Slashdot Mirror
Real Warriors Trained In Virtual Worlds
The Washington Post has a piece looking at the U.S. military's increased reliance on gaming for training the next generation of soldiers. From the article: "'The technology in games has facilitated a revolution in the art of warfare,' says David Bartlett, the former chief of operations at the Defense Modeling and Simulation Office, a high-level office within the Defense Department and the focal point for computer-generated training at the Pentagon. 'When the time came for [a solider in training] to fire his weapon, he was ready to do that. And capable of doing that. His experience leading up to that time, through on-the-ground training and playing 'Halo' and whatever else, enabled him to execute. His situation awareness was up. He knew what he had to do. He had done it before -- or something like it up to that point.'"
When I did small arms training, one of the hardest things to do (for the Corps at least) was to get people to pull the trigger at the moment of truth. There is a built in hesitation that people have to shooting others. So, training typically starts off with standard targets and then progresses to targets of humans in silhouette, then for close quarters battle training, targets become more realistic looking.
Using CG generated images helps significantly by enhancing the realism and lowering the threshold of resistance to "trigger pull".
What computers cannot teach however, is the NOISE and physical presence of a firefight.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
I learned everything I know about women through the Leisure Suit Larry series.
Wait... do video games train killers, or don't they? I'm so confused.
What does Jack Thompson have to say about this?
Yes, thanks to my many grueling hours of Halo training, my situational awareness and my proficiency with all plasma weapons is markedly improved.
..or else Jack Thompson is going to sue their violent-game-promoting asses!
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
His situation awareness was up. He knew what he had to do. He had done it before -- or something like it up to that point.
"He was the perfect drone."
Well, that's how I imagine the next sentence to go. Talking seriously about war and somehow working in Halo doesn't give me the vote of confidence I would expect to get from the military. It simply conjures up images of kids playing FPS's and thinking that it's somehow even remotely close to the real thing.
-Valiss
I love americas army http://www.americasarmy.com/ .. ;-)
very role based, strategic shooting game...& above all its free
$$ profit
To prohibit spawn camping.
So, which is it?
Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
Why not just take the entire war to the virtual world then? That would be awesome! "Tonight at eleven we'll have live coverage from the war in Iran. The US Special Forces have cornered the insurgents into de_dust after dominating them 4-0 in a de_dust2 tournament. 12 year old Mikey Thompson who leads the USSF says he's confident about the outcome as the insurgents are all 'camping awp wh0res'."
--------
Linux is only free if your time is of no value.
FUNNY!!! Seems like Orson Scott Card had the right idea after all. Sounds to me like the defense department has started reading Enders Game instead of listening to Bush =)
At what point do you draw the line (if there even is one) and restrict what a simulation can do? Hear me out on this one before you flame me for being a freedom hater...
We all know that "simulations" - be it games, VR, or whatever - are getting more and more realistic. And that trend will continue until things are VERY realistic. We all also know that many simulations are based on a wide variety of behaviors that society would not want to encourage. (ie: killing someone in Doom is fine, doing it in the real world is obviously bad)
So how do you draw a line between these two? Or is there even a line? Obviously a simulation is just that -- a fake environment that mimics a real environment. But from the sound of this article, simulations have a very REAL effect on those who are participating in them - at least according to the military. So their impact stretches beyond their own environment and "spills out" into real, quantifiable behaviors, actions, and feelings.
So, I guess my question is this: is there ever a point where we have to draw some lines about what is and is not allowed in simulations? Be it violence based. Or sexually based. Or behaviorally based. Is there ever a point where we have to say NO?
It is absolutely true that video games don't cause a student to go shoot up a school, any more than training simulators cause a soldier to go to war.
Training in a video game prepares soldiers for firing on real humans in battle because they know that is what they are training for. A soldier is a professional killer. They have already signed up to kill people, and are being trained in how to do that. The simulator is just preparation, preparation for a real-life job. Mentally preparing soldiers for the difficult task of firing on another living human was done long before the video game, and this is nothing more than an extension of that training using technology.
This is nothing at all like playing a game casually at home. Could a student bent on shooting up his school use an FPS to mentally prepare themselves, like the soldier? Sure. Could a mentally unbalanced person try to carry over their virtual endeavors into the real world? Sure. But in both cases, whether deliberately or not, you have a person blurring the line between the game and reality. This person was already dangerous/i> and video games aren't doing anything that any number of movies, books, or just imagination couldn't do.
If you are capable of distinguishing between reality and fantasy -- and any sane child over age 9 should easily be able to do this -- then there is no danger of video games causing you to shoot up a school. If you make the conscious decision to use video games to train yourself to kill, then you are either a soldier training for war, or a psychopath training for crime. In no case are video games to blame.
The enemies of Democracy are
When China finally launches nukes at us and commences ground offensive operations, I'll already be fully familiar with military hand signals, squad and individual tactics, and weapon systems. I'll be able to link up with militia and fight for the 'ol Red White & Blue, whithout ever having been in the military in my entire life. I'll be living the survivalist's dream!
All thanks to you, Full Spectrum Warrior!
hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
Against an unsuspecting opposing force, I'm pretty sure bunny hopping and crouching would work for a couple years.
disclaimer: I don't play AA and you don't know Halo was a bogus reference
On a serious note now, considering my experience as a long time America's Army player and warfare coordinator of my clan, I'm totally confident in saying that playing FPS matches is the next best thing to RL when it comes to learning and testing strategies as well as learning how to behave during an operation.
Might this cause an entirely different problem -- Trigger happy soldiers?
Ultimately, success in almost any occupation situation depends on making the people accept the new government. If soldiers are too trigger-happy and don't mind shooting people, you can end up with more innocent 'collateral damage'.
Dead non-combatants can make the surviving members of the family more hateful of your army. Some of them will go into the resistance, and the army now has more people to worry about -- so they become more trigger-happy. It quickly becomes a death-spiral.
This would explain at least part of the problem that US soldiers are having.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I have no idea why the government keeps trying to pull this completely false fact as some mantra, FPS games are not "soldier trainers", I have played hundreds of FPS yes, they make you FEEL like you are ready for a dangerous situation should it happen, but as soon as you face something similar in real life, your brain starts to recognize patterns the smell of blood and gun powder, the noise, the simple realization you are in mortal danger, it all triggers the alarms. If you have no real training you are still are as defenseless as any other civilian.
I have to confess this actually happened to ME, I witnessed a real robbery, one of the robbers was shot (in the leg) a few feet from me, I couldnt even MOVE. Let me get this straight: contrary to Jack Thompson's and Government theories I did not grabbed a gun from the robbers and blew them away while dropping catchy lines or checking some imaginary score, I was PARALYSED, convinced I was going to get killed any minute, and tried to stay as low as possible (just like any guy would) then as soon as things were calmed I almost puked in the bathroom.
Soldiers have to go trough basic training as always, games such as AA have been used for years only to teach soldiers to strategize during combat, and specifically AA teaches soldiers to play by the book other than going out solo, they have to comply every task they are commanded or lose.
Dont even try to get the "Murder simulator" on me you cant even save your OWN life with that "training".
Go ahead MOD my day!
More opinions here
I never had to shot someone, but I know that in a combat situation I would have done it without hesitation.
For most armies, the most important and difficult task they face is in training their young soldiers to accurately and deliberately fire their weapons at enemy soldiers. S.L.A. Marshall's classic work "Men Against Fire" first addressed this issue over 50 years ago, and although the statistics he cites in the book have been vigorously disputed, the gist of his argument is still true. So modern armies spend an awful lot of time and energy doing the sort of training you mentioned - running around in the rain and dirt and snow and mud, creating situations that are as close as possible to real combat. If you want to talk about successful training, don't look to video games. Look instead at the NTC and JRTC.
One of the things that no video game (in particular) or sterile target range training environment will ever reproduce is the uncertainty of combat. You are not operating in a pre-defined, bounded killing zone. Your squad leader is shouting something and you're trying to hear what he's saying. You hear the crack of an AK nearby, but your hearing is so screwed up that you can't tell where it came from. You're hot. You're tired. Sweat is running down into your eyes, forcing you to swipe at your face every few minutes with the back of your free hand. Your flak vest is trying to strangle you. There is dust all over the place, making it that much harder to see. There are friendlies nearby. They're supposed to be on your flank, but are they? There are enemy combatants to your front, but they've hidden in a crowd and they don't wear uniforms. Is than an AKS or just a big stick in that kid's hands? Your ears are ringing from the M60 being fired right next to you, and when you can't hear things, it takes one more of your sensory inputs away from you. Now you're relying purely on your vision. What if that guy waving at you at the intersection 100 meters away is a friendly, who lost his helmet somehow? Is he shouting? What is he shouting at you?
All of this business about virtual combat training is crap. There's a reason small unit combat courses aren't virtual. There's a reason Ranger School, BUD/S, and the Q Course aren't virutal. You train to fight. The closer you can replicate the real experience in training, the more likely you'll do the right thing reflexively in real combat.
Still, even with all that training, I find it difficult to believe that anyone truly "knows" what they will or will not do when forced to fire a weapon in combat. The military training makes it more likely that you will react as you have been trained, but there is only one way to find out for sure.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Former West Point instructor Lt. Col. Dave Grossman wrote a fascinating book called On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society that addresses, among other things, techniques used by the military to train soldiers to kill.
He brings up some interesting points, including only 15 to 20 percent of the individual riflemen in World War II fired their own weapons at an exposed enemy soldier and Conditioning in flight simulators enables pilots to respond reflexively to emergency situations even when frightened. And similar application and perfection of basic conditioning techniques increased the rate of fire to approximately 55 percent in Korea and around 95 percent in Vietnam.
In other words, simulation and conditioning absolutely has an effect on people.
Writers imply. Readers infer.
"Ender's Game"?
I never put much faith in the idea that voilent video games help make kids into killers until I read Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's book On Killing, which discusses in a systematic and well-referenced manner exactly what the armed forces have done since the Civil War to increase the firing rate of their infantrymen.
Firing rate? Contrary to what you may think of the typical Civil War battlefield, most soldiers did not fire their weapons. On a big field running with blood, cannons booming and everyone screaming, most soldiers would not fire a single shot. Battles would end with literally thousands upon thousands of loaded muskets on the ground. Fast forward to WWII, where we have the image of brave American soliders firing automatic weapons under terrible conditions. The nonfiring rate among infantrymen was 80-85%. Further, only 1% of airmen accounted for over 40% of all downed enemy aircraft. Most pilots did not shoot anyone down or even try to.
The Army decided to look into this. What they found out is that people generally don't want to kill anybody, and would often rather die themselves, even in battle when they are scared to death, than shoot someone. Not that the soldiers were cowards. On the contrary, the same soldiers that would not fire a shot would repeatedly take terrible risks to rescue a wounded comrad. But the Army wanted them to pull the trigger and hit something, and they figured out how. The only way someone that scared would be able to do anything in that situation is if they had been subject to operant conditioning. They would need to program the soldier's midbrain to fire the weapon, since the forebrain is no longer in use under that much stress. They began to make training as realistic as possible in terms of exposure to violence, and make the thought/action of killing part of a soldier's reflex, so that when the bullets started flying, the American soldier would respond.
It worked. During Korea the nonfiring rate among infantrymen rose to about 55%, and by Vietnam it was an amazing 90-95%. The American infantryman was a killer on the battlefield, and only later did the Army realize that fully 98% of soldiers who experience close combat and pull the trigger would be psychiatric casualties. The 2% that weren't mentally crippled are people who, outside the military, would be locked up.
The author makes an excellent study of how this sort of operant conditioning for violence exists outside the military, in movies and video games. Before you knee-jerk and say that violent video games have no impact on the children who play them hours and hours a day, and who then go watch violent movies and television, you should check out this book. It's hard to dismiss the data out of hand.
The military uses games to teach soldiers teamwork and awareness, not how to shoot guns. War games are still critical. Live ammunition training is still critical. Live experience is important. Games are also important.
One only needs to play a racing game and then take a cruze to get it.
My unit went through a computerized simulation before our deployment to Iraq in 2003.
:)
;)
Disclaimer: I'm active-duty Army (only for a few more days, hallelujah), but I'm not infantry or a "combat arms" MOS. I'm Signal, and have likely spent more time debating OSPF vs EIGRP than being on patrol. MOS25F/Node Center FTW.
As I said earlier, this was back in 2003, so I'm sure the tech has improved a bit since I went through.
Typical exercise involves 6-8 guys in a darkened room. The simulation is projected at one end of the room, and we are arrayed directly across from it. We are provided with M16s, and one person each gets an AT4 anti-tank rocket and M16/M203 grenade launcher. I don't recall if blanks were used with the M16, or if firing sounds were simulated.
Simulation starts with a nostalgic orange/white 3dfx splash screen. They wouldn't let me near the console PC, so I'll never know if it ran on a Voodoo5 6000.
Everyone is in either a crouched or prone position, and we are greeted with picturesque dunes. A Soviet-style armored vehicle rolls across the screen, slowly meandering towards our posision. Nobody does anything. Bah, everybody's frozen up, I thought. I take the initiative, and start unloading my M16's magazine into it. Sure enough, everyone else does the same a few seconds later.
Fun fact: 5.56 mm rounds have no effect on armored APCs. After being enlightened of this by the instructor, the simulation is run again. This time we get infantry swarming at us from over and between the dunes. We engage, and shoot at squad based groups for a few minutes. A running tally is maintained, and we are told our scores at the end. As expected, we were all wildly inaccurate (I blame sensor calibration), with the exception of the M203 guy, who managed to rack up a sizable percentage of kills. Who needs accuracy when you have grenades?
Since then, training has been heavily modified to focus more on "modern" threats, but I don't think I should go into particulars.
No video game will be a complete "warrior" training simulator until the video game can physically punch you in the face.
As I recall, the kids who did the Columbine massacre had a higher percentage of accuracy than many seasoned police officers.
At the time, I seem to recall that they were saying that the sheer number of FPS games they had played had contributed a large amount to their, er, effectivenes. Mostly because they had long since overcome any aversion to firing at human targets, and had a highly developed ability to do this.
I'm not saying FPS games caused this to happen, but if the military uses these things to desensitize people, then one has to wonder how much people are being trained for these things without knowing it.
It's quite scary to think that an entire generation of kids would be more skilled in combat situations than trained soldiers are -- for the simple fact that they've already shot at more human shaped targets. It reaffirms my discomfort with the kind of games my nephews play.
Kind of creepy when you think of it.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
-- Solid Snake meeting Raiden, referring to that whiny metrosexual on his first mission with nothing but VR training under his belt.
This was simultaneously a very humorous and clever way of smacking the player into realizing that there is a vast difference between war in video games and real war; yet, that the wars of video games assist real-world warriors by desensitizing them to violence... The blunt irony of that conversation was probably lost on more people than it should have been, and I imagine a lot of impatient fools skipped over it as being "just another damn cutscene"...
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
I don't think a videogame attitude is a good thing for soldiers. Of course it helps them lose awareness that what they are doing, really, is killing people. Reminds me of some of those videos we've seen of US military in action in Iraq: their comments really sounded like they thought they were kicking ass at some LAN party. Or the guys interviewed in the Michael Moore movie telling what music they listened to in their tank to pump up during the fights.
Soldiers should remember that they are fighting wars, and killing people: if they forget that they become (expendable) tools that can be used for any purpose.
What you say about getting soldiers past the point of firing (or firing AT something) is true, and the DoD has known about it since WWII, and changed training methods specifically to get past the 90% rate of ineffective fire they saw there. Bullseyes were replaced with more man-like targets and many more sophisticated changes were made. The resulting shift in effective fire to near the 90% level is credited by the professor of psychology at Westpoint as the reason for the increase in post-traumatic stress disorder after Vietnam.
Anyone really interested in this subject should read On Killing, because it covers the subject very well and even talks about the role of FPSs in the "training" of civilians. You may not agree with its contents, but it may change the way you think about modern warfare.
Put identity in the browser.