Ender's Game Influences US Army Training

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...

Comments

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't Ender's tactics involve genocide?

Re:Hmm

[AndroidCat]

True, in the book, the adults set Ender up. They told him not to shot planets, and told him it was a game. Then in the final round, when he was going to lose anyway, he broke the rules. They knew that Ender would bend or break the rules to win from all the battle room drills.

Ender at least didn't try to evade responsibility for his actions. They were done in ignorance, but he admits he did them.

military leaders all under 15?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ender's Game and the following books are all great. But I'm not sure that we need a bunch of army commanders who haven't hit puberty yet who are lied to and told that they are really playing a top-secret version of C&C Generals, that just happens to play out in real time and not have a pause?

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.

Commander

[Bullet-Dodger]

I remember reading (here it is) that the army had made Ender's Game required reading.

When the Marine University at Quantico required students in one class to read Ender's Game, it wasn't for the strategy -- tactics in 3D space aren't really a big deal for the Marines. Rather, it was because Ender's Game is virtually a textbook in how to develop a strong relationship between a commander and his troops -- with plenty of examples also in how to fail as a commander.

In Ender's Shadow it's said that Bean is actually more technically gifted then Ender but Ender is the perfect commander.

Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in the US Army, and the US Marine Corp, we use various computer simulations and "games" to train for combat. Helo pilots use these fancy simulators, as do the mechanized armor guys. Not only do we use graphics simulation, but also there are computer generated missions/scenarios (not like video games) that adapt to how you chose to execute a mission. For instance, you are given a situation, and you have several choices you can make, and then the system responds to your decisions (sometimes increasing the difficulty if you make a stupid decision) and presents you with a changed situation. I'm sorry, the Army psychologists do a better job at describing these new tools.

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.

is ruthless efficiency the answer?

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens when the lines between simulation and reality are blurred to the point where it IS Ender's game. Where are battalion of super soldiers swoop down and decimate their opponents with no though to reaction to it all. Like in Ender's game, where what seemed like another game was war, genocide.

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. McArthur was about to! If we are truly interested in liberation, freedom, and the plight of all men then these ideals should be a the forefront of the military's thinking. Not saying they aren't, but it certainly is not a part of "tactical simulations" like Counter Strike or Unreal Tournament.

Others

[gailwynand]

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.

"We aint a gonna study war no more"

[RalphTWaP]

As unsettling as I find this, I also find it appropriate.

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]. 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.

Not new to use video games: BattleZone

[oaklybonn]

I once worked with a guy that worked for Atari; the army commissioned a custom version of BattleZone for their tank trainers. I've been trying to find a better link, but for now, this site discussing battlezone: dadgum.com:

What's the story behind the U.S. Army version of "Battlezone"?
There was a group of consultants for the Army--a bunch of retired generals and such--that approached Atari with the idea that the technology for "Battlezone" could be used to make a training simulator for the then new Infantry Fighting Vehicle. The idea was that such a simulator could be made into a game that would encourage the soldiers to use it. They would learn not only the basic operation of the IFV technology, but would also learn to distinguish between the friendly and enemy vehicle silhouettes.
They approached us with this in December of 1980 and found a champion in the company in Rick Moncrief. They wanted a prototype to be finished in time for a worldwide TRADOC conference, being held via satellite, in March 1981.
and more...visit the site

Leaders or Sociopaths?

[MikeFM]

Is there anyone else that is good at getting people to do what they want but no longer does so for moral reasons? People aren't toys to manipulate to your own game. I used to be a major sociopath that sort of viewed humans as toys or pets. Controlling the majority of people is really easy.

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/soc io .htm