PLA Develops First Person Shooter With US Troops as Targets 395
An anonymous reader tipped us to a People's Daily story about the (Chinese) People's Liberation Army's new shoot-em-up game with US soldiers as targets, and that story led us to a more complete description of the Glorious Revolution game at the Daily Mail, which includes a nice video (in Chinese, of course) toward the bottom of the article that shows how the game looks in action.
We are their enemy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:We are their enemy (Score:5, Funny)
Don't forget... (Score:4, Funny)
...we're also one of their largest investments.
Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
There are games where China is the enemy. Why is it suddenly a bad thing when the US are the bad guys?
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know how many games have turned killing Chinese into entertainment value? This isn't a game made by a game company. This was developed by the PLA. Did America's Army developed for the US Army attack Chinese, or really anyone? Propaganda is propaganda.
Re: (Score:3)
The actions of the few don't mean everyone engages in such behavior that is f
Re: (Score:3)
The actions of the few don't mean everyone engages in such behavior that is flagrantly illegal per U.S. laws, rules of engagement, as well as human rights treaties ratified by the Senate (e.g. the Geneva conventions [wikipedia.org] and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [wikipedia.org]). I am more troubled by the Pentagon's coverup at first, and foot dragging later on.
If this group of thugs were immediately taken into custody by the Pentagon and prosecuted severely for their actions, then I would by
Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
There are games where China is the enemy. Why is it suddenly a bad thing when the US are the bad guys?
Citation needed for games where the Chinese army is the bad guy and the game is made by a world government.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not Chinese, but American Army is pretty damn close as it's made by US Army. You're always playing US soldier and shooting down some middle east guys. And always meaning it doesn't mean which side you play with, you always see yourself as US Army and the other ones as middle east guys.
Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally I don't care which ever side you can play in any game or how horrific a game can be, it's all just virtual reality, and as long as it stays there, I don't care.. And I like the US countryside, only sad thing is, there live so many 'not so intelligent' people there (next to a lot intelligent, but it seems those haven't got anything to say)..
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Informative)
The recently released FPS game Home Front features the PLA as the enemy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homefront_(video_game) [wikipedia.org]
In fact, I would hazard a guess that this new game pitching the US as the enemy is a direct response to Home Front.
Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Informative)
Per your link, the enemy in Home Front is not China, it's North Korea.
"The antagonists in Homefront were originally intended to be Chinese, but were later replaced by a unified Korea for two reasons: a possible backlash by the Chinese Ministry of Culture and the reality of economic interdependence between America and China that made the Chinese "not that scary"[8] said Tae Kim, a former CIA field agent and consultant on the game's backstory."
Re: (Score:3)
Battlefield 2 was created by DICE and distributed by EA, not the U.S. government.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Huh? Which country's government is EA Games?
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Funny)
All in due time. All in due time.
USA (Score:4, Interesting)
U.S.A. government, http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000033404&year=2009 [opensecrets.org]
Or we can look up BSA or other "not for profit" orgs they use to buy the government with.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that game was made by a World Government.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Because now Bin Laden is dead, and Al Qaeda has been rather unscary for a few years now, China is the new bogey man with which the US government prefers to beat it's citizens into submitting further to their control and scrutiny with.
That's why.
Re: (Score:2)
Doubt it. China actually could shitcan the US economy in 24 hours, either using currency manipulation, calling in the debt, or even military means (getting their puppet Kim to shell Seoul, overrun Taiwan, etc.)
Because companies know that, there is a reason why you don't see PLA posts as the target for FPS games.
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
and we could shitcan the Chinese economy in 24 secs announcing our intent to default on that debt, and stopping the purchase of their exports.
Re: (Score:3)
That's how a country turns into a basket case that no one trades with. How do you think the rest of the developed world would react to the U.S. throwing a toddler-style hissy fit and demonstrating that they have no integrity and their word is not worth shit?
Whose economy would suffer from that?
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Not the point; I was responding to
China actually could shitcan the US economy in 24 hours, either using currency manipulation, calling in the debt, or even military means
If they did any of those things to the extremes that would "shitcan" the US economy we would not be buying any electronics anyway. At that point it would simply be a matter of "if I am going down, I am taking you down with me."
China can't really call in the debt. These bonds they be sold on the market or redeemed. Redeemed is pretty close to "calling in the debt" but if the instruments are not mature something less than face value would be paid. The market lacks enough buys to absorb the assets if they were dumped at anything beyond firesale prices. China would lose a huge portion of their own savings, but it would turn the dollar into paper. They can't redeem them all at once at the Treasury either as they don't have the cash on hand to pay, and can't borrow it because we are in excess of the debt ceiling already. So we would default. That would again destroy China's savings and turn the dollar in to paper. With the even greater side effect of destroying our ability to borrow. T-Bills being reduced to a JUNK rateing would be a much bigger problem for our banks and private sector than those bogus valued CDO/CDS/MBS ever were, and still remain.
The DEFLATION that would trigger would be so incredible that nobody could find a dollar spend and few would have anything of enough value to trade for one if such a dollar was found. The ONLY spending that would be happening is completely on inelastic products like staple foods.
No US money would be purchasing electronics from China through intermediaries or otherwise.
Meanwhile in China FoxCon and friends have a problem. Their biggest market has vanished overnight. The only markets large enough in population to replace it (their own domestic and India) don't have a standard of living which would permit many to buy these products. The only way to fix that overnight would be a sudden and extreme revaluation of currency which would alter the political landscape so rapidly their governments could not survive. If they don't revalue until most citizens can buy and IPad, well everything grinds to halt. Workers go home because there is no need to build more inventory, wages are not paid to workers not working, farm products don't get bought even though people are starving, the farms collapse and then everyone is starving.
So yea its essentially a non-nuclear MAD arrangement.
Re: (Score:3)
So yea its essentially a non-nuclear MAD arrangement. +1 Insightful. Whether by decision or by accident, be assured that this is more likely than an other consideration to keep China and the US at peace.
We would almost certainly cancel our debt obligation to the Chinese if they were to do something overtly hostile, like invade Taiwan. And everyone knows it. Now--do we start a war with China just to have the legal precepts to cancel that debt, and erase the US deficit overnight? A war with China would
Re: (Score:3)
It recalls the old saying "If you owe the bank a million dollars and can't pay, you have a problem; if you owe the bank a billion dollars and can't pay, the bank has a problem."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Any attempt to seriously harm the US through economic methods would also hurt themselves.
Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the economic revival of China is a matter of intense national pride among the Chinese people. But the excesses of those who have gotten very wealthy, and the growing economic disparity in China, would pose real problems should sentiment in the lowe
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
While I agree with you on the economic front, China would have difficulties if they tried something like getting Kim to invade the South. North Korea's military is something of a joke technologically speaking, relying on numbers. Their most advanced aircraft are a few dozen MiG-29s, and the remainder are 1970s and older aircraft. Their armor is even older than what the allied forces faced in Desert Storm. Besides, it's not in China's economic interest. Remember that message that was released by Wikilea
Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Because those games are not created by the US government or US Army, nor are they used as training tools for actual soldiers.
Re: (Score:3)
> nor are they used as training tools for actual soldiers.
Not quite. Watch the movie in TFA.
Personally, I don't care who's shooting who in the game. The intent behind the creation of the game would be more of a concern.
And it should be noted (Score:5, Insightful)
The US Army HAS created a game. It is called America's Army and is free for all to play. You play as US forces, of course. So who is the enemy OPFOR, basically the generic professional opposing force the Army itself has. Whatever side you play on always appears as US Army, the other side always appears as OPFOR. No country is the "bad guys" in their game.
The Army game doesn't make a political statement, and indeed is based off of the Army's own training idea and methods.
Re: (Score:2)
or go back to Command and Conquer : Generals... the choice is USA, China , or a random terrorist group . Choose your team and go kill... it is a game , no real people die , and the colors are just skill trees. Who cares...
Re: (Score:2)
Show me a FPS where the Red Guard is a target.
The only recent game where I know of where Chinese soldiers were the target of violence was Command & Conquer: Generals, and the Zero Hour expansion.
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
So did the game developed by the US Army feature chinese and russian enemies?
Of the article is accurate, this game wasn't developed by some third party but was developed by the PLA.
Seems a bit revealing to me.
And folks tell me I'm wrong when I say there will be a significant war with china in the next 50 years. But this is how things start. The chinese have a fairly enormous racial superiority complex laid over a deep inferiority complex due to the 1800's and early 1900's. That kind of thing can boil over in a bad way.
The best thing to happen will be to get them away from the racially pure meme they are nursing. That kind of belief has lead to bad things very reliably over the last several hundred years.
Re: (Score:2)
There won't be a major war, the Chinese will just require all loans repaid, that will end the US as we know it.
Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That was my reaction too, at first, but they'd probably enforce economic sanctions - no more cheap Chinese-made crap exported to the US - before they went to outright war... and then I decided it probably WOULD be the end of the US as we knew it.
Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Informative)
...And you don't think *that* would lead to a major war?
Not when we need to borrow money to pay for it.
Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Can they make us pay it all in one sitting if they wanted to? Bonds can't be redeemed until the maturity date, can they? Kind of like a bank can't make you pay off your mortgage all at once. The agreed terms have defined pay back times.
Re: (Score:2)
Either way, probably wouldnt matter. I believe we would default and use the savings to go to war.
No they can't (Score:5, Insightful)
The people who act like that are just people who don't understand the world economy. They see it on a narrow, personal, level and think it is like a loanshark situation: China gave the US money and can call it due any time. That is wrong, what actually happened is China chose to invest in US securities and bought them. They pay defined rates at defined times and there is no ability to "call in the loan."
Also important to understand is that US securities pay in US dollars. So if the government chooses to inflate their way out of it, you are SOL. A note pays a fixed dollar amount and unless it is a TIPS or inflation protected one, and long term bonds are not, then it isn't paid in adjusted dollars. If you have a note that pays $1 million then that's what you get, doesn't matter if that $1 million has 1% of the buying power as when you purchased the note. Means there's a reason for holders of these to not want the US economy to tank.
Now what China could do it sell the securities on the open market. While the government doesn't pay the balance on a note until it is due, you can sell it to other investors. Ok, but if they unloaded all their securities at once, it would cause a massive price depression which would mean a massive loss of money for China. If they tried to unload securities with a face value totaling a trillion, but could only get people to pay ten billion because of oversupply and people being worried, they'd take a massive financial hit.
There's more to this (like the fact that default is an option for the US, or that the notes are all just accounting entries managed by the treasury, not physical notes) but what it comes down to is it is not a situation of "They loaned a lot of money and can hold it over your head." It is rather a situation of "They have invested a ton of money in your securities and need those securities to do well so they don't lose their investment."
Re: (Score:2)
B) The US can easily pay the debt off, because the debt is denominated in dollars. We can print as many as we want. The resulting inflation will suck for people who saved money, and for those (like China) who loaned us money when it was worth more, but it won't be the end of the US as we know it.
Re: (Score:2)
China and the U.S. are not nearly as rivalrous as you seem to insist. However, that sort of belief does make for some good domestic politics and policymaking on both sides, what with the faux nationalism that can be invoked pretty much anytime.
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree. I think the US will do anything to avoid all-out war with China. They can easily grow their army to tens of millions of soldiers and change their factories to building war machines.
Re: (Score:3)
Armies and navies don't really matter to the US or China. It's impossible to mass a force when the enemy has nuclear weapons. Any concentration of ships is just a really expensive future coral reef.
But it wouldn't take much to disrupt food transportation and kill millions on both sides. Biological attacks are possible but have the risk of backfiring. Not sure of what form it will take.
As for bonds-- nations can and do just change the terms on bonds. In the past they have arbitrarily turned 20 year bond
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
I fear a Sino-American war, and hope it doesn't happen. However, there are a lot of things that worry me:
1: Two countries, one set of resources. Almost always, this is what wars end up being fought over.
2: China's nationalism. Race is second, because there are a lot of races in China.
3: Revenge, especially of what Japan did to them last century.
I just hope old hatreds can be set aside, people here in the US start using nuclear power as opposed to fighting over dino juice, and that both countries get some wisdom of their own that trading is a lot better than chucking ICBMs.
China is also going through a cultural renaissance. Now that people can do art and music without being lined against a wall and shot (like in Mao's time), people there are more interested in education and developing their economy as opposed to military gains.
I cross my fingers -- in a lot of ways, China is a command economy, but it isn't an extreme country (now that the nuts like Mao are cozily dead), nor is it one that would sacrifice its children for religious dogma meaninglessly. I just hope it stays that way.
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
1: Two countries, one set of resources. Almost always, this is what wars end up being fought over.
I assume you mean the resources currently in Chinese territory. I doubt we'd go to explicit war against a major military power with nuclear capability over resources. Easier and safer to bargain, like we have up until now.
2: China's nationalism. Race is second, because Han is the only race in China that matters.
FTFY. Ask the Uyghur about that. However, the concept of the Middle Kingdom is key to its foreign policy. China invented exceptionalism [wikipedia.org] millennia before George Washington was born.
3: Revenge, especially of what Japan did to them last century.
I hope not. There's enough ancient hatred in the world as it is.
I still think the flashpoint will be when China decides it's put up with "its rebellious province" [wikipedia.org] long enough, and the US will have to decide whether it will go to war on behalf of its little ally or just let it go, along with a fair bit of US military hardware and technology.
Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Informative)
There used to be a lot of races in China, most have been "ethnically cleansed" by the Han. The Han race is China is the Peoples Communist Party. Maybe things will go well, but they are pretty close to the Nazi party in the late 20's, so my hopes are definitely not up.
Re: (Score:3)
I fear a Sino-American war, and hope it doesn't happen.
It's not going to happen. The US and China are BFF's. They're practically twins. They're the two "most capitalist" countries in the world. Both are authoritarian regimes run by close parings between business and closed political parties. All the other political shit (communism/democracy) is purely for show. China is America's Eastasia. America is China's Eastasia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four [wikipedia.org]
Always troublesome, too many single males (Score:3)
China has a significant imbalance in its female to male population. Which is a source of unrest. So their government will need to keep them busy, distracted, etc.
Now this would be more troublesome to local adversaries than remote ones, simply because moving that many men is a logistical nightmare. So I would think that should they need to be aggressive Taiwan is toast of course quickly followed by Korea. Will they? Not while they have relatively stable finances, but if it implodes like a house of cards that
Re: (Score:3)
The best thing to happen will be to get them away from the racially pure meme they are nursing. That kind of belief has lead to bad things very reliably over the last several hundred years.
Luckily this is already happening thanks to DNA. There used to be a fairly strong belief that was promulgated by the PRC that the chinese evolved separately from the rest of the world based on the discoveries in china of some homo erectus fossils - a.k.a. peking man. But:
A 1999 study undertaken by Chinese geneticist Jin Li showed that the genetic diversity of modern Chinese people is well within that of the whole world population, which suggests there was no inter-breeding between modern human immigrants to East Asia and Homo erectus, such as Peking Man, and that the Chinese are descended from Africa, like all other modern humans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peking_man#Relation_to_modern_Chinese_people [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
This AC is worth highligting...
They said..
The following book (written by university profs and heavily documented with references) contains numerous references to high ranking PLA officers referring to the US as the enemy, well at least in internal chinese language publications.
http://www.amazon.com/Death-China-Confronting-Dragon-Global/dp/0132180235 [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not seeing where anyone said it was a bad thing. Of course I haven't read all the following posts yet so there may be someone down below who says that.
[John]
Battlefield 2: china, vs US, vs "arabs" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not surprised either. EA's Battlefield 2 featured soldiers who were very obviously Chinese and generic "arab".
Are you sure they are Chinese, and not Japanese/Korean/Vietnamese/Thai?
Lots of other games (Score:3, Informative)
have done this. You can shoot US soldiers in Battlefield if you play the other team. In fact, I prefer playing the MEC in BF2 because the sniper weapon is just better. Not sure why this is news, other than getting censorship blowhards and right-wing nuts agitated. I'm sure we'll see this on Fox News tonight wrapped in a typical "Are liberals to blame" bullshit.
Not convinced... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Nowhere in that video did I hear anything about the US being the enemies. Actually it sounds like this is a PLA developed game for PLA soldiers (for training... or however military forces justify making video games these days).
I would assume that the enemies are 'OPFOR'. There is a scene with an Apache(?) going down, but frankly that could be an allied aircraft; what are the chances you will ever hear that spin in the west.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, are any of the enemies Chinese-American soldiers? America does have ethinic Chinese in her military, and I hope the PLA is aware of this.
Is it Really US Troops? (Score:5, Informative)
I can't quite listen to the Chinese audio since I'm at work, but based on the video alone, is it really against American troops? I only saw very generic urban warfare tactics in a very generic Chinese city and a very generic set of bunkers and pillboxes. The only "indication" that it was against American troops was a very fuzzy helicopter that might be an Apache or might be something else entirely.
In any case, so what? We in the US has been playing games where the Chinese Army was the antagonist for ages. Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising and Battlefield 2 are two that I can name off the top of my head.
Re:Is it Really US Troops? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I personally don't like violent video games or other violent entertainment for myself. But I don't assume that those who do, especially when we're dealing with pretend like in video games, are necessarily going to be violent or "evil" persons themselves.
However, someone who takes issue with the fact that it was a person of their nationality that was targeted does scare me as it reveals to me that they (1) don't understand that it's not real and (2) they don't have an issue with one of them being killed.
Re:Is it Really US Troops? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, technically, after all we're talking about a communist country, whether it's a company or government doesn't matter since they are the same.
Platforms? (Score:2)
When will it be available for the XBox?
Re: (Score:3)
Fair enough (Score:2)
Re:Fair enough (Score:5, Funny)
>For years in USA had the URSS (and viceversa), then URSS dissapeared and three years later it was Irak,
Ah yes, the United Republic of Soviet States. They were truly an incredible enemy. Remember when they launched a theremin guided tesla space coil at Atlanta and it turned everyone into an ape for 10 days? Or when they landed on Mars only to find an ancient race of rock-based life who beat them back with mud weapons? Or when Kennedy and Khruschev fought each other telepathically on national television to win control over the the Fidel Castro android that was running Cuba?
Oh man, don't get me started on Irak. Lord Irak himself killed my grandfather in a electric sword duel. Those were the days...
Re:Fair enough (Score:4, Funny)
>For years in USA had the URSS (and viceversa), then URSS dissapeared and three years later it was Irak,
Ah yes, the United Republic of Soviet States. They were truly an incredible enemy. Remember when they launched a theremin guided tesla space coil at Atlanta and it turned everyone into an ape for 10 days? Or when they landed on Mars only to find an ancient race of rock-based life who beat them back with mud weapons? Or when Kennedy and Khruschev fought each other telepathically on national television to win control over the the Fidel Castro android that was running Cuba?
Oh man, don't get me started on Irak. Lord Irak himself killed my grandfather in a electric sword duel. Those were the days...
Where can I buy this game? I must have it!
Re: (Score:3)
goberment is also how someone with Spanish as a first language might pronounce government :-P
Finally something different (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And if you are playing the russians, germans, etc in those games, the US is the bad guy for half the people playing as well.
i always complain about false equivalency (Score:2, Interesting)
i always complain about false equivalency morons posting on slashdot and elsewhere. you know, the morons who say "but the u.s.a..." whenever the issue of chinese internet censorship or human rights violations comes up. even though chinese internet censorship and human rights violations are genuinely orders of magnitude worse than in the west. not that the false equivalency morons can see that. whether out of intellectual dishonesty or genuine stupidity, who knows
but this is entertainment, not government pol
Re:i always complain about false equivalency (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Why is that controversial? Shouldn't it be entirely expected? I'm more surprised that the US army doesn't* have training sims that include a Chinese adversary.
*Do they? I know they have terrorist simulators, they ought to have commie simulators too. Same for central american drug lords, middle eastern oil barons, and anyone else the US is likely to go up against.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
but this is entertainment, not government policy
Actually, since it's being used as a training tool for the army, this does count as government policy. On the other hand, I have to admit that I have a hard time getting offended, since it looks more like Call of Duty than a useful training tool. If China really wants to equate mouse accuracy with martial readiness, who am I to persuade them otherwise?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
i always complain about false equivalency morons posting on slashdot and elsewhere. you know, the morons who say "but the u.s.a..." whenever the issue of chinese internet censorship or human rights violations comes up. even though chinese internet censorship and human rights violations are genuinely orders of magnitude worse than in the west. not that the false equivalency morons can see that. whether out of intellectual dishonesty or genuine stupidity, who knows.
Funny thing that, by conflating genuine criticism of US actions with false equivalency you join the ranks of those false equivalency morons. And all the times I've seen you do it, it sure looked like wilful intellectual dishonesty on your part. Far easier for your id to paint those you disagree with as "unable to see" than to consider that the arguments are more nuanced than you'd like.
Re: (Score:2)
"conflating genuine criticism of US actions with false equivalency"
it is entirely fair to criticize the usa, the usa does plenty wrong in this world, and i welcome all criticism of the usa
fuck the usa. let me say it again: fuck the usa. two things:
1. i am free to criticize the usa, within the usa, which is an ironic meta-commentary in itself (you can't criticize chinese political decisions in china, do you understand that and why that is so much worse than RIAA and MPAA shenanigans?)
2. i am motivated by PRI
Re: (Score:3)
"Glorious Revolution" (as it's been translated here, I've also seen "Revolution of Glory", "Battle of Glory", "Glorious War", etc.) is produced by the People's Liberation Army. It is, in effect, a government product, and cannot be directly compared to American entertainment-only products.
However, we can compare it to America's Army, the game produced by the US Army. Current version (AA3) does not have a foreign force - it is a
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't really understand what you're trying to say here - are you suggesting that human rights violations in the West are beyond comparison with what happens in China?"
yes, that is exactly what i am saying
"I can think of several specific incidents ( Gitmo, Iraq , Panama, Vietnam, Pakistan ) of Western powers shitting all over the human rights when it suits them to do so."
yes, the usa did these things, and they are evil, and the usa deserves to be criticized for that. and i am also saying that what china d
Bad summary: No US troops, only a drill (Score:5, Informative)
The game is named Glorious Mission, or sometimes Mission of Honor, not Glorious Revolution, and the plot follows a soldier's life through military camp and cumulates in the eponymous large-scale drill, as reported by China Daily [chinadaily.com.cn]. No US Troops anywhere.
It also supports 32 person multiplayer. You can watch footages of the game on YouTube here [youtube.com].
Download? (Score:3, Insightful)
Where is the free download link?
If it's not free and FOSS, it's COMMUNISM.
The US videogame industry will be outsourced (Score:2)
Its coming folks. Some companies are already buying game assets from China.
The biggest problem for our country is not that China has a videogame with US targets, but that China itself is out to destroy our economy.... and we willfully help them do it.
So lets keep selling ourselves out boys!
We can learn something from history... (Score:2)
"Admiral Patrick Walsh said Washington is seeking to improve its relationship with the Chiese military, and an officer exchange program would provide a better understanding of Chinese culture, goals and thoughts".
The Native Americans tried the same approach. The US Gov't was happy to let them think that there was some chance at reconciliation as it simply made killing them all a lot easier.
br China won't be so foolish as to Pearl Harbor us. We can't wait for that kind of defining event. W
Most important question: (Score:3)
No I didn't... (Score:5, Funny)
More of an RPG and puzzle game fan, anyway.
The next step (Score:3)
If China can make realistic computer games, (Score:3)
and all that implies about their technological capacity to use cheap computing to create endless new resources, than what are they worried about fight over? Naturally, I could, and have, said much the same about the USA:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html [pdfernhout.net]
"Likewise, even United States three-letter agencies like the NSA and the CIA, as well as their foreign counterparts, are becoming ironic institutions in many ways. Despite probably having more computing power per square foot than any other place in the world, they seem not to have thought much about the implications of all that computer power and organized information to transform the world into a place of abundance for all. Cheap computing makes possible just about cheap everything else, as does the ability to make better designs through shared computing. I discuss that at length here: http://www.pdfernhout.net/post-scarcity-princeton.html [pdfernhout.net]
There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all. "
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
DISCLAIMER: I make a distinction between governments and populations.
That is how the Chinese view us. (Score:2, Informative)
It's just a game people - time to teach the imperial dogs a lesson! ;)
Yes, the Chinese people do believe that we're imperialists - and I can't really blame them. We do, after all, have military bases all over the World, two wars and military support in the Middle East, control of NATO, and pretty much a military that rivals several countries put together.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of it actually made me think. The visuals for the different locations are so wildly different (the good China maps actually feel like China, the good American maps feel like America, the good MEC maps feel like the Middle East). I can't shake the feeling that I'm in a new world, of sorts. Add in (talking an actual invasion now) the interaction with civilians, the learning about the ne
Cover! We don't need no stinking cover! (Score:3)
The glorious People's Army does **NOT** take cover!!1!!2! They charge! And charge! and charge again until the dishonorable barbarian enemy lies trampled with lamentations and impotent penises!
Cover taking is for weak, pampered Western pig dogs with their silly chain saw guns and thermal clips.
Re: (Score:3)
There is nothing outsized about the US military at all. It just happens to be the military that represents the world's largest economy and it's premiere superpower. Note that:
1. As a percentage of the US GDP, the US Military budget is in the single digits and much smaller in proportion to dozens of other countries. It must be remembered that the US GDP is massive. There is nothing out-of-proportion about the US military in relation to the size of its economy.
2. The percentage of the US population that
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
far from all