The Pentagon's Ultimate Home Theater

Steve Silberman writes "I was the first reporter to see the inside of a new battle-simulation system designed by the Institute for Creative Technologies, a 'military-entertainment' think tank sponsored by the Defense Department. Starting in September, Marines, infantrymen, and Air Force pilots will train for war in Matrix-like rooms in Oklahoma simulating urban and desert environments, with surround sound and photorealistic rendering of bombing runs and other scenarios. It may or may not be the future of military training, but it's certainly the future of home gaming. My article, 'The War Room,' will appear in the September issue of Wired."

Comments

"Battle Simulation"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's military code for "Doom 3."

Re:"Battle Simulation"

[julesh]

That's military code for "Doom 3."

It probably is, too. I remember reading in Wired back in '97 or so about a unit that was training Marines using a Doom 2 mod they'd written. They've probably moved over to UT in the mean time, but I think they might consider moving back...

Wait

[Luigi30]

If they lose a life in the simulation, do they die in real life too?

Re:Wait

[Ieshan]

Heh. No.

But it's a good point.

Simulations can be designed to train soldiers to take unneccessary or life-threatening risks so long as they involve a high amount of simulated payout and little or no punishment for simulated failure.

I seriously wouldn't be surprised if this is the way simulators are used to train soldiers.

I'm not trying to say that the Military has no regard for human life, but it's no secret that military operations are often valued in terms of numbers of soldiers killed per objective gained. Convincing young kids that they're supposed to risk their life for any intermediate goal is difficult, but not impossible (note that it's now "the country" young men risk their lives for, not "securing the powerplant" or "capturing person X". No one wants to be told that they're giving their life for a small piece of the puzzle.).

Making it easier to convince these soldiers by pre-simulating rewarding scenarios based on risk-taking may make soldiers more compliant.

Re:Wait

[0racle]

Of course the military has no regard for human life.Their entire purpose is to kill or be killed.

Re:Wait

[Daniel Dvorkin]

FWIW, pretty much everybody on the battlefield understands that he's fighting for a specific objective, and more importantly, for his buddies. "The country" is what makes idealistic kids enlist, but in a war zone, it's very far away; the guy to your left, the guy to your right, and the hill you're supposed to take are right there.

Re:Wait

[Jeremy Erwin]

Yeah.. I know that the best way to express your joy for a person by shooting them in the face.

You shouldn't shoot people in the face. It makes it difficult to harvest the retinas.

Re:Wait

[Ghostx13]

Thats the stupidest generalization I've ever heard. People die in war, thats a fact. Commanders send troops into battles that they know many will not return from. But I've never known a single military person who had absolutly no regard for human life, even the enimies. The purpose of the American military is to meet their objective with the least number of casualities possible, both of our troops and of the enemies.

Re:Wait

[Anonymous Coward]

"FWIW, pretty much everybody on the battlefield understands that he's fighting for a specific objective, and more importantly, for his buddies."

And, all too often, against his buddies. About half the persian gulf war casualties were friendly fire, not even counting murders and self-inflicted casualties. And sometimes they buddies you're fighting against are high on speed

Back on topic -- training soldiers in a video game will just make them that much more careless in this regard. You lose something when you bomb the canadians in the simulation, and then go out drinking with the same guys that evening.

Re:Wait

[__aawwih8715]

i will try and be objective and shed some light on the simulations i was trained on.

I assume the simulations you want to hear about are the computer and video style simulations, not the live fire simulations with blanks and lasers.

The most important simulator i've been through was a large video screen that played out different secenarios. We were given pneumatically operated m4's and m16's and in different scenarios were doing different jobs. Most of the scenarios played out were us (5 of us) in an eastern european zone or a middle eastern zone. Some were in the city, some were at the gate to whatever compound we were guarding. We would watch events unfold and react to it. For example, what would you do if a group of locals started approaching you. They do not respond to any commands to stop and are getting closer and louder and are visibly emotional and upset. They start throwing things at you and one of them happens to be a grenade. I learned how to react and what to do. its a very grey area to determine their intent. Everybody in iraq has an ak-47, how do you determine if its a threat to you. There's nothing that makes you feel worse than shooting somebody innocent, but it feels just as bad when you didn't and now 2 of your buddies are dead. Its really hard and not an exact thing. You're gonna feel like shit no matter what.

There were other simulations that i went through too, if you want to hear about them, just let me know.

Re:Wait

[__aawwih8715]

You are wrong, we are NEVER trained to take any sort of risk, it is discouraged to the HIGHEST degree. The army is all about safety and risk managment. I find it hard to believe everyone views the military as a factory and soldiers as a product.

It makes me sick that you, apparently, do.

Re:Wait

[MonkeyCookie]

It would be pretty stupid of the military to train their soldiers to take unnecessary risks.

Soldiers are expensive to train. When soldiers do something stupid to get themselves killed, you have to spend money to retrain their replacements, who won't have the experience of the dead soldier.

If they get wounded, the military has to pay for cleaning them up, taking care of them, and paying them disability for the rest of their life.

The military wants compliant soldiers, not stupid soldiers.

First Person Shooter

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the real FPS game.

Re:First Person Shooter

[carlmenezes]

Yeah and we won't have battalions anymore. We'll have clans.

Re: Home Theatre

[MichaelSmith]

Gentlemen this is the war room, you can't fight in here

Well now ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad to see them put my taxes to good use ...

Realistic

[LordHatrus]

So realistic, you'll leave with sand in places you've never thought possible!

Yeah, that's nice and all...

[MrDomino]

But the REAL question is, "where can I get one?"

Re:Yeah, that's nice and all...

[Duke Machesne]

Brookstones, maybe? Sharper Image?

Re:Yeah, that's nice and all...

[JamesKPolk]

Your local army recruiter might have some tips...

Future solders

[GoofyBoy]

Bunny hopping their way to victory!

Re:Future solders

[Anonymous Coward]

The moderator who modded parent post "Overrated" obviously haven't played and/or watched multiplayer Quake I/II/III/QuakeWorld matches.

Bunny Hopping is a movement technique that appeared when players found out that they could use a design flaw in the Quake/QuakeWorld physics engine to increase their movement speed, by continiously jumping and strafing from side to side, while adjusting the view accordingly.

Players continued bunny hopping in Quake II and III, even though the physics engines were modified to discourage bunny hopping, the players found new techniques to keep on hopping.

In a typical Quake III match players almost always moves by bunny hopping unless stealth is required.

How long

[Lanzaa]

How long will this take to get to home gaming though?

Or will these leave millitary use and get sold to private companies to have people pay to play in them?

Re:How long

[Jeremy Erwin]

Is "Full Spectrum Warrior" not enough?

At least he was honest

[Anonymous Coward]

How many times have we seen people pass off "stories" when they're just trying to get some attention. This guy was completely upfront and honest about a story he wrote that is of interest to many here.

Replacing training with intution....

[freedom_india]

The goal of the punishing routines and endless drills was to replace thinking with instinct so that at the sound of gunshots, a soldier would automatically return fire.

Intution is of no use when there are snipers hidden in a street to kill you and you panic. That is the army tries to replace intution with training.
As a man under fire, my friend used to say how many times training and automatic reflex saved his life instead of intution. if pentagon thinks they can replace training with intution they are building a bad army.

Re:Replacing training with intution....

[ashkar]

By instinct, the author probably meant the instant reflex of which you speak. The situation given was only one out of many that the military would train in. Most likely, they would attempt to get soldiers to the point where they could instantly analyze the situation, decide upon the best course of action, and act upon it. So, no, I don't think that this kind of training is a bad idea at all.

Re:Replacing training with intution....

[thermopylae300]

There are already many video-game type training methods being employed to train infanty riflemen (and police). These include reaction-time scenarios (with friendlies mixed in) and some decision making scenarios.

I remember one particular scenario that showed a group of shadowy figures running toward the user's position through the forest. Gunshots are heard from the forest and many riflemen will open fire before they properly identify the target... which is a group of women and children running from their unseen attackers. That was memorable training for anyone that opened fire.

I've read a few posts from slashdot's armchair generals informing the masses that it is a bad idea to do training in a video-game type environment. At ease, Rambo, the military isn't scrapping tough training for Counterstrike. You can not accurately simulate combat during training. The military must do their best by simulating as many aspects of combat as possible. Food, water, and sleep deprivation along with fatigue simulates some of the stess of war. Combined arms live fire exercises teach the sounds (and some fear) of battle. Blanks, paintballs, simunitions , and MILES gear allow you to fight force-on-force instead of pop-up targets. And simulations like this war-room give soldiers and Marines a chance to repeatedly practice scenarios in an easily-manipulated environment that would be extremely expensive to replicate outside of a video game.

I've seen it once or twice

[Bruha]

It's called Snow Hall I believe and it's at Ft Sill in Lawton, OK. I have friends up there that work at the place but they've never mentioned any signifigant upgrades. But being the military it does not mean that it didnt happen and they were probably not allowed to tell anyone at the time. I'll have to visit sometime to check it out hopefully.

Re:I've seen it once or twice

[digaman23]

Bruha, it's "I See O" Hall, and I tell the tale of how the building got that weird name in the article.

Re:I've seen it once or twice

[red floyd]

Snow Hall isn't big enough for this, IIRC. Well, actually, it is, but it's got so much other stuff (it's the main exhibition hall, cafeteria, etc...) that I don't think it has room for this stuff.

Re:I've seen it once or twice

[red floyd]

Or was that Knox Hall? Crud, I can't remember... been too long!

Re:I've seen it once or twice

[Bruha]

Just hope it's not the one that had the ATM stolen back in 2000 or 1999 before I went to Korea.. otherwise more than that ATM might go missing lol.

Training for what?!

[Anonymous Coward]

"That's a high-payoff target, brother," says Tyrrell. He gets approval to deliver a "limited lethality" fragmentation bomb to the hospital roof.

Jesus christ, this is the sort of training they get?!
Limited Lethality my arse. Nothing dropped from a fighter-bomber can be considered "limited lethality" - Kinetic energy alone does a good job of eroding that particular definition

Re:Training for what?!

[digaman23]

At the point in the article when I say that the Prado character tells the major that the hospital is off-limits for targeting, a colonel who was also watching the simulation interjected, "If you drop a bomb on a maternity ward, CNN's gonna wanna hear about it."

Re:Training for what?!

[Jeremi]

Nothing dropped from a fighter-bomber can be considered "limited lethality"

Actually, everything dropped from a fighter-bomber is "limited lethality", otherwise the first bombing run would have destroyed the universe.

Or to put it another way, limited != small.

Re:Training for what?!

[julesh]

The phrase "limited lethality" refers, I believe, to the fact that it is only lethal within a small range of where it hits. Not that is unlikely to be lethal at all, or anything like that.

Re:Training for what?!

[danila]

It's amazing how much you can achieve with some creative use of language. The "limited lethality" phrase doesn't actually sound like "it kills several innocent people, including children and doctors, as opposed to killing hundreds of them". It sounds really like "lots of sweet hugs" or something, doesn't it?

Where's that dang Peace Simulation?

[xactuary]

Anybody know of a peace simulation?

Re:Where's that dang Peace Simulation?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

There's no money in it.

Take a look at games now. It looks to me that the biggest genres are 1) first person shooters 2) some variation on military or war and 3) the remainder make up only 10% of the market, it seems.

Re:Where's that dang Peace Simulation?

[rpbailey1642]

Pardon the cynical viewpoint, but as long as war (any war) is profitable, there will be no peace.

Re:Where's that dang Peace Simulation?

[grcumb]

Erm, you mean, like people getting friendly with one another? Like really close, and, er, cuddling and stuff? Like, maybe, becoming intimate?

You're telling me you can't find any of this on the Internet?

Re:Where's that dang Peace Simulation?

[88NoSoup4U88]

So when will we be outsourcing war to India ?

Re:Where's that dang Peace Simulation?

[the gnat]

I'm sure every sociology (and economics, political science, or psychology) department in the country would love to come up with this, but unfortunately normal human interactions are infinitely harder to simulate than modern battle tactics and military technology. Although our current administration makes it seem even more difficult than necessary.

But seriously, the point of all this high-tech military wankery is to figure out how to inflict very brief and intense moments of horrific violence with the objective of ending wars as quickly as possible. Which is much better for innocent civilians in the long run. To take a recent example, the Iraq war hasn't exactly been kind to the Iraqis themselves (aside from the obvious benefit of no more Saddam), but imagine how much worse it could have been if we hadn't pounded the hell out of their army immediately and instead had to slowly chip away at their lines. (And I suspect that this would have been much worse for their army, too.)

Re:Where's that dang Peace Simulation?

[drinkypoo]

Yeah, it's called playing the pacifist in a Civilization game. You do end up fighting, because people will attack you, although it's amazing what you can accomplish with foresight and diplomacy. I'm no master of the game but I've managed to win the game on the third difficulty level or so without ever attacking anyone but barbarians.

Granted that's not as peaceful as one could be in a perfect world, and in the real world those "barbarians" are people with their own ways of life. However in Civ the Barbarians are pure bad guys; they can take over cities but they don't develop technology or anything. They're just marauders.

Personally, I want the worldrun game as seen in... well crap, what book was that? I've read so many scifi books I can't remember any more. Actually it was more a cyberpunk thing. Anyway a game in which you try to keep nations stable, very cool. Anyone remember?

Re:Where's that dang Peace Simulation?

[dorsey]

Jennifer Government?

Re:Where's that dang Peace Simulation?

[hicksw]

There is insufficient data to construct a plausible model.

Re:Where's that dang Peace Simulation?

[merlin_jim]

I read that book just last month. Now I can't even remember the author! I do remember the name of the protagonist though... Jason Worthing...

Ahh yes that's it! The Worthing Saga!

Re:Where's that dang Peace Simulation?

[drinkypoo]

I dunno, that doesn't sound familiar. It was some movie where one of the protagonists put on some kind of "suntan lotion" that changed him into a black man (skin color only of course)... I can't remember too much else about it though.

Battle Isle

[Hecateus]

Glory to the Room! sounds like fun

4 Years too early!!

[Big Yak]

I joined the Air Force as an officer 6 years ago, and just left a few months ago. When I originally went to Carnegie Mellon University, I took multiple classes in Virtual Reality. Unfortunately, the AF would not allow me to take the time off to pursue a Masters in Virtual Reality there... as they needed my computer skills immediately.

I guess I was just 4 years early... those skills are in very high demand, now.

Conventional War

[orthogonal]

Hmm. Can they use all that nifty technology and virtual reality to make sure Military Police and Military Intelligence units understand the Geneva Conventions?

Seriously. The leadership failures that allowed (or even encouraged) the US military atrocities at Abu Ghraib have cost us far more than any VR simulation, and will continue to cost us as a nation for decades, in both world respect and in the recruitment of America-hating terrorists.

Perhaps the miltary should shelve some of this gee-whiz "VR-tainment" favor of simple classrooms with wooden benches and a blackboard and high-ranking instructors who state unequivocally that torture is un-American, repugnant to our values, and will not be tolerated at all in the US military.

Paraphrasing the Christian Bible, Mark 8:36,for what shall it profit an army, if it shall defeat the whole world, and lose its own soul?

Re:Conventional War

[Fearless Freep]

"History And Moral Philosophy" class from Heinlein's "Starship Troopers"

Re:Conventional War

[Daniel Dvorkin]

[sigh] People like you just don't get it, do you? Shit like what happened at Abu Ghraib hurts us, it does not help us. It makes us less likely to win, not more. Stories and pictures of American soldiers torturing prisoners are the best recruiting tool al-Qaeda has. The same twisted "logic" that says Abu Ghraib was useful to American forces would indicate that 9/11 would have made Americans say, "Gee, this Osama bin Laden guy is pretty tough, we'd better do what he says."

Re:Conventional War

[orthogonal]

"History And Moral Philosophy" class from Heinlein's "Starship Troopers"

Better Col. Dubois than Chickenhawk Cheney or Wolfowitz.

I just recenty re-read Starship Troopers (for the, what, 10th time? I'm a big Heinlein fan); for those unfamiliar with the novel it is perhaps Heinlein's most controversial novel (it's often maligned as "fascist") because the society Heinlein approvingly depicted in the novel limits the franchise (that is, the right to vote) to persons who have voluntarily completed a term of "Federal Service", which (essentially) means military service.

Heinlein was not necessarily advocating this form of goverment (any more than the constitutional monarchy in Double Star, the world government in Stranger in a Strange Land, or the Howard Family gerontocracy on Secundus in Time Enough for Love), nor did he claim that such a government would be wiser than another form (indeed, he has that government specifically teach that that form is not necessarily wiser).

But Heinlein was making the argument that those who voluntarily place themselves at risk to defend their country are demonstrating that they consider their country's survival more important than their own, and that thus they can be better trusted to put the national interest ahead of their particular interests when voting or otherwise exercising power (but also see Heinlein's possible rebuttal to himself in his much later The Cat Who Walked Through Walls).

Heinlein's argument seems particularly timely when a President who managed to avoid Vietnam by getting a heavily sought after post in the Air Guard defending Alabama from the Viet Cong and a Vice President who "had other priorities" during Vietnam (enough other priortities to get five draft deferments!) have sent 970 American men and women to die in what increasingly appears to be an unecessary and ultimately pointless war -- and are questioning the patriotism of an opponent who actually volunteered for dangerous duty in Vietnam, got shot at, saved the lives of his men, and won numerous decorations for that.

For Paul Wolfowitz, the Iraq war is pieces on a game board (and in testimony to Congress he even forgot about 200 dead American soldiers), for Dick Cheney, numbers on a Haliburton balance sheet, for George W. Bush, the chance to pose for re-election ads in a flight suit on the deck of an aircraft carrier. But for 970 American soldiers, Iraq has been a place to die; and for countless others a place to leave arms and legs and youth -- or at Abu Ghraib, honor -- behind.

Maybe Heinlein had a good idea. We can do better by our soldiers and by our country than the Boy President.

Re:Conventional War

[Flower]

Go back and read the article and note when the officer talks about making sure they present the right stories in the simulations.

The ethics debate about interrogation is very high level and complex. When I was on vacation last week I think there was an article in US News and World Report which discussed the differences in interrogation methodologies used by the FBI and CIA. They are about as 180 degress from each other as you can get. The FBI goes for a hearts and minds stategy and the article made note that in one case they put together a deal with someone where for information they worked it out that his son would get a heart transplant. The CIA is total intimidation. CIA got one suspect and as he was boarding a plane the CIA interrogator threatened to find and rape the suspect's mother.

But what I got most out of the article was that there is no "unequivocal" definition of torture that can be brought down to the common soldier. They really do make individual cases out of every interrogation. This guy is known to have needed and reliable info which is time sensitive and he's not talking. Are we allowed to simulate drowning him (example from article) or do we turn him over to another arabic country which can take measures we won't. Believe it or not, this stuff goes by legal staff to determine whether we are crossing the line or not.

Personally I buy into the FBI's methodology. From the studies I've seen torture is not an effective interrogation tool. But obviously there are those up high who don't subscribe to that philosophy. Unfortunately that shit rolls downhill.

Re:Conventional War

[name773]

The original (niv) verse for those interested: "What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?"

Re:Conventional War

[stefanlasiewski]

You cannot promote democracy and torture prisoners at the same time.

Re:Conventional War

[KATN]

There is no denying that what happened at Abu Ghraib was horrible and disgraceful. However, what happened was more than likely the actions of less than 20 out of over 250,000. I make no excuses for what happened. I do not justify it. I do think there are too many of you who have never served in the armed forces and assume that everyone who has gone through basic training is automatically a controlled automaton. In most cases those who are in the military are stable and do as they are trained to do. The military is not, and probably never will be, immune to having rogues who will find a way to do things their own way.

There are too many people who are of the opinion that we should never have gone to Iraq. That is fine, they are entitled to that opinion. However, these people take it a step further by condemning anything that happens there if it happens to hurt someone. It doesn't seem to matter what those people have done, our people are wrong. The problem is that this does not help the situation. Everyone wants our troops home as soon as possible. Bringing them home before we have done what we can to stablize that area would make all the suffering on both sides a complete waste. I am not saying that the area can be stabilized, but we haven't been there long enough yet to make that determination.

I am not saying that anyone has to agree with everything that happens over there. But please, limit your complaints to specific situations and don't paint the whole military with the same brush. Don't work to make the enemies job easier by making things sound worse than they are.

Re:Conventional War

[Jeremi]

If that were true, then the videos of Daniel Pearl and Paul Johnson would be damn good recruiting tools for us. Are they?

Yes, they do help recruitment IMHO. I know a good number of Americans were inspired to enlist by the 9/11 attacks, and it wouldn't surprise me if other anti-American atrocities have a similar effect.

But I'm sick and tired of some of these types that will jump on us and accuse us of violating Geneva Conventions, while spouting off "but we have to understand their reasons" about 9/11.

Why don't you want to understand their reasons? The more you know about how your enemy thinks, the better equipped you are to deal with him. Remaining willfully ignorant because we want to preserve our comfortably simplistic worldview will not help us succeed. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, we CAN handle the truth.

Re:Conventional War

[vandan]

The word 'terrorist' and 'enemy' are not interchangable.

You also talk of fighting 'fair'. Which part of invading an innocent sovereign nation on false pretenses, with faked 'evidence' of guilt is fair? You seem to forget who started the whole thing with their 'shock and awe' campaign. Was that fair to the civilians who died?

You talk of freedom. What makes you the sole-giver-of-freedom? What makes you think Moqtada is not also interested in freedom? I think he is - just a different kind of freedom: his people's freedom to control their own destiny, as opposed to the US's freedom to rape other countries for all they're worth.

Which terrorist act is worse? Invading a defenseless country and killing tens of thousands, or blowing up a few clear US targets in your own country to try to get them to back the fuck out?

Get of your high fucking moral horse and take some responsibility for the shit you've put the rest of the world through. Without the US's openly aggressive foreign policy, I think we would never hear the word 'terrorism'.

Re:Conventional War

[Flower]

The execution videos would cut both ways here in the US. Yeah, some people might get so incensed that they would join but I bet a lot more people here would be horrified and demand that we pull out of Iraq.

As for the world, I don't think those videos would ever really play into getting people on our side. Taking a very simplistic and jaded view to it, the extemists would just take it as proof that they can meaningfully stand up to the West. Moderates and liberals will probably be mortified and distance themselves but it's the US so I don't see anything real being demanded unless it starts to blow up in their own backyard. President Bush blew so much of our political clout on Iraq that I don't expect any sympathy. So no, the videos don't mean squat in that context.

And in any event who needs to understand why 9/11 happened when reviewing our failures in Iraq? We're supposed to have a higher moral ground to stand upon and it's our responsibility to owe up when we fail. Be honest, do you really want the baseline we measure ourselves by to be extremist who can only justify themselves by outright perversion of their own religion?

Re:Conventional War

[OverkillTASF]

Not that I'm going to argue... much... because you seem fairly set in your oppinion...

But those civilians who died in the initial campaign... might it have been reasonable to think that that action, which resulted in Saddam's removal, could/should have resulted in fewer Iraqi's being killed or tortured for holding different religious beliefs or views on the government?

Moqtada is the good guy? Why is it that for every 1 target of military value, his guys blow up 30 of their own countrymen?

Tens of thousands? Tens of thousands of what? Soldiers? Then they weren't defenseless. Civilians? I don't remember the numbers every coming any where near that...

"Get of your high fucking moral horse and take some responsibility for the shit you've put the rest of the world through."
Well, there's one way terrorism happens. Whoever you're responding to doesn't have any responsibility for "the shit that you've put the rest of the world through". We don't blame "Iraqis" for Muqtada's actions. We blame Muqtada and those who do his dirty work.

Re:Conventional War

[Jeremy Erwin]

Heh. The "original" was in greek--and apparently is difficult to translate.

Two alternative translations:

"After all, what good does it do for a person to acquire the who world, and pay for it with life?" -- Scholars Version

"For what does it profit a man ti gain the whole world, and pay for it with his life." --Revised Standard Version

Re:Conventional War

[Melantha_Bacchae]

Sadr is no terrorist! When the poor, the recently unemployed (thanks to the US and their occupational government), the dispossessed Shiites wanted to fight, Sadr made the al-Mahdi Army out of them, and channeled their anger into peaceful protest. The US provoked them to anger beyond Sadr's control twice (by such freedom loving activities as closing down their newspaper). Then yes, they did fight, as a resistance force. If you haven't checked the Geneva Convention lately, it gives them every right to fight an occupation of their country. Everytime things get to the fighting stage, Sadr tries to negotiate a peaceful solution. He's no saint, but he isn't a terrorist either.

For those ignorant of such matters (I'm not because I looked it up), al-Mahdi is a relative of Mohammed who is supposed to return to fight injustice and tyranny, and to establish an era of peace. Everytime there is injustice or an occupation, the resistance (peaceful or not) invokes the name of al-Mahdi.

BTW, Sadr has a right to be in that shrine. He is distantly related to the guy the shrine honors. He is also the son of the Sadr that lead a rebellion against Saddam, the Sadr that was killed in that very shrine!

Bin Laden doesn't give a d*mn about your precious "freedom" (which apparently includes shutting down newspapers and ordering reporters out of Najaf on threat of being shot!). Bin Laden wants the infidel US bases away from Mecca (done). He wants the secular governments of Arab countries overthrown (partly done in Iraq and Afghanistan courtesy of the US). He also hates Israel and US support for its occupation of Palestinian lands and attacks on Palestinian people.

Sadr wants the US, its Coalition, and its puppet governments out of Iraq so they can have some nice elections, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc.

Iran, well that is a long story. Back in the 1950s, Iran had a nice democratically elected government, which the US hated. So in our first experiment in meddling (except for the creation of Israel), we sent the CIA in there to destabilize the government and put the Shah of Iran back in power. While this helped the US in the Cold War, the people of Iran, on the verge of a bright future of freedom, found themselves cursed instead with grinding poverty, police terror, and torture. Thousands died, because of the US. From this old sin of ours, springs forth Iran's current hatred and distrust of the US, and a dark and fearsome child: Terrorism!

In modern day Iran, the nuclear crisis has reached a new level: Israel and the US have threatened to bomb Iran's alleged nuclear facilities. Iran, for their part, has warned that the US has no monopoly on preemption: Iran will bomb Israel's nuclear weapon's facilities and attack the US in Iraq if they have reason to believe the US and Israel are going to carry out their threats. If the US and Israel don't quit making stupid threats and do some backpedaling, the US and Iran could be in a hot war by the end of the year!

As for cleaning our house, the Geneva Conventions are the house rules we wrote. The Nazis of old would love to see us breaking them, torturing innocents, becoming just like them! Abu Graibe probably gave Bin Laden a warm fuzzy too. Egypt is certainly grateful for the new torture techniques that they are now eagerly applying to their own people.

The more we torture, the more husbands we drag away in the middle of the night, the more countries we ruin, the more kids we shoot to bits in their parent's arms, the more anger we breed. The more anger, the more terror. You can't win this dirty. You can't hope to save freedom by destroying it. A complete withdrawal, not only from Iraq, but from the whole of the Middle East, especially of military support for Israel, might break the cycle and at least stop the creation of new terrorists. Otherwise, we continue to make terrorists faster than we can kill them: a war we can never win.

And then you can give this fancy training technology to fire fighters. At

Re:Conventional War

[Pomme de Terre!]

Hmm. Can they use all that nifty technology and virtual reality to make sure Military Police and Military Intelligence units understand the Geneva Conventions?

I am a military policeman for the Air Force. (For the record, in the USAF, we're called Security Forces.)

Troops are briefed on the Geneva conventions every time we mobilize to deploy. We're briefed everytime we get to a foreign nation. We're briefed every time we simulate deployment. Practically any time someone mentiones mobilization... the briefing comes. Further, every year we are required to take tests verifying our understanding of the conventions. In simulated exercises, we have to abide by the rules. In every briefing, we're told what we can and cannot do and we're told what the consequences are for breaking the rules.

Those soldiers at Abu Ghraid knew the rules. This wasn't a case of ignorance of the law. Further, they knew quite well that only lawful orders are to be followed. So the "My commander made me do it!" excuse is laughable.

More training isn't needed. And as we're seeing from the many investigations and courts martial, Geneva Convention rule violations are not tolerated.

The prison abuses aren't an institutional problem, they're a humanity problem. They're a byproduct of war, and nothing will change that reality. As members of the armed forces, we strive to be better than that; in the overwhelming majority of cases, we are. But, unfortunately, we'll see the darkness of man again when the next conflict breaks out.

War is ugly, and it brings out the worst in humanity.

Pomme de Terre!

Re:Conventional War

[Chandon Seldon]

According to http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ :
The number of Iraq civilian casualties reported in the media is at least 11619.

What the ratio of Reported In the Media to total actual casualties might be is an open question.

Re:Conventional War

[.com b4 .storm]

Oh, you say we have to clean our own house first? If we don't win this, cleanly or otherwise, we won't have a house left. Osama, Moqtada, and the mullahs in Iran would love nothing more than to see freedom fall.

IMHO, it's better to "fall" as what you are than it is to fall as what you are not. If freedom vanishes from the face of the earth, let it be because it was freedom to the bitter end. Better to die free than to live on with the blood of repression and the stain of hypocrisy on your hands.

Re:Conventional War

[protohiro1]

All the suffering on both sides is ALREADY a complete waste. I do not blame the soldiers there trying to do their jobs as best they can. They are dealing with a fundemntal problem, to quote The Battle of Algiers: "Should we remain in Algeria? If you answer 'yes,' then you must accept all the necessary consequences."

The soldiers their are fighting an enemy that can't be defeated with out really going after them, the results of which would be a serious PR nightmare and a country and world dead set against us. (not to mention the morality of killing people on that scale). If we do nothing things may get out of control there more than they are.

But honestly, I think this is a no-win situation. Nothing we do can bring about a magic democracy there. We have lost that war. What we are doing now is throwing good money after bad and losing too many american and iraqi lives doing it. And it has nothing to do with the soldiers doing the best they can with a bad situation. It has everything to do with the people that put them there.

Re:Conventional War

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Thanks -- you answered that pretty much as I would have.

I'd like to add one thing: as a medic, I took the Geneva Conventions pretty damn seriously. Most of the wounded I treated in Desert Storm were Iraqis who, in some cases, had been trying to kill me a little while before, and I gave them the exact same level of care I gave wounded Americans. Part of the reason for upholding this standard is entirely pragmatic: enemy soldiers are much more likely to surrender, rather than fight to the death, if they know they'll be treated well. (E.g., Germans toward the end of WW2 were much more likely to surrender to US and UK forces than they were to the Soviets.) The other part of it is moral: it simply does not matter if those we fight are evil, whether in their treatment of prisoners or in any other aspect; we have to be better than that, or we risk losing everything we have sworn to defend.

Re:Conventional War

[name773]

it fit nicely into his point, and being the pedantic nerd that i am, i wanted to give the original reference
the Bible is a big thing for Christians

Re:Conventional War

[ChipMonk]

Yours is probably the most well-grounded and reasonable argument against what happened at Abu Ghraib, that I've seen.

The only counter-point I would make to it is this: Tolerance is, by necessity, intolerant of intolerance.

Who knows, your point and mine may be very reconcilable. I hope they are.

Re:Conventional War

[thermopylae300]

You cannot promote democracy and torture prisoners at the same time.

Yeah!

You cannot uphold the law and kill innocents. Get rid of the cops!

You cannot promote justice and imprison innocents. Scrap the legal system!

You cannot promote clean babies and keep dirty bath water! Throw them both out!

Re:Conventional War

[glitch23]

Paraphrasing the Christian Bible, Mark 8:36,for what shall it profit an army, if it shall defeat the whole world, and lose its own soul?

Unfortunately paraphrasing the Bible doesn't get you anywhere nowadays. Fox News recently (couple months ago) had a Army General on that said this country is a secular country (not sure where his mind was at the time) and also you have to remember that people hate religion in the gov't so although I hope your comment makes a difference I won't expect that much. By the way, the US has already lost its soul when the minority can rip religion out of every aspect of life because it's offensive to them, and yet somehow they don't think that very act is offensive to those who want the religion. Double standards live on.

Re:Conventional War

[Melantha_Bacchae]

AC:

My facts can be easily verified by the use of a good recent encyclopedia and various news sources for the past two years. If I am an idiot, so are they.

BTW, see shlaf's posting for justification of my disclaimer.

shlaf:

By your argument there would be no American (USA) people. Being an American (USA), I beg to differ.

Some Palestinian Arabs (to differentiate them from Israeli Arabs who are citizens of Israel) kill innocent civilians with suicide bombs. The Israeli government kills innocent civilians with attack helicopters they got from the US. Both types of killing are equally brutal and evil, and both need to stop. That doesn't mean that all Palestinians or all Israelis are killers. There are good people in both groups.

It also doesn't invalidate the technique of removing the reasons people join terror groups as a valid way to fight Terror and win. It's not about appeasement, it's about cutting off a fire's supply of fuel.

Don't give me any Nazi crap. My dad was a sergeant and my aunt a nurse-captain in the US army in World War II! Anyway, I'm not the one looking for a "final solution" to a certain Middle Eastern non-people, or building walls though their non-lands. After all, a brutal, sub-human, non-people won't be missed (not that they were the first to be called that). And so the abused becomes the abuser, and the cycle of violence began by the Nazis continues. And so my family's fight against it continues, though I prefer words as my sword.

My values are justice, liberty, and peace. The virtues I aspire to are wisdom, courage, and greatest of all, compassion. Peace is my goddess. My enemy is Terror itself, not people.

Islam is, I'm sure, a beautiful religion for her followers. But I am happy with my beautiful, rainbow-winged goddess, who protects her blue, white, and gold egg: the Earth.

My wish for Israelis, Palestinians, and all the good hearted peoples of the Middle East is peace, prosperity, and happiness.

"Lola, kindness is not enough, look for the reason of hatred and anger.
When you find and understand that, love becomes the strongest power..."
Belabera on defeating the King of Terror, "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks"

Re:Conventional War

[danila]

Yep, just a few bad apples, that's it. No failure of the system, none at all. And of course noone knew about it, or they'd be punished immediately.

Wrong. According to the facts, the commanders knew about it and basically sanctioned it (to the very top, though it's not proven that Bush knew). We also know that those who blew the wistle received more punishment than those who commited the atrocities. And a lot of other things that contradict what you say. You probably work in the Civilian Relations department (PR) of the Security Forces, don't you? Or you were briefed really well on the correct version of the truth.

Re:Conventional War

[danila]

E.g., Germans toward the end of WW2 were much more likely to surrender to US and UK forces than they were to the Soviets.

This illustrates another point much better - you are much more likely to be treated humanly when captured if you don't burn villages, rape women and enslave people. If you do that, you aren't really safe among your captors. Nazis understood it really well - the Americans don't seem to.

Re:Conventional War

[vandan]

But those civilians who died in the initial campaign... might it have been reasonable to think that that action, which resulted in Saddam's removal, could/should have resulted in fewer Iraqi's being killed or tortured for holding different religious beliefs or views on the government?

No, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, we were sold the war on the Weapons of Mass Destruction (tm) lie. Removing someone from power because of the way they treat people under their rule has never been a valid reason for invading a country. What the invasion of Iraqis called in legal terms is a war crime . That's what a number of Germans in the military and Nazi party were charged with - for starting an unprovoked and illegal war of aggression .

Secondly, the US has no interest in the rights of individuals, either their own or anyone else's. Heard of Guantanamo Bay? How about Abu Grhaib prison? Reports are coming in from everywhere that everyone, from the new recruits to President Dubya himself new and sanctioned the methods being used, and the notion of a person being held beyond any legal jurisdiction . If you think the invasion of Iraq was about 'liberating' the Iraqi people then you are extremely misguided. It was about money and power - the same as all wars the US begins ... and they begin a LOT. Over the last 100 years they've averaged more than 1 per year 'military intervention'. Not wars by standard definition, but the fighting is just as real, the chemical weapons, depleted uranium ammunition and land mines are just as devastating, and the spoils of war go to the same places.

Thirdly, the fact that Saddam happens to have been removed from power ( illegally ) has not improved the situation for the Iraqi people. In fact it has made things worse. Tens of thousands are dead. Hundreds of thousands are wounded. I don't have any figures on those being held in limbo in prison for their political views, but the social effect would no doubt be incredible. But the icing on the cake is that fact that so-called Prime Minister Allawi is in fact just as bad as Saddam, if not worse. It is common knowledge that he was a hitman under Saddam. Accusations are flying in every direction about him overseeing extra-judicial killings of policial opponents in Iraq since he has been brought to power, and under the direct supervision of the US army . Link 1 and Link 2. Do you see what sort of democracy the US has brought to Iraq? Do you see what people are actually fighting against?

We don't blame "Iraqis" for Muqtada's actions. We blame Muqtada and those who do his dirty work.

'His dirty work'? One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. The only thing I've heard come out of Muqtada's mouth has been anti-US sentiment and pro-Iraqi sentiment. On that basis, I have to support him and his followers ahead of the US and their newly appointed Saddam, Prime Minister Allawi.

Re:Conventional War

[thermopylae300]

If by cover-up you mean the Army investigating its own soldiers, then yes I guess it was a cover-up. If you have proof of a cover-up that is not being handled by the legal system, please inform me and the appropriate authorities.

Despite your fondest desires, Abu Garab is not scrapping the system. The Big Evil System(TM) has weathered worse tragedies and it will weather this one.

And my analogy was supposed to be small-minded, I was poking fun at the logical fallacy of the parent:

You cannot promote democracy and torture prisoners at the same time.

Re:Conventional War

[Fortress]

America is not a secular country (I don't any country is secular) but it isn't a Christian country either, as your post and sig seem to imply. It is a FREE country that happens to be inhabited by a majority of Christians. As to the "minority...rip[ping] religion out of every aspect of life," what have you been smoking? I don't see any churches, mosques or other temples being torn down. The minority religions just want to stop their tax dollars supporting a state religion that they don't believe in. Sounds reasonable to me.

If you are religious, go to church (or whatever temple suits you), teach your children your religious values, spend your money to support your religious community. But don't tell me I'm trying to stamp out religion when I don't want to live my life (or spend my money) that way.

Re:Conventional War

[thermopylae300]

The Army is seriously investigating this and was well before the press got hold of it. The fact that you are more worked up about what is going on in Abu Garab than you are of serious human rights abuses in Sudan, North Korea, and pre-2003 Iraq shows just how unreasonable and morally relativistic you are. You have a dangerous double-standard that reduces justice in this world. You blame America first and ignore serious crimes. You whip yourself into a frenzy that is so pathetic and illogical you can't even post your silly little user name on a web site. You are a card-carrying member of the Blame America First crowd. Events like torture in Abu Garab do not promote democracy, you are right. I do hope that justice is served. Your accusations of corruption are baseless. The recent investigation has concluded that there was a problem in the chain-of-command for not paying enough attention to the situation. That is hardly damning, but it will be reported by some as a widespread problem. That makes it sound like corruption, but it isn't. Also, please inform me why we are really in Iraq and what proof you have for your conspiracy theories.

Re:Conventional War

[thermopylae300]

There are two types of Fascists in the world. The fascists and the anti-fascists.

Your compelling argument, backed up by your courage to put your name behind the opinions you stand for, and your well-cited research build a case that I simply can't argue with.

P.S. your link doesn't work.

Re:Conventional War

[glitch23]

If you would quit assuming and actually look around you ( and even ask people) what they really want, the vast majority of people would actually not mind and many would like the idea of religious prayer and other such things being performed in public. They like the sense of unity that religion gives them. It gives them something to lean on when times are tough and brings people closer together. No one forces you to join in a public prayer but for those who like that sort of thing but are now not allowed to do that in certain public venues, it takes a part of them and throws it away. The people of this country are mainly Christian. It is a religious country contrary to what your rational mind would like you to think. Most people like religion and do not have a problem with it.

You may not see any religious buildings being torn down but that is only one aspect that you mention. Prayer has been removed from any sort of school activity, even if the *students* initiate it. What's that tell you? Even when the public wants to express their religion they are not allowed to because of others in public being afraid it will offend someone else. That isn't freedom of religion by any means. Monuments are being removed from public locations. Pretty soon statements on our currency will be removed. I don't think minority religions should be able to tell a majority religion to shut up.

No one of the majority religion forces the minority religion to do something they don't want to however the minority religion is removing the ability for the majority religion to express itself in public. There *is* something wrong with that.

Basically you are saying there is a freedom of religion, but only if it doesn't offend you as the first rule and stays in the private lives of people but the majority of religious people express some of their religion in public, with others *gasp*. By telling them they need to control their religion so you don't have to see it you are offending some people but that doesn't seem to matter as long as YOU aren't being offended. Sounds like a double standard to me.

Re:The article says you're a reporter

[daveb]

oh get a grip.

first at least he was honest - he didn't put it forward as "hey take a look at this article I found" - hea was upfront that it was his article

secondly - it is possible for someone to be a reporter AND an editor. Next you'll be winging about someone claiming to be a songwriter AND have the gall to describe themselves as a singer.

what really bugs me is that you post that moan as an anoymous COWARD.

Finally!

[Duke Machesne]

A good reason to sign my life away to the military!

they need that much hardware to

[joeflies]

play military spec Battlezone?

Why do they still need pilots in the planes?

[FyRE666]

Since the VR is so realistic, why not use it instead of sending the pilots up in tin cans to get blown to pieces by the enemy? Actually, for the bombing runs, you wouldn't need any simulation - program the plane with a target, press the big red "Go Bomb" button and sit back to watch the wacky results. Same goes for the tanks - in fact they're even more simple (much like the people who usually drive them I guess).

Why are the machines of war still designed to carry meat-sacks around inside them?!

Re:Why do they still need pilots in the planes?

[Fearless Freep]

Why are the machines of war still designed to carry meat-sacks around inside them?!

You ever seen "Darkstar"?

Re:Why do they still need pilots in the planes?

[YrWrstNtmr]

So that you can recall them
So that the pilot, upon seeing the target is not quite as imagined, can abort the mission
So that you can have an accurate, in person, assessment of the actual scene. There are quite a few videos floating around from Iraq that show last minute targeting changes only possible by an onscene human.

program the plane with a target, press the big red "Go Bomb" button

We have those now. They're called cruise missiles. Or in the ultimate sense, ICBM's.

But they're working on mutiple types of UCAV's. I expect we'll see a scenario whereby a few of these are slaved to a piloted control A/C (F-22 or AC-130 maybe). Give the UCAV's a simple AI for the flight to the target area ("Stay next to Mother"), and then the human aircrew can designate one or more targets to each. ("#1, these coordinates, #2, that truck, #3 circle until further notice)

Finally, it is MUCH harder to hack or jam the control system of a human piloted vehicle. You really don't want your unmanned vehicle to be captured in flight and turned against you.

Re:Why do they still need pilots in the planes?

[stienman]

There are lots of reasons, but two which you should be intimately familiar with as a computer professional are:
Latency and DoS attacks.

Even if the soldier is within 10 miles of the UAV, even if they use hardware instead of software, even if they reduce latency to the absolute minimum possible with today's technology, the soldier is still milliseconds behind in the actual action on site, and the equipment is milliseconds behind the soldier's reaction time.

Secondly, even with super secure communications, spread spectrum, frequency hopping, multiple parallel channels, etc there still exists a significant possibility that someone else could adversely affect the operation of the UAV with a fairly simple and cheap electronic circuit. Even if it only increased the latency by a few mS as the systems try to cope, employed at the right time in a battle, it could easily give the opposing force the window they need to disable the UAV. It wouldn't be easy to track down and bomb like the GPS jammers Iraq used in the beginning of the war since it would only need to be on for a few seconds at a time and could be carried.

-Adam

Re:Why do they still need pilots in the planes?

[FyRE666]

Ok, I was using 2 scenarios there, a high-altitude bomber will generally not make a descision based upon the pilot's assessment of the ground (too high up), hence the "Go bomb" button - they're going to bomb regardless.

A pilot controlling the aircraft via a VR link could do all the same things a pilot in the craft could do, no? It's not like these guys are hanging out the top of an open cockpit, gritted teeth and faces blackened by exhaust fumes any more - it's HUDs and laser guidance. They have no more of a feel for the terrain than the guys following the action on the monitors back at base.

I take the point about jamming the communications, though I'm guessing the military would have some comm setups that are pretty tough to block, and probably well beyond the tech savvy of a bunch of backward misongynistic religious zealots taking pot-shots from a mosque in outer nowhere....

Re:Why do they still need pilots in the planes?

[YrWrstNtmr]

A bomber, say B-1 size and up, is big. Any one of a thousand things can go wrong on the flight, that only a human on board can handle. If a Predator has a problem in flight, it's not THAT big a deal. Let the puppy crash. If a B-52/B-1/B-2 has a problem in flight, it's far too expensive to just let it go.

From what I've heard, flying a Predator is significantly harder than flying a real jet. You don't have the same feel, or vision out the cockpit. Flying straight and level is OK, but trying to jink around a SAM would be next to impossible. Any latency in the system (and there will be some) gets you that much 'behind' the aircraft. They'll get there, but we're not quite up to the point of an R/C B-2. And I'd hate to think of trying air-to-air via remote control.

Who do you think lays the laser on the target for the bomb to follow in? Either a guy on the ground, or the co-pilot/BombNav guy.

As far as jamming and enemy capabilities go, the current 'religious zealots' are not the only enemy you design for. Think farther East. Somebody with a LOT more money/tech capability.

Re:Why do they still need pilots in the planes?

[NanoGator]

"Why are the machines of war still designed to carry meat-sacks around inside them?!"

The technology doesn't exist to remotely control them yet. At least not safely.

Don't you remember the unmanned drones used in Afghanistan?

Re:Why do they still need pilots in the planes?

[YrWrstNtmr]

It's very easy to second guess combat actions. The Canadian Inquiry Board, however, found that "It was the assessment of the CIB medical adviser that the operational use of the go pill had no adverse effect on the (pilots)."

Re:Why do they still need pilots in the planes?

[Rudisaurus]

So that you can recall them So that the pilot, upon seeing the target is not quite as imagined, can abort the mission So that you can have an accurate, in person, assessment of the actual scene. There are quite a few videos floating around from Iraq that show last minute targeting changes only possible by an onscene human.

Yeah, I remember hearing about a "last minute targeting change" in Afghanistan by a guy named Harry Schmidt. Remember him? Four Canadians, your ALLIES, paid the ultimate price for his judgement -- or lack thereof.

Re:Why do they still need pilots in the planes?

[danila]

the soldier is still milliseconds behind in the actual action on site, and the equipment is milliseconds behind the soldier's reaction time.

Bah! Can't they use movement prediction like in Quake?

Oh great...

[gibbsjoh]

Another way for you bloody Yanks to kill people. Mod points and karma be damned.. surely there's a better way to spend your money. If you put half as much energy and cash into education maybe you wouldn't be the dumbfucks you are today.

Re:Oh great...

[Aardpig]

he dumbfucks whose ways to kill saved your ass in WWII, if memory serves correct.

A few years late, IIRC. Britain entered the war from the start, because they had promised to help protect Poland. The USA only entered the war because Pearl Harbour forced them to; until then, they couldn't care less that the Nazis were taking over the world.

Oh, and if any country could claim credit for winning WWII, it would have to be the Soviet Union.

Re:Oh great...

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

So the educated come to visit us and use language that most of us wouldn't use in a public forum?

Way to lead by example.

Re:Oh great...

[Aardpig]

So the educated come to visit us and use language that most of us wouldn't use in a public forum?

On the one hand, we have his use of 'dumbfuck'. And on the other, we have your email moniker 'sexwithanimals'. Hoist on your own petard, my friend!

Re:Oh great...

[Flower]

Now, now. There is a big difference between a preference and pejorative. :)

Re:Oh great...

[centipetalforce]

The USA only entered the war because Pearl Harbour forced them to; until then, they couldn't care less that the Nazis were taking over the world.

That's only a half truth, really. Yes, the majority of the public was against the war, mainly because of the previous war, which was needless, but FDR knew war in Europe was necessary.

Oh, and if any country could claim credit for winning WWII, it would have to be the Soviet Union.

And yes, the soviets did most of the killing, but the US' lend lease arguably prevented Moscow from falling in the first year, and provided millions of tons of materiale to drive them westward into berlin.
So really, lets not go into the gray shades of history. I do probably agree with you that we definitely should be isolationists now that the world is stereotyping us as dumbfucks.

Re:Oh great...

[Jeremy Erwin]

So the educated come to visit us and use language that most of us wouldn't use in a public forum?

Must you use the royal we?

Re:Oh great...

[applef00]

Flamebait my ass. I'm an American citizen--Washington state, born and raised--and the only reason he got modded flaimbait is that... he's right.

Re:Oh great...

[OverkillTASF]

And, while the U.S. wasn't "in" the war, weren't we sending supplies to the other Allies?

Re:Oh great...

[Whyte]

Well, if war fighting was the only way the USA helped Britain during WWI and WWII you might have a point.

But the truth is, the USA provided MASSIVE material and industrial support prior to the mobilization of a US expeditionary force to Europe.

National Defense and Military Might are not all about war fighting. They also have alot to do with material and industrial support ensure the completion of an expedition.

Also, I thought it was the Americans who fought on the Western front, not the Russians.

Actually there's a better reason

[commodoresloat]

Taxpayer-funded plastic surgery.

Warning!

[doc modulo]

Spoiler alert!

The last paragraph of the article gives the main surprise away of one of the best science-fiction books on Earth: "Ender's Game"

I recommend Ender's Game, easy to read and great, and recommend against reading the last paragraph of the article if you haven't already.

Re:Warning!

[qopax]

bah, after i read the article it doesn't seem as interesting to read Ender's Game :[. and i heard it was good too...

Re:Warning!

[NanoGator]

"I recommend Ender's Game, easy to read and great, and recommend against reading the last paragraph of the article you haven't already."

Actually, that wasn't that big of spoiler. I know this because I recently read the book and figured out what the spoiler gave away halfway into it. When I got to the reveal, I was like "uh yeah, figured". Fortunately, I think the author anticipated this and provided more to the ending unrelated to what the article mentioned that was far more interesting.

My point? Even if you read the last paragraph, there's still something good you can get out of reading Ender's Game.

good point

[BlackShirt]

Why are the machines of war still designed to carry meat-sacks around inside them?!
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=118857&op=Repl y&threshold=2&commentsort=0&tid=126&mode=nested&pi d=10035085

That good huh?

[AndroidCat]

After Flatworld, the sight of Oklahoma senator James Inhofe buckling on a virtual reality helmet at ICT headquarters seems positively old school. A technician shouts "Load the flying bats!" and the senator is transported to a damp tunnel near a farmhouse that may be an enemy hideout. Insects whir and water trickles in surround sound while digitized bats swoop and dive overhead. Inhofe is impressed. "It's the closest thing to reality that I've ever experienced," he says. "My feet felt wet."

"Janitor team report to the simulation room."

Are you high?

[Flower]

If you look at the costs involved in training a soldier it's self-evident that the military has a high regard for human life. A soldier represents a serious investment of time and money into a limited resource - far more limited than any missle/warplane/submarine/etc. Once a soldier is gone all that experience, ability to adapt and make decisions is gone and simply cannot be readily replaced.

I also think that, especially in today's environments, that the military has a healthy respect for human life outside of its own. How one achieves an objective is rapidly becoming just as important as accomplishing it. US policy is being judged on how well a soldier responds to a shoot/don't shoot scenerio or how much collateral damage is inflicted in an operation. Especially now that media organizations around the world can publicise every incident in near real-time.

Yes, as a profession of war, the military must accept a doctrine of kill or be killed when in combat but it is simplistic in the extreme to imply that means the military has no regard for human life.

Re:Are you high?

[suso]

Eh hem. If they truely had respect for human life, then they wouldn't have join an organization that plays a part in taking life. But obviously, to them, it's just part of their job.

Enemies are people too.

Re:Are you high?

[Deliveranc3]

Dude humans are the cheapest machines/work force available. Hell they build themselves to the point where some die cuz there is no food.

Ignorant american's are a dime a dozen.

(Well $.50 an hour if you are the army but I think they are just trying to be generous)

Re:Are you high?

[NDPTAL85]

Pacifist moron, without them joining the military then all of our lives would be in danger.

They kill a few to save a lot.

Re:Are you high?

[suso]

So what if you were one of those few?

Fortunately for you, you are not. But unfortunately for us, you are not.

What so many people don't understand is that those few people that we call extremists, are fighting for something that they believe to be right. They are not what we think of as 'evil'. They are no different than our Paul Revere or George Washington.
The times are just different, and instead of using sly tatics on a house and mullet rifles, they go to more extreme measures to have an effect.

Re:Are you high?

[NDPTAL85]

So you want me dead huh? Think about that again and then say it. Its an extremely mean thing to say. This is just Slashdot, on a computer, yet so many people say things without thinking first.
Thanks.

There's a very large difference between our Revolutionary Rebel heros and extremist terrorists. Some of these extremists advocate for the killing of anyone who is not the same race as them. Ethnic cleansing wasn't a "non-evil" characteristic the last time I checked. Our military is tasked with defending us from all threats great and small. Whether that means killing a very large organized formal enmey military force or picking off individual terrorists one by one, their job is the same nonetheless.

Re:I wonder...

[AndroidCat]

Or SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs, "Like shooting fish in a bucket."

Toys for Boys

[Ars-Fartsica]

Meanwhile in the rest of the Western world, a startling tactic for maintaining homeland security has been in use for decades - do not screw over people in foreign lands for fun and profit and you will tend not to make enemies.

I am tired of the miliporn covered on /., its getting to be like Popular Science. Not one of these billion dollar toys could prevent twenty halfwits armed with boxcutters pulling the US economy down to its knees and dragging the entire nation into a paranoid delusion that is likely to last decades.

Re:Toys for Boys

[Tolwyn_993442]

Heh, the US military (nor any other military) isn't a solely anti-terrorist force. They have parts that do CT work and parts that don't. I imagine this training sim might help the latter.

Re:Toys for Boys

[Jeremi]

do not screw over people in foreign lands for fun and profit and you will tend not to make enemies.

That's a good, cheap, cost-effective strategy. Much too cost-effective, in fact. If we didn't have enemies, how could we convince the American taxpayers to give $500,000,000 of their money to our military every year? Defense contractors gotta eat too, ya know.

If we ever did run out of enemies, we'd have to create some more, just to keep the machine fed...

Re:Toys for Boys

[timeOday]

do not screw over people in foreign lands for fun and profit and you will tend not to make enemies.

Well, what do you propose to do with Israel? That's the main thing they hate us for. Even if creating Israel back in the 40s was a clear-cut case of interventionism, what do you propose to do about it now?

Re:Toys for Boys

[PerlMonkey]

The rest of the Western world has been relying on United States to keep it safe from variety of bad guys for the last 50 years. That's why they could afford to build welfare states, that's why they can afford to make nice with every two-bit thug - they know that if things go sideways, they can come screaming for mommie. Nice gig, if you can get it.

Re:Toys for Boys

[roman_mir]

500 million? that little? i think it's over a trillion (12 zeros)

WHO TOLD?

[Hao Wu]

Such sophisticated system should be TOP SECRET computer operation by the armys. Who ordered details of location and super-capability should be punished severely.

Wow.

[Azureflare]

If this setup eventually becomes popular and widespread, and we as a nation are playing these videos games...which soldiers play to get trained for fighting in battle...

How does that make you feel? Knowing that you are playing the same games that are used for training for soldier's in the army?

Am I the only one that is scared by that thought?

Is our nation a nation of war and destruction? Are our future young children going to grow up being trained to kill?

I know it's a bit of a stretch to say that playing one of these games makes you suitable to the army. But it's still kind of frightening. Aren't we as civilians supposed to be spending our time actually building our country? Does anyone else think that we should be thinking about this?

I value the future of our country; and I do not want us mentally to be become hardened killers... I honestly hope I am not alone in this.

By the way, did anyone else think of Bradbury's short story "The Veldt" when this article came up?

P.S. Strange that this short story is available on the web... Hmm, google is great, what can I say... Buy one of Bradbury's books if you haven't, he's a great read.

Re:Wow.

[digaman23]

I thought often of "The Veldt" when I was visiting the Fort Sill installation, and while I was writing the article. Bradbury was my first favorite writer, back when I was 10 or so.

Re:Wow.

[grammar fascist]

How does that make you feel? Knowing that you are playing the same games that are used for training for soldier's in the army?

Am I the only one that is scared by that thought?

Is our nation a nation of war and destruction? Are our future young children going to grow up being trained to kill?

I feel about like I would if my son were into martial arts. In teaching self-defense, they usually teach you how to break bones, shatter knees and elbows, and often how to kill. My kid would be safe from bullies, and much safer from random acts of violence on the street.

On a national scale, it's good for the same reason. The United States can't pretend it's as insignificant a target as, say, New Zealand. There are thousands out there who want a piece of us. We also can't pretend that some big country is going to rush to our aid if we're attacked - because we are that Big Country that usually does it.

You can sit and pretend that it's all happy and gay in the world, and that just being nice to people is enough to keep you safe, but you'd be horribly wrong. Bad things happen, to us and to our allies. Once you're forced into battle, don't you want to make sure you'll win?

We ALL won

[YrWrstNtmr]

Oh, and if any country could claim credit for winning WWII, it would have to be the Soviet Union.

And if any country (besides Germany) could claim credit for starting WWII, it might be Russia. Stalin signing a pact with Hitler probably enboldened him to start the thing in the first place.

Several years ago, I came across a history book on WWII, encapsulating WWII from the 4 allies' perspective. It was basically the French, British, Russian, and US high school syllabus.

All 4 sections were strikingly similar in one respect.
"We won, everybody else helped"

Also @ the Oval Office

[Phoinix]

The Onion also mentioned something related to that in the Oval Office

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's likely, but Counter-Strike is quite a poor game for what the military is trying to simulate. It'll never be used to simulate anything real-life.

What's the use of a Peace Simulation?

[mangu]

One of the main objectives of simulating wars is to know how to avoid war in real life. Are you trying to say that we should avoid peace in real life?

NYT Article...

[codefreez]

Coincidently, New York Times Magazine is also publishing a story about ICT in this weekend's edition:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/22/magazine/22GAMES .html

Re:NYT Article...

[digaman23]

It was, by the way, really a coincidence. I was invited down to ICT last year after writing a story about The Matrix, in part because Paul Debevec, who I mention in this story, developed the technology used to create the "bullet time" sequences in the original film.

I didn't know that the Times was also working on a story until about three days ago -- the kind of "coincidence" that gives journalists heart attacks. In his fine piece for the Times, however, Clive Thompson focused on the console videogame aspect of ICT, while I focused on the "mixed reality" battle environments at Fort Sill. So there's hardly any overlap in our stories, thank goodness.

America's Army

[spuzzzzzzz]

If this setup eventually becomes popular and widespread, and we as a nation are playing these videos games...which soldiers play to get trained for fighting in battle... How does that make you feel? Knowing that you are playing the same games that are used for training for soldier's in the army?

have you seen http://www.americasarmy.com/?

Re:America's Army

[drinkypoo]

Or better yet, Full Spectrum Warrior? That game is pretty slick, and it grew from a training tool. I haven't played it yet, so I'm not sure of the feel of the thing, but the idea of commanding squads appeals much more to me than yet another FPS. Not that I don't like FPS games, I definitely love 'em.

Re:America's Army

[MurphyZero]

of course the concern may be that future enemies start buying Xboxes to start planning counters to the tactics used in such games. Especially if it matches or is similar to the tactics what the Army actually uses. It's probably pretty close.

Re:America's Army

[drinkypoo]

The tactics used in FSW or any other game are the same tactics used by anyone else. Provide cover, cover the compass points and/or points of interest, use smoke to cover your advances... this is all stuff that's been true as long as the relevant technologies have existed.

You're a fool

[wolfneuralnet]

"These young warriors will live, play, fight, and die in the Matrix." Ummm, no, they won't. They will live, play, and fight in the Matrix. Only as they lay bleeding in some godforsaken desert, will they realize that they are going to die for real, and that all of their training was designed to make them forget that one simple fact. Don't glorify war - it gets people killed.

Re:You're a fool

[digaman23]

If you think that line was "glorifying" war, you must be a huge fan of the Matrix.

Oh spare me.

[Flower]

Go RTFA. Note the couple of times where the trainee is being judged on whether they should have sighted the civilians or when the hospital was noted as a place you couldn't bomb. Also note how the training advanced when it was noted that the hospital was being used as a comms base. Get permission and use the proper munition to remove the transmitters.

The sims described are in many ways like the "Shoot/Don't Shoot" sims police go through to determine when to pull their gun. What? You don't remember the stories about how the Army accidentially miscalled a situation at a checkpoint and they shot and killed innocent civilians? You don't think this training tool could help? The fact that you and that twit of a parent can't see anything but the fact that this is being used by the military and therefore must be inherently bad just shows your propensity for being reactive.

Re:Oh spare me.

[applef00]

I did RTFA. And I don't care what the fuck the military is spending money on, that money could be better spent on education, healthcare, housing, so forth. My point--and his, I suspect--was simply that.

Re:Oh spare me.

[Flower]

You're not being realistic. Funding a military is going to happen no matter what. The question is whether the money is well spent, which admittedly it is often not. But in this case I would say that it is. The simulations in the long run will cut down on the expense of live exercises and as I noted above allow for training scenerios that might be unfeasible in normal training sessions.

If the system over time proves cost effective then those savings could be rolled into other programs. Maybe happen, maybe not but at least this system provides an opprotunity for that to happen. Continuing to rely on live exercises, especially as equipment costs more and more, most definately won't.

Re:Oh spare me.

[applef00]

Of course I realize that military spending os going to happen. I simply believe that there are other needs, arguably more important. The fact is that the US spends $34 billion a year on K-12 education, $41 billion on childrens' health, and $399 billion on defense. I have to believe that some of that money could be used for better purposes than coming up with better and more efficient ways to kill other people. (I realize that not all defense spending is on ways to kill people. I'm being overly dramatic. But I don't like the whole war for no reason thing. So there.)

Re:Oh spare me.

[Flower]

I believe we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this particuliar issue. You're simply lumping JFETS into a nebulous category of military spending and ignoring my points of why the system is a good investment.

And you are right. You're being overly dramatic. I have no clue as to where this "war with no reason" thing comes from but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. fwiw, gibbsjoh's biggest fallacy is asserting that JFETS is a way to kill people. JFETS is a simulator. It's not a gun, it's not a nuke, it's not a WoMD. It's a training tool to develop the skills a soldier needs to survive and properly respond to a situation. That he and apparently you wish to assert JFETS is just another way to kill people is flawed. I have more than adequately pointed that out.

As for your "no reason" comment, in regards to JFETS I completely disagree. The fact is how we must address modern military conflict has dramatically changed since the Cold War. The difficulties of creating the multitude of live exercies we face in the 21st century in order to train our troops is probably cost prohibative. JFETS appears from the article to be a cost effective and flexible tool. Again, I've brought this up before and you've chosen to ignore the issue. Whatever.

Re:Conventional War (corrections)

[Jeremy Erwin]

Perhaps these are better transcriptions.
"After all, what good does it do a person to acquire the whole world and pay for it with life?" -- Scholars Version

"For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?" --Revised Standard Version

I wouldn't want to be accused of promulgating the equivalent of the hopper's bible....

Re:Conventional War (corrections)

[name773]

life and not soul? that's interesting... i wonder how it got to be soul in that translation.
does Greek have another word for soul, or is it interchangeable with life?
they both make sense... so i guess the idea shines through

Oh let him.

[Flower]

As long as it isn't the royal wee he's talking about. Gotta draw the line somewhere.

Re:How long...

[MurphyZero]

Common sense is also not a requirement to get a driver's license. Driving accidents kill more Americans than military actions do. So maybe we should force everyone to go through similar training to be allowed to drive a vehicle. For driving in LA, you'll be able to actually fire off some virtual rounds as well. Even better, actually encourage drunk virtual driving, just so that the trainees see what will happen when they get behind the wheel.

The Penguin's Ultimate Home Theater

[Teun]

That's the header I thought to read but it was early morning :-)

and half a dozen Windows and Linux boxes down the hall
Reading the article showed me it was not an all Linux shop.
Makes me wonder what the Windows boxes are for, to inject some realistic unpredictability or the DRM?

Re:I wonder...

[caveat]

yah, ghost recon 0wnorz for realistic military sim. seriously - i have a couple of friends from hs who recently got out of the Marines, we play till our eyes bleed.

Re:Conventional War (corrections)

[Jeremy Erwin]

The word (transliterated) is "psuche". From what I can gather, it refers most commonly to the "breath of life," or "vital force". This greek concept can be extended to encompass an immortal soul, but such an elaboration may not be what the author of Mark intended.

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" implies that is is foolish to risk corruption and immorality for the sake of worldly glory.
but

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own life?" implies that is is foolish to risk bodily injury and death for the sake of worldly glory.

I don't know greek, and am not much interested in Christianity, so I can't comment on the theological implications.

Re:The Purpose of Basic Training...

[Werelock]

From the way the articles reads to me, this is more of a final run before sending people into harms way, not a replacement to boot camp and live fire excercises. Train up the battalions as usual, but then instead of spending millions making a mock Middle Eastern town, training and setting up enemy combatants and civies, and using paint guns/laser tag/whatever they have now - you simply send them to Ft Sill for 2 weeks of prep training on fighting in wherever they need to go. All of the money has already been spent on making the Ft Sill facilities and the article said they can make a new battle environment in the computers within about a day.

This should save some lives as our troops will be able to better understand the environment they are being sent to beforehand instead of before it's too late and they or a squad mate are killed, or they kill/injure the wrong people while learning the lay of the land.

When is the September issue supposed to be out?

[PreDefined]

I bought it earlier this week... I've suspected that for a while that the magazine place I go to puts things out before they're supposed to.

Re:When is the September issue supposed to be out?

[julesh]

It's standard practice to put magazines on sale about a week or so before the cover date. I'd guess that most places would have it by today, and that'll be what the editors are working on. Otherwise, the stories from it wouldn't be up on the web site yet -- if you could get them on the web significantly before the print edition, why would you buy the print edition? You'd have read all the stories by the time it came out! :)

Re:Conventional War (corrections)

[grammar fascist]

Theologically, "soul" makes a whole lot more sense.

Contextually - you know, that pesky thing scholars like to ignore too often - "soul" still makes more sense.

Mark 8:34-36 (KJV):

34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. 36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

Consider also that words like "breath" and "life" are very often used to describe the non-material part of a person, sometimes regarded to be, symbolically (or perhaps literally), the breath of God. These kinds of ideas fit best with the English word "soul."

Re:Rob Sears is mistaken.

[digaman23]

By "this project," Sears clearly meant JFETS, not ICT as a whole. As I say elsewhere in the story, JFETS received its major funding from a clause appended to the 2003 Defense Appropriations Act by Senator James Inhofe -- the same Republican senator, by the way, who said he was "more outraged about the outrage" about Abu Ghraib than he was about the torture earlier this year.

Somehow I doubt that...

[ArbiterOne]

This is quite different from 'Ender's Game.' Unless there were some sort of multiplayer mode (more than one room?) it would be just one person, in one room. Networking the rooms, though... awesome.

Hmmm ... how do I convince the old ball-and-chain?

[shm]

It took a year to convince the bitter half that a home theatre was a good idea. This may take a little longer.

"Matrix-like" WTF?

[1u3hr]

In the FA: pilots will train for war in Matrix-like rooms

Right. They'll have sockets embedded in their heads to jack in, and if they get killed in the sim, they really die. And the whole system is powered by their bodily heat.

Probably "Holodeck" is what he's thinking of.

Re:Conventional War (corrections)

[Jeremy Erwin]

Well, the same word (psuches) is used throughout the greek text, so it would seem that the translator is imposing his interpretation upon the text by using two independent english translations of psuches.

This interpretation may be in line with theological tradition-- but new translations are frequently commissioned with the intent of realigning ones faith with the "original" sources.

The Revised Standard Version is not exactly a radical translation-- in fact, it was adopted by many American Protestant and, IIRC, Catholic and Orthodox churches.

The Scholars Version is pretty radical-- it's used in the Jesus Seminar's Five Gospels which aims to determine which of Jesus's sayings were actually said by Jesus. Naturally, the academic credibility of such a project rests on a linguistically accurate translation. (The fifth gospel, btw, is the Gospel of Thomas, discovered among the Nag Hammadi texts in 1945).

The context here, I think, is that Jesus is promising eternal life--be prepared to give up your life for me-- and in return, you'll get it back. If you will not-- and instead seek material wealth, you'll die anyway. The exhortation is "follow me", not "be good".

Will it simulate mopping the commodes?

[macmurph]

Will it simulate mopping the commodes?

Motives?

[Lihtan]

A quote from the article: "I keep two measures of success in mind for JFETS," he tells me. "Number one, I want guys who have been to the Middle East to go into those rooms and have their hair stand on end. And number two, to have the project be an election-year trophy for Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz so they can say, We're transforming the Army."
Election-year trophy? WTF?!