) hegemony has produced wonderful results in those areas, similar to the way you characterize postwar Japan? I'm not really sure I understand the point. The US was forced to withdraw its military operations from Vietnam due to the unyielding struggle from Vietnamese peasants, and while it
I used to think that, until I read this: (Score:3, Interesting)
----------
Samuel P. Huntington
Ever been to Japan lately? Besides the occasional McDonalds, you will find that things are really quite different there. People's notions of freedom are very different, and they have very different motivations than Americans.
Bombs only change the landscape. If the world were
Re:Americans? Imperialist? Don't make me laugh! (Score:4, Informative)
What an enormous chunk of hubris.
After WW2 America had enormous goodwill in the minds of many nations. That stayed even after Vietnam (though a little faded). But now no-one trusts America. Which is really sad, and scary too. After the Cold War there was no fundamental reason for the West to stay together, in fact I remember Gorbachev saying to a reporter that the days of the West were numbered because they [Russia] had removed the main reason for it to hold together. But it didn't have to be sabotaged the way it was! The next 10 years could be very dangerous for us all because of Bush. I fear this far more than the 9/11 attacks. There is no fundamental reason why in 10 years the EU / Russia / China could not be pointing nukes at the US and banning imports from the US. The USA now needs the world more than the world needs the USA , it isn't the 1950s anymore.
Just my 2 cents.
Re:MacArthur's gotten a bad rap (Score:2)
Umm.. NO. The Japanese Constitution was written by a bunch of international scholars who worked in the Occupation forces as technical advisors, including the famous Viennese woman Beate Sirota, who managed to slip in the women's suffrage clause (despite vehement Japanese objections). The Japanese constitution was drawn from various historic constitutions of the US, Russia, Germany, and France, amongst others. Go read "
Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game (Score:4, Insightful)
You have grown so complacent in your lifestyles, you have so lost touch of 'reality' (oh the irony of your reality TV), that you have elevated even warfare to the status of competition.
The original poster's point wasn't that British troops are sissy's and have better tea time manners, it was that the US troops have become the newest form of "GI Joe" toys that you can buy shrink wrapped at a Toys'r'us.
War isn't that... War is dirty. War is evil. It's going to the very edge of humanity and looking into the abyss. You people think you can handle it all because you're the best trained, best equiped... You aren't worth squat...
If you want to somehow pride yourself in warfare, you should go and bow to the ground in front of the people you call "camel jockey's"... These people, terrorists, are the shit... they are people who've carried and used Kalashnikovs out of necessity, not boredom, from when they were 12.
You should go see people who've lived their entire lives with the constant threat of sniper fire in Sarajevo... kids in their early teens.
You should go see african children, 8 year old children, who hack down an old man crossing the street with a machete just to grab a journalist's attention...
To come back to your striving ideology, you might think putting money into your national soccer team is gonna make you good, but the reality is that kids like Maradona grow up in slums in Brazil having nothing else in their lives... that is why they are so good... not because they bought it.
Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game (Score:2, Insightful)
War is not evil. War can be waged for liberty, self-defense or to stop a genocide.
War is a tool, a nasty sharp tool. It's what you use it for that make your endevor evil or, perhaps, good.
Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game (Score:3, Informative)
> War is not evil.
Well, there is the concept of a just war, where war was/is considered acceptable under certain special circumstances. But even a just war is a last resort when all else fails, and with today's communication technology and organizations like the UN, there are a whole lot of other things for a civilized nation to try before going to war.
> War can be waged for liberty,
It can be, if it is yourself you are liberating (American Revolutionary War). However, if you try to lib
Re:The people who are "the shit" (Score:5, Insightful)
The US might well sport the most dominant military force in all history, but the fact that you can - surprise, surprise - bomb the hell out of a repressed, deprived and embargo'ed third wirld country certainly doesn't entail that you can do the same to other countries. The goal should not be to "free" Iraq, if anything the goal should be to "free" Iraq with certain other premises: few to no civilian casualties, low to no damage to civilian infrastructure, effective ways to bring in humanitary aid, a smooth transition to a just post-war system.
Also, the United States have bought what you call the most dominant military force at a time when a dominant military force has lost many of its uses: you can't (and don't need to) conquer the world with it, and you can't even defend American citizens with it - an army is no use against domestic terrorism.
Re:The people who are "the shit" (Score:3, Insightful)
yep. in progress.
Also, the United States have bought what you call the most dominant military force at a time when a dominant military force has lost many of its uses: you can't (and don't need to) conquer the world with it, and
Re:The people who are "the shit" (Score:4, Insightful)
And how do you plan on doing that? Attacking every country that is anti-american? Doing that will only fuel more terrorism. And to counter that terrorism, you attack more countries, which fuels more terrorism ad infinitum
Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically, the same tactics the Iraqis are using ag
Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game (Score:2)
And then those farmers tried to attack Canada in 1812, and they got kicked out as well - by the Canadians, who were at that time still British colonists. Point being?
--Dan
Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless you plan on staying in a permanent state of war, and treating the opposing human beings as video game images, you should think past the conclusion of the fighting/slaughter and try to see how you can evolve the wartime victory into a peacetime one as well.
Or do you prefer the Israeli model, with an opposing populace using suicidal tactics because those are the only ones they have that work?
The only way to beat suicide bombers, is of course, genocide -- provided armed conflict is the only tool you have.
So maybe, just maybe, the Brits have learned a thing or two in dealing with "The Troubles" over the past several hundred years that will enable them to be able to go about their daily existence with less fear that the Israelis of having a "subjugated" population blowing up things as a daily occurence.
Ask the survivors of 9/11 if THAT seemed like a video game -- because that is the consequence of wartime actions without thought of peacetime consequences.
And if you think we weren't at war then, it only shows your inability to perceive us as our enemies do. I think their perception is that any time a country is funding another country's war, that makes them both allies. The billion-plus US dollars a year that goes into the coffers of the Israeli confrontation with the Palestinians may be invisible to the people of the US, but it's a red flag to the people supporting the Palestinians.
Note: I do not condone or endorse the actions of the Palestinians, the Israelis, the Iraqis or the Americans. I'm just trying to point out that there are consequences to behaving like an arrogant asshole, even if you do have overwhelming military superiority. That military action should be the last resort instead of the first response.
Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure they could but the result would be genocide. While I feel Isreal might have lost her way, I don't think the Jewish people are so far removed from history that the slaughter of an entire people appeals to them.
And before you say that genocide would not be necessary, consider that even the youngest, most powerless Palestenian boy will take a simple stone and hurl it at Israeli soldiers, knowing t
Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game (Score:2, Interesting)
Really? I'd say that if you can't interact with the local populace, it doesn't matter if you win the war. When the Israelis successfully invaded southern Lebanon in
Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game (Score:2)
Yep, Iraqi butt. British butt. Even their own butt, sometimes.
The US is responsible for more of the friendly fire incidents than anyone else, and for quite some time they were responsible for killing more coalition troops than anyone else. Even the Iraqis. I'm not sure if this is still the case or not, however.
If the US soldiers were a bit less trigger happy
Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game (Score:5, Insightful)
Interestingly, the American commander on the ground doesn't agree with you. Your theatre C-in-C has expressed a desire to get the British troops to give lessons in how not to piss-off-the-people-you're-supposed-to-be-helping
This came about because the UK troops were complaining that whenever the US troops had been in an area previously, they were far more likely to have guns pointed at them than when it was UK troops, and were asking why. It's a good question, no ?
You (the US) are in serious danger of doing "a good thing" by getting rid of Hussein, and becoming a pariah because of the way you did it. No country is an island any more, not even a superpower, and it would behove you to recognise that, like your military commanders do...
The UK troops do indeed go into stage-2 arenas (those already taken, which then need to be held) without full gear on. The message is simple - even you should be able to understand it: We were fighting the soldiers who were oppressing you, not you yourselves. We're here to help.
OTOH, they also go in groups of 4 in a particular formation worked out in urban warfare situations over the last few decades in Northern Ireland. Each soldier has a quadrant to watch, which covers his team-mates, it's a position of strength whilst not provoking as much of a bad reaction. How would *you* like a tank rolling past your door every 4 hours ?
Face it, we're better at you at this [urban warfare]; we've been doing it longer, and we won't mention where the funding for the IRA came from... Something we've learnt: there is little point in winning the battle if you ultimately lose the war. In this case, the "war" is the next 10 years of building and encouraging the nascent state, not bombing the crap out of a third-world country; or were you just planning on occupying it, building up resentment, and further dragging the US name into the regional mud ?
I'm over in the US (I'm from the UK, in case you'd not guessed
Simon.
Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game (Score:2)
Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game (Score:2)
Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game (Score:2)
On one level, this sentiment is corect - all lives are valuable.
But life of a free human is greater than the torment of a thousand opressed drones. It's only though liberty that mankind is more than a beast.
Actually, Sun Tzu is probably proud (Score:2, Insightful)
If the first night's strike had killed Saddam the US probably would have won without firing many other shots and the casualties from traffic accidents would have exceeded co
Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game (Score:2, Informative)
Just for the record, there are a good many folks over there now who have fought for just causes in the first Gulf War and Afganistan. Americans do _not_ think of this as "
Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game (Score:2)
Becoming British (Score:3, Offtopic)
Yeah, the yanks might not be so hot with the locals(we're arrogant Americans after all), so that's why we got the Brits along.
The brits don't have precision airpower and the troop training to place it on the front lines, but they don't need it. That's why they have us.
Alliances are a beautiful thing.
Re:Becoming British (Score:2)
Man, you just butchered a great joke oppourtunity with a really horrid "punchline". Try these:
just as long as they don't act like french troops because then they'd have surrendered two weeks ago. (Not particularly funny, but this one should have been blindingly obvious.)
just as long as they don't act like french troops because instead of water and wheat the humanitarian aid
Insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one of the most blatantly stupid news quotes and slashdot quotes I've ever read. American soldiers don't go running wildly into a battle situation, guns blaring, a-la duke nukum. They're disciplined, dedicated people who treat their responsibilities carefully and seriously.
They don't wear armour and the latest equipment technology can provide because of some lounge-chair psych bullshit 'warrior-wimp' syndrome. They do it because their superiors don't want 18-19-20 year olds to go home in body bags.
This is a group of mostly scared young people who just want to get the job done and go home. I'm happy for the Brits that they want to take off their helmets and play soccer with the locals, but if it's my daughter or son over there, I'd just assume they keep the chem suits donned, the humvees locked, and the rifles by their sides. Merriment and local PR are post-war activities. And to say that a video game could trivialize battlefield behavior for the participants -- that's just silly talk from someone that's obviously not 'been there'. They use these tools to teach tactics, not desensitization.
Until you've put your life on the line, and know what it's like to have more than a surround-sound bullet fly by your head, maybe you ought keep your comments to a topic with which you're better informed.
Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game (Score:2)
Not just Arabs think that is a shameful way to be treated.
A bit off topic here, but how many people have a dislike of American cops for this very reason? You happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and you suddenly have Joe Gland trying
Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game (Score:2)
Also, when you say, "...graceful manner in which British troops handle the delicate task of interacting with Iraqi civilians and the "them and us" attitude of their US counterparts?"
Pleas
Re:Grow up! War isn't a video game (Score:2)
--Joey
Re:Open challenge to /. readers (Score:2)
Goes to show that just because yawning is contagious, your challenge made me resist the feeling easily. I wasn't even tempted to yawn, or had to suppress one. It just didn't happen. Sorry. Yeah, I know off-topic. Here ya go: Ender would have yawned.
-------
Re:As they say in the commercial: (Score:2)
Re:Virtual Reality? (Score:2)
Oh yeah, and send one of both of them in blind (no prior knowledge of the situation, or terrain).
Let the "battle-hardened" officers set up the conditions, and make the soldiers simulate on that. Pit them against real people.
IIRC, in Ender's Game, as they got closer to ground zero for sending Ender in, they did just that: started putting the other tea
Re:Ender's Game is religious propaganda (Score:2)