Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ender's Game Influences US Army Training

Posted by chrisd on from the and-demosthenes-for-our-foreign-policy dept.

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...

6 of 493 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Didn't Ender's tactics involve genocide?

    1. Re:Hmm by AndroidCat · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  2. Commander by Bullet-Dodger · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.
  3. Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. Others by gailwynand · · 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.

    --
    A pilot, in those days, was the only unfettered and entirely independent human being that lived in the earth.-Mark Twain
  5. "We aint a gonna study war no more" by RalphTWaP · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.