Slashdot Mirror
Army Game Proves U.S. Can't Lose
Alien54 writes to tell us that the latest game in the US Army's recruiting toolbox is an impressive game, simulating both weaponry already in use and some still on the drawing board. The game portrays the nation's military in 2015 but, as some critics have said, may lack even the most basic elements of realism. From the article: "For example, there's no consideration that military power or technology could fail or be jammed, she says. And the enemy doesn't learn, in contrast to a certain real-life conflict where the hallmark of insurgents is their ability to rapidly gain knowledge and evolve."
The U.S. Army can't lose, right? The game sounds realistic to me ;)
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
A simulation will always be a simulation. It seldom comes close to the original. You need just to choose how close you can/want come.
In games, this difference between reality and simulation is often dictated by the fun factor. I mean how fun it will be drving a car simulator and if you crash you will need to repair the car yourself after staying 3 weeks in hospital. Not fun at all, so you simulate a crash and... start again with a new one.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
It stands to reason that you can't lose if you can type iddqd whenever you get into trouble.
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
This article is really just political FUD. Games are notorious for having poor adaptation in their AI, and very few FPSes have weapons that can jam or break. Complaining about these flaws which are really just industry-standard "features" is really just an excuse to accuse the US Army of shortsightedness under the guise of reviewing a game.
The game is meant to be a recruitment tool. It shows you all the cool stuff you'll get to maintain as you kick down the door to the wrong person's house and thus create a brand new recruit for the enemy. It's going for the Wow, Neato effect rather than realistic gameplay.
If they built the game so that you could lose, that would make the game interesting and eclipse the whole point of the game.
It's like when they have airshows with the Blue Angels or open house day where civilians can stand on the deck of a carrier. It's not meant to give you a realistic idea of what goes on. They aren't going to show you guys swabbing the deck or the guys emptying the latrine. They show you the good stuff and when you're sold, they hit you with reality.
- the digital camera;
- the lead-acid car battery;
- crocodile clips;
and, of courseI didn't know you made computer games! You're a man of many talents.
Do you like German cars?
I can see how technology can fail (as in "the gun doesn't shoot when I pull the trigger") and be jammed (as in "the gun doesn't shoot when I pull the trigger because someon did something to it"), but what does it mean for power to fail? Sounds fuzzy. And we don't like fuzzy, do we? ;-)
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
Whichever side you're on, you're gonna be with the US Army. The opposing side will look like insurgents of some sort, even though they're in the US Army from their perspective. I always found it funny that the standard-issue M16s jammed semi-frequently, while the AK-47s that you can pick up from enemies never jammed (also offers the popular automatic-fire mode, as opposed to burst fire with the M16s). Also, they added AI in their most recent patch, and it's just horrible. The dudes are idiots, but some of them have impossible aim, so are impossible to kill. I don't know if the same company made the new game, but if they did, that would explain the terrible AI.
As shown by the shock and awe campaign in Iraq, the US armY has a clear advantage in conventional combat. I bet the US can win a war against any naval, air and and armored enemy army. The problem is that the enemy has evolved. Any one with half a brain will not go in a frontal war against the US, but there is an achilles heel, morale
Any nation wishing to carry out a succesful defense against a US invasion has to fight a guerrilla war. Forget about the tanks, forget about the planes, forget about the uniforms. Send your soldiers home with a very lose chain of command and a clear mission. Wage a war of oportunity. Attack only from crowded places, dress as a civilian. Attack the countrymen that colaborate with the US. The goal of your attacks is to make them as shocking and news worthy as possible. The can't do anythinga bout that. They cannot fight against the people without giant political fallout. Wait long enough and you will drive them out.
I think the US Army doctrine is obsolete. These are new times in warfare, where aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines mean nothing.
It's all about finding better ways
Things are not going well over there at all. I used to hear my Commander In Chief say stuff like..."...stay the course...",..."...bring them on..."..."we'll get him (Bin Laden) dead or alive..."..."We'll prevail..." and the latest was "all major military operations are complete and the US has prevailed." Such rant is now gone.
Let's not forget that it was the same rant/rhetoric 30 years ago and because we could not escape reality, we had to face it and lost the war. Do not get me wrong. I support our troops. What I do not support is the bigotry and the "I know it all attitude" our leaders have.
If we had to fight them over there so that we do not fight them here...then let's put in mind the fact that we've lost close to 3,000 lives in this war. The number is about the same as those lost on 9/11.
Ironically this game is proof of that. See also War on Drugs, RIAA, Oil Business.
Basically power corrupts both morality and the ability to learn.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
So concentrate on getting the basics correct. Some of those basics would be rote learned in idealised computer environment where replaying "Mistakes" is cheaper.
Why should the computer be 100%? If it was held to be the model of perfection, troops would learn to fight the computer and not the enemy.
[% slash_sig_val.text %]
Regardless of how realistic or non-realistic the thing is, am I the only one boggled down by the fact that the US are using a *SHOOTING GAME* to motivate people to join the army?
Since when was war supposed to be fun and desirable?
"You see the game? Come to the army! Now you'll have the chance to shoot people, for REAL!" - ugh
The game is propaganda, and should be criticised on different criteria than 'realism'.
Prosperity is only an instrument to be used, not a deity to be worshipped. Calvin Coolidge
"For example, there's no consideration that military power or technology could fail or be jammed, she says. And the enemy doesn't learn, in contrast to a certain real-life conflict where the hallmark of insurgents is their ability to rapidly gain knowledge and evolve." to Mudkips?
I'd expect the world's single superpower to win any military conflict and roll into any place they fancy, smashing the infrastructure of the country into the stone age. But that's just the easy bit. I think you guys will be judged on how you deal with the hard tasks after that.
Sounds to me like this is describing already popular games on the market, such as counter strike. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the game, but I've always thought it odd that terrorists would have access to the same grade of weapons as counter-terrorists, and that counter-terrorist co-ordinators would deploy the same (plus or minus one) number of units as there are terrorists - you'd think they'd send two or three counter-terrorists in for every terrorists, not one-to-one. Also that the CTs should have to pay for their weapons, and are allowed to switch their gear. Also that the counter-terrorists don't have to answer to any chain of command, they just run around doing their own thing (a little different for clan games but otherwise). CounterStrike CT's seem more like militia or vigilante than CTs :\. Even IRL terrorists usually have a chain o' command, although not nearly as enforced/commonplace as disciplined CT's. Perhaps realism is sometimes worth being sacrificed to make the game more fun (sure in original topic they're actually using it to train troops, but I bet they got a whole lot of them in by saying that they could play some fun computer games :P)
Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
First the satirical story about the MPAA, and now this. Is it already April 1st?
Yeah, that word & I get along soo badly, not even my spellchecker will talk to it.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
I think the game needs a little more than that to make it 'realistic'
Things like:
-300 points for team-kills, except Europeans.
-100 points for civilian kills, but some mild torture should give at least +10 but with the possibility of some bad press.
+50 points should be given for every gun you manage sell to the insurgents instead of using against them.
I'm sure this list could be extended...
throw new NoSignatureException();
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-680347401 7054041740&hl=en
Personally I find what the US military is trying to do shows of much more taste.
The US military has always had a very warped view regarding the benefits that technology in a war can give them. They seem to believe that they won't have to think (and want to get that over to their recruits!), or even see or touch their enemy, despite several high profile disasters and beatings - Vietnam being the big one (and Iraq today). Despite all the soul searching by Americans via movies and other avenues over Vietnam, everyone overlooks the inescapable conclusion - the US got absolutely ripped to pieces (saying they got beat just wouldn't be a fair reflection) because it thought it could beat an enemy by napalming everything from 30,000 feet. So it still remains today.
;-). I get the impression that some people like thinking up acronyms for things (hey, it looks as if you're doing something!) rather than actually concentrating on what they should be doing.
Judging from this game (and the disaster that is Iraq) their view of this hasn't changed, and it's something that they obviously want new recruits to believe as well. The US has the best technology in the world and it never loses!
Oh, and another thing. Does every weapon have to have a bloody acronym? It's not an IED. It's a bomb, or a roadside bomb or a mine (they're nothing new - really). That will do. I don't see any other military in the world that has ever needed to find acronyms for things that they don't like - maybe it seems less real that way
From the blurb "For example, there's no consideration that military power or technology could fail or be jammed, she says. And the enemy doesn't learn, in contrast to a certain real-life conflict where the hallmark of insurgents is their ability to rapidly gain knowledge and evolve."
Well, first it's a recruiting tool. Of course the Americans are going to come out on top. (But, in all honesty, there really isn't a peer military any where in the world.) But more importantly, these criticisms with respect to the Army are ridiculous. There isn't a game made that has meets these criteria. Everyone can pickup as much ammo as they want without ever slowing down. Everyone can carry multiple full sized guns. Guns just miraculously appear whenever you change to them. (Aparently weapons are stored in some sort of pocket dimension like Optimus Prime's trailer.) Wounds don't do anything. You can be miracuously healed in an instance. Guns don't get jammed. People don't get tired. Guns are always accurate. Everyone can drive any vehicle, from snowmobiles to tanks. Oh and the tanks? They take a crew of one, and operate at full effectiveness right up until they explode.
Sure some games have some of these things, but it's rare when they do, and they rarely have them all. Why aren't games realistic? Because they're games. They're meant to be fun, and when compared to fantasy, reality frankly sucks.
It's obviously a demo version of the US Army.
Not every bug - errhh undocumented feature - is present in a demo version.
Will properly simulate the sand and dust? I predict steep hardware reqs.
Can we also count the civilian deaths in Iraq? Thanks. (random Google search)
You forgot the part where you do something tedious for hours on end in order to get the money needed to buy what you want.
I think that sort of simulation would be too realistic for most people to handle.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
Since the Nuremberg Trials after WW2, it has become increasingly common to try at least a few leaders of the losing party as war criminals. The lower ranks within the ruling class will still get away, but those at the very top do have to fear for their lives if they lose.
Latest example: Saddam Hussein who will probably be hanged.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Er, the Wired editors do realize that the website in question is run by a competing sim publisher, with rather more interesting products, don't they?
Armies conquer territory, not people. They're also particularly blunt instruments of foreign policy. These tenets have been proved repeatedly for at least 2000 years, if not for all of recorded history. Unless the US invades Russia or China, or invades somebody who's WMD armed, they can't lose a war.
However, they'll lose the peace unless there's a common frame of reference from which to rebuild. Different tools and approaches are required for winning the peace, if it's even possible to do so.
Of all the multiplayer FPSs I've found out there, America's Army is the only one I really stick to and play regularly. Despite it's flaws, (and it's hardly a perfectly designed game) it encourages strategic gameplay and teamwork. Perhaps it's because I suck at fast-twitch FPSs, but the idea of actually outthinking your opponents really appeals to me. Quite simply, the game is fun.
Now I know the game is propaganda for the US Army and any ideals it holds, but I haven't joined the forces yet, nor do I ever plan to. The game doesn't get too in-your-face about it, and in all honesty, I'd rather put up with a bit of propaganda as opposed to the in-game advertising that's starting to fill most modern games. At least it fits the context of the game and keeps me immersed.
At very least, America's Army is fun, and that's a lot more than can be said for many of the other shooters out there.
As for this new game in the works, well, a lot of the fun in AA comes from the challenge of your limitations. If you remove those limitations, it would make the game a bit too easy to be fun, and that's what I see this as. With futuristic weapons and tech, you can't follow real-world rules because you don't know what those rules will be, and thus you lose some of the limitations out there. (And perhaps make up unnecessary ones.) So while I find this development interesting, I'm going to wait and see what comes of it.
Remember Vietnam. An army can win almost all the battles it is engaged in and still lose a war for non-tactical reasons.
American army technical superiority is great when they need to go somewhere, do the job and get away quickly or simply sterilize an area from the stratosphere, but when they have to stay somewhere, they suffer from their low headcount.
What do you suppose would happen if China were to start dumping all those trade deficit US Dollars it's accumulated? China has quite a lot of leverage over the USA because of our fiscal problems.
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
In the end, it is a recuitment tool to lure all those console kids to join, with the promise of "cool weapons".
Its aimed (no pun intended) at the kids.. i hope there is not an adult who would make a career decision based on a game...
So the role call so far is:
- British underestimate Afghans, lose war.
- Russians underestimate Afghans, lose war.
- US and British underestimate Afghans, are still in process of losing war.
Who was it said the only thing we learn from history is that people do not learn from history>Pining for the fjords
So, you're saying that it's "political" and it's about "fear, uncertainty, and doubt". Well, it is, and it should be. The military is not a game, it's about loss, fear, boredom, injury, limited career and advancement options, destruction, bureaucracy, disease, grief, killing, and being killed. If you don't have "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" about that, there is something wrong with you as a human being. And when the military recruits impressionable young people with games that give them a completely unrealistic picture of the choice they are making, it is perfectly justifiable to criticize them.
Note that I'm not saying that the military is an overall bad career or that military service is intrinsically wrong. The military serves an important function in the defense of our democracy, and we should be grateful to the people who choose military service. But we don't do anybody a favor by pretending that it's all a just a fun game.
albeit on a 486
In their previous propaganda game, America's Army (which we play a lot at the office because it's free, not because we actually like the US army), weapons could jam. And hitting the enemy is far from trivial; a well aimed shot with a good scope is often worth a lot more than a machine gun. But when you're hit and the bullet doesn't kill you outright (which it might), you move slower, and you can still bleed to death. Pretty convincing game IMO. On the other hand, the game also clearly demonstrates the US view that your own side is always the good guys, and the opponents are always the bad guys: both sides see their team mates as US soldiers, and the other side as terrorists. It confuses a lot of new players who want to know if they're the Americans or the terrorists, and who else is on their side.
Hopefully in 20 years' time the US public will have a more realistic view of the capabilities of their (or anyone else's) military. And perhaps they might educate themselves in the complex history, social geography and dare I say it expert opinion of the likely outcome, the next time they feel the need to demand violent retribution for a perceived threat that in reality is nothing more than a phantom in the mind of the media-political complex that governs the American psyche so effectively today.
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
Say it isn't so.
Can anyone put me straight on when in history the US has ever won a significant military engagement without superior numbers or equipment? I'm sure there must have been some example from recent history, but I can't find any.
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
In my opinion the AK-47 wins hands down in just about any category except weight and accuracy. It's 7.62mm round has it's disadvantages. It is an old fashioned projectile derived form a pre WWI rifle round, it is big which increases magazine size which is a disadvantage when you are firing from a prone position. Complaints about inaccuracy are more down to the AK-47 it self than the 7.62 mm round it fires. You can also fit a lot more 5.56mm rounds into a mag the size of the one used by the AK-47 than you can fit 7.62 mm round in there. But the AK-47 and it's 7.62 mm round also has some advantages in urban fighting that the accurate M-16 and it's 5.56mm round does not have such as the ability to punch through slender trees, brick walls (up to a point) and other solid obstacles that would deflect, break up or stop a 5.56mm round. This was actually a problem for the British in N-Ireland with their FAL rifle which also fired a 7.62mm round because those rounds would routinely punch clean through brick walls and kill innocent civilians. In N-Ireland it was a defect but a full blown war this would be an advantage of course. Basically, in full blown urban fighting or if you are fighting in mountainous or wooded terrain where ranges are short and cover is plentiful the reliability and raw punch of the AK-47 is more valuable than the lightness and accuracy of the M-16. The M-16 is better if you are fighting in a place where there is lot's of civilians in the war zone mixed in with the insurgents and you want to avoid collateral casualties but it also is less effective as a pure combat rifle much of the rest of the time.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
A reviewer didn't like the game, so lets assume the Army thinks their invincible and not realistic?
I got an idea, lets not compare a video game with real life Army training and tactics, shall we?
Oh wait, that doesn't further my agenda so Ill just go ahead and try to make the Army look like idiots.
CDLXXXVI, no?
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Seriously, we're going to be hearing from someone soon that fans of sports teams may not have an unbiased opinion or the home shopping network tends to put products they sell in the best possible light. This is obvious stuff. We're talking about miliary recruiters, they're salespeople... they're job is to get recruits. They're going to sell and spin. Simulations are just that, they're simulations... they're not meant to cover every possible scenario... maybe your character could have a case of the runs... or you could simulate the excitement of gaurding a base in Iowa in real time. Idiots.
these people who complain about this stuff must go through every day as the realize how pathetic their lives are and try and find the most rediculous things to criticize and critique in order to try and give themselves some sense of value. Lame.
/.
The sequal would be a simlation of a poster on
I remember reading about the military's cheating a while back. Here's a little background about how the US spent $253 million dollars on Middle East war games in 2002 and fixed it so they would win.
Abstinence is a government conspiracy. www.SafeSexZone.co
It's sad that the US army thinks of war as a game.
In some ways its true. The US Armed forces can't lose. We could stay in Iraq for another 50 years. It would cost us Trillions of dollars and probably around 100,000 US sevicemen deaths but we could easily do it. The problem is after 50 years we'd be no closer to winning than we are now. We easily have the military power to kill every living thing in Iraq, and thats about what it would take for us to win there. We've forgot what war is about. Its not about invading a country to impose democracy, thats an oxymoron. War is about ivading a country to take their resources, or defending against a country that is try to take your resources. We can't win wars anymore becuase we forgot what war is. To impose control in Iraq we would have to be as harsh a dictator as Sadam was, if your cought doing insurgent activity you and your entire family disapear into some hellhole where you watch your family be tortured to death. Thats the level of fear it would take to keep control in Iraq.
If Saudi Arabia declares war... and actually does something about it, they'd last about 30 minutes. The U.S. would have no moral qualms about turning the middle east into glass. The oil is safe underground, and we already hate the buggers.
The only militaries that could give us a tussle in an all-out fight are Russia and China, and since we're all trading partners that won't happen. England won't declare war on a U.S. ally. Italy? Please. Spain. HAHAHAHHHAHAHAHA. The rest of Europe would be content to send strong diplomatic statements. North Korea? Ashes and glass in 25 minutes. Tops.
If you think I'm joking, U.S. citizens would demand this happen. I know I would get on the bombs and ride them down yelling "YEEEHAAA!". My friends would be shooting Coke machines. And my wife would play both the president and the mad scientist.
America loves a winner.
... noticie... mobilised... altho... alther... evactuation... sufface... missles... alquada... certianly... equimpment... evactuation... demorilise... certianly... houndred... certianly... slater... quickely... importently... importent... defencive... dosent... mountians... desprate... Hittler... Defence... civilisation... Man, are you that new ultra-secret US weapon? It certainly hurts reading your message (leaving bad grammar aside).
Whatever it was what you were trying to say, your spelling your spelling made it go down the drain.
My site
> And the enemy doesn't learn, in contrast to a certain real-life conflict
Of course not. You have to enlist to play level 2.
Level 2 is MUCH harder, and if you lose, you actually die.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
I have yet to play a FPS in which weapons jam (aside from various bugs/lag that might create a similar effect). As for enemy AI that "learns" from tactics... well if they could design an AI that advanced, one would think they could deploy it in their unmanned vehicles, robots, etc.
On the other hand, if the developers/military were interested in allowing the game explore complex and adaptive tactics, they would let players play as either side. No AI (yet) approaches the adaptibility of a human opponent, and even as a recruiting tool it may help some players understand how and why low-tech tactics work in asymmetric warfare. The military might even learn a thing or two.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
As long as Jack Bauer is on our side, we can't possibly lose. Oh, it might look tight, but Jack will wrap it up in a day.
If they ARE, then, well, yeah, they need to go back to the drawing board, now if this makes the game more FUN, though, well.... I'm still not joining in the REAL LIFE genocide assholes! Nice try!
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Assuming no nuclear weapons are used(Reasonable assumption, the US has possessed first strike capability, IE the ability to incapacitate all nuclear silo's and submarines before they have a opportunity to strike back, over Russia and China since around 95 [see Foreign Policy April ed.]. France and British nuclear weapons are few and easily destroyable, since the US built their Silo's and they have no nuclear subs. Israel, India, and Pakistan lack ICBM's to hit us, so will probably end up attacking their neighbors instead. Most of America's nuclear arsenal is mothballed, and so they probably will not use them either.)
Naval: The US has seven super carrier groups; the rest of the world has none. The world's navy could be eliminated in a matter of days, leaving the worlds coast open to naval and air bombardment. The world has more ships, but most of these are refurbished WW2 era battleships, today's naval warfare centers on aircraft carriers. Not only does the US have more Aircraft carriers then the rest of the world combined, they are also newer and more powerful.
Air: The rest of the world lacks the ability to project their air force beyond their borders, The US can just bombard with missiles the large and complex infrastructure needed to maintain a air force(see how Israel disabled Egypt's large and powerful air force by destroying runways in 67). Afterward, the US can use their navy as a staging area for asserting Arial dominance.
Ground: With air and naval superiority, the US can just bomb opposing armies to destroy their logistics. Then the US can just watch them desert and starve.
Productive Capacity: The US has a GDP of 12 trillion dollars; the world has one of 57. The world actually has around 5 times more productive capacity. However, if you consider military spending, the US military budget makes up 49% of total world spending. Take into account Iraq, Afghanistan, and black projects, and The US tips the scale.
Disclaimer: I do not like that my hard-earned cash has been spent to achieve military dominance over the rest of the world. Not to give neo-con's idea's, The US could incapacitate the rest of the world, not conquer it.
My dad used to watch me play strategic and tactical board war games ( Rise and fall of the 3rd reich, ASL, etc) in the 80s and asked soem interesting questions and was bemused. He worked for Westinghouse's air and space defence at the time and logistics was obviously a big issue. Apparently some of the guys at Westinghouse either developed or had a game developed that played out war scenarios in terms of logistics. I think it may have been called Logistics Command.
Actually, the modern US Army is a surprisingly agile and adaptive force. It's not like the Cold War Army of the 80s that used mass and raw firepower as a replacement for training.
We used to joke about how dumb the Yanks were - nice guys, but dumb as rocks. Things like the Dragon ATGM manual being a comic book didn't help that impression very much. Yank training was very focussed on accomplishing a specific job for a specific soldier, with little to no contingency training. Compare against Canadian doctrine, which was to train everybody as broadly as possible so their soldiers were more flexible and adaptive.
The Yanks aren't quite there yet - there's simply to many of them to train to that level - but in the last 5 years or so, they've come up with all sorts of great innovations in the training process such that they get maximum bang for their training buck. We're adopting Yank training techniques left, right, and centre - because they work, and work well. It is not unheard of for a lesson learned in the field to be incorporated into the next applicable training course a week later.
And while there is still that Yank tendency to swat flies with nukes, they ARE learning - go Google "the strategic corporal" and "three block war" for examples.
They don't have the experience with protracted insurgency that the Brits do (thanks to Northern Ireland and the IRA) but that is coming as well.
And not everything is unconventional war these days. The operations in the Kandahar area the last couple of months were classic combat team in the advance, fighting large enemy fighting formations in the field. Army on army combat has NOT gone away.
The American failures are with political leadership, not with the troops on the ground.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
The code to killing a bunch of worthless rags is
left up left left right right.
Numpad works.
I mean, It's easy for me to talk 'cause we already noticed that about 60 years ago after we realized that not everything the Wochenschau presented us as truth actually was true, but did anyone expect a realistic reflection of the Army in a game that was supposed to act as a recruitment tool? Do you think they show you the tedious, boring and often very exhausting training? Or that they create missions where you walk around and suddenly, SNAP, you're dead without a warning because some sniper sat somewhere? Or that you sit in a vehicle (not as the driver) and suddenly the crate explodes 'cause nobody saw that guy with the RPG?
War ain't a game, it isn't fair, it isn't about good reactions or good aiming. It's about luck. Play poker if that's your thing.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Sure, it's tempting to take the cheap shot and say it was probably developed by some people close to Rumsfeld's advisors but we all know the hard part is developing the enemy AI in games. Now if ID and a couple other companies could get massive government grants with a competitive bonus to develop strategic AI we could all benefit in better gaming!
I also think that a lot of people are missing that point. It is a video agme. It is intended to be fun and, apparently, show off some weapons that the military has in an effort to recruit people. Do you think it would be an effective recruitment tool if it was impossible to win, or if the game was boring? No. Just sounds like a bunch of anti-America zealots looking for anything they can do to criticize the country. When they start attacking video games that's when I have to stop taking them seriously.
Kooks!
Love sees no species.
Yes I'm sure US Army has tons of equipment and if you havent got good soldiers you havent got army.
Last time I checked Iraq and Afganistan, your army absolutely loose, because of lack of good soldiers.
In Holivood movies, you may rescue entire world, and in real your army are absolutely in deep s***t.
[My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
lots of countries in the world have nucler weapons. only one country in the world has actually used them.
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
Does it have a torture level where you waterboard innocent people?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
[I must have hit the "Post Anon" button when I tried to hit "Quote"]
<quote>What do you suppose would happen if China were to start dumping all those trade deficit US Dollars it's accumulated? China has quite a lot of leverage over the USA because of our fiscal problems.</quote>
You really don't understand what you're talking about.
The very moment that the Chinese central bank HINTED that they were planning on diversifying their hard currency holdings, the US dollar would bottom-out. This would happen before the guy could even clear his throat. And China would lose hundreds of billions of dollars because the metric tons of cash money would all of a sudden be basically worthless.
In other words, they have no leverage. Furthermore, the Chinese currency is pegged to the dollar. Which means the weaker the dollar, the weaker the Yuan.
Not to mention the fact that the global oil market is also done in US Dollars, which would have some very interesting impacts on Russia, Venezuala, and of course all the Opec countries. These people wouldn't like China very much. Neither would any of the other first-world countries who 1) also hold lots of US hard currency and 2) Rely on the US economically.
And when it comes down to it, if no goods were being exported from China the world would run out of electronics and textiles. If no goods were being exported from the United States the world would run out of food.
China has no leverage. Stop perpetuating myths.
Does the game include having the enemy using weapons the US sold them in the decades before?
For extra realism it doubles your tax bill to pay for all of it.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
The US didn't get 'ripped to pieces' in Vietnam. In purely military terms, their decisions and strategies (with the exception of the strategic bombing campaign) were most effective. The Viet Cong were practically wiped out by the end of the war, and the US successfully used not just high-tech solutions but grass-roots small-unit tactics. The battle for 'hearts and minds' was lost by the ARVN long before the GIs got a go at it.
Unwinnable disaster? Why yes. 'ripped to pieces' due to reliance on long range bombardment? Not at all. Like the current war in Iraq, it was a political failure that the military tried to fix but couldn't.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Basically ALL games are like this.
Weapons failing may 1) detract from game action immersion, which is often paramount to a game designer, and 2) is considered a special "feature" of the game if it is in. The norm is that it isn't. For all games. This has nothing to do with some form of software patriotism that tries to lie to the user, or whatever the author is trying to imply.
Also, as for enemy combatants, the author needs to learn about how hard it is to implement good AI. No need for and idiotic theories like the one above here either. I still haven't really seen an action game with "human" intelligence in your foes, where it's not scripted.
Also, I'm not American, so that's not the reason I'm claiming this, it's just because it's a flat out troll article trying to find "issues" where there aren't.
By the way, this isn't specific to the US, but games illustrating other war zones share similar behavior. If I play a Nazi in a WW2 game, you can be damn sure most computer-controlled American soldiers are stupid as bricks as well. It has everything to do with implementation details and basically nothing to do with politics.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
News at 11.
http://outcampaign.org/
The Russian military is derelict. Their nuclear program has been grossly underfunded for so long that you could hardly consider their missiles "battle ready." We spend an enormous amount of our defense budget maintaining our missiles, silos and C&C systems. We're not doing that for novelty.
Furthermore, the US Nuclear arsenal is head and shoulders above the Russians, even if they had proper maintenance. We have more missiles and they are more powerful. We have MIRVs. We have dozens of subs deployed at any given time with nuclear delivery systems.
The Russian system was never centralized. That means they need guys in the silos to launch their missiles. How many silos are out of service? Of the ones that are in service, how many have been maintained properly? Of those, how many are manned? Of those, how reliable and well-trained are the officers manning them?
This same logic applies to all of the Russian military. It's frozen in time in 1985. No new air or ground systems, problems getting spare-parts, and few trained mechanics for certain technologies. Their armed forces have lost their institutional memory. They are in shambles.
And don't be naive about the defense spending. Is the "military industrial complex" a powerful lobby? Yes. But there a lot of other very powerful lobbyists. The "overinvestment" (your word) in the military was largely due to the Cold war. And considering we won, I think it was money well spent. It's difficult to say if Russia would've been more aggressive if they felt the U.S. was weaker than they were, but it's not a crazy notion.
As a percentage of our federal budget and a percentage of the GDP, our defense spending is way down from the cold-war highs.
the US can't lose? then this means vietnam cheated!
I KNEW IT!
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Did you write for the war before you wrote against it, too?
Maybe we should leave "actual" genocidal, homicidal maniacs in power, until they try to grab the worlds Gas hose again. (Oh, and I suppose if we all drove electric golf carts around, we could all live in our flowered sunshine boxes and ignore the rest of the world.)
Or, maybe we should just sit and let genocidal maniacs that hide behind a religion fester until they take out another 3500 innocent civilians. (You throw the word "genocide" around so well, I thought I could use it as out of context as you do)
You bitch about the world and the way it is, but never have a solution of your own. It's because of people like you that we can't go about the operation the way it is supposed to be carried out, with complete destruction, THEN reconstruction.
Your politically correct "pussy-ism" is bad for this country, and bad for the world. Fighting a pulled-punches war because you are afraid of offending or hurting a Muslim is WHY this war has lasted so long. It's not all Muslims, it's THOSE Muslims.
War is a fact of life, no matter how unfortunate it is.
The US Army and the other branches of the military have fought exceptionally well in reducing collateral damage and civilian casualties. All this while protecting your civil rights and your right to a safe flight to your next "Pussify America" rally.
I originally was gonna nuke you anonymously, but I decided against it. If I get flamed for it, so be it. At least I can sleep at night knowing that I spoke with my mind and heart about what "REALLY" is happening to this country.
I thank God everyday that we have Americans that can stand up for others that can't defend themselves. THEN turn around and listen to shit bags like you disrespect the sacrifices they make, so you can have a feel goodie, goodie conversation at your next dinner party. It's because of them we don't have a draft, and it's because of the prosperity of this country that we don't need to have an increase in taxes.
...and if they come at you one and a time, or worst cast side by side...
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
The USA almost certainly has sufficient strategic reserves squirelled away to conquer oil producers.
Hell, they don't have zero domestic production. The consumption their military would require is miniscule compared to their present levels of consumer consumption.
About the only thing that would result is that you would deprive the greedy US consumer of the "American Way of Life(tm)" and make them just about angry enough to come and stomp on the rest of us.
I had friends that didn't respawn. Over a four year enlistment, I'm afraid I had more than one opportunity to verify that experimentally. Incidentally, the soldiers on both sides who are not killed instantly tend to scream a lot, often suffer great pain and agony, and (if they survive) often face life challenges most of us would not be able to cope with.
No, these games may be a great recruitment tool (and even great fun), but they are not realistic.
Well prior to 1919 the modus apperendi of conquering forces was to enslave, rob, and kill the populance. Rape their women etc.
This would still work for the U.S. and I'm sure that some members of their government are pissed that their people won't accept it.
If the current method of warfare continues to fail we may see a resurgence of rape and pillage warfare.
Usually when America destroys a country (See last 50-60 wars in South America) they do it by at least pretending to support insurgents and then installing a puppet government, unfortunately everyone's seen it too many times before and Saddam was quite popular in Iraq. These wars have traditionally been for the "benefit" of the citizenry (I.E. the wealthy who can get their perspective on TV and stand to gain from a capitalist system). The Iraq war in contrast was at least in parts defensive and opportunistic (oil, Not selling oil in Euros, region control etc.) those types of wars are open to the old style of warfare. America acting as though they are the world's superpower has largely let their citizens believe that by attacking any country they are bullying them and therefore they need to use kid gloves, what we'll likely see after the Iraq was is America with it's tail between it's legs for a while. Unfortunately it won't actually affect their power and will likely increase recruitment in their army, and the next time they do something the kid gloves will be off.
You probably have plenty of funny stories, but I'd like to tell you my roommate's. He was in the Reserves and was out on exercise. At one point they were warned to don protective gear. As soon as the simulated chem strike hit, the nearest ref signaled he was dead. Turned out he'd done everything perfect ... except for zipping his fly. Lesson learned: if you're going to die, at least don't let it be from chemicals attacking your nads.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
The Army's free video game is a propaganda tool? What a shocking revelation. Quick, to the Batmobile!
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
However, irrational muslim extremists may not feel the same way. If they truly believe that "Allah" is backing them, then nuking Washington D.C. will be followed by some hand from the sky that will block any and all retallitory nuclear attacks on the middle east. MAD will not happen, or so their Imams will assure them...
I skimmed the comments several times and see no mention of this... Uhh. I've been playing Real Time Strategy games for years. Never once played one where any equipment failed, any guns jammed. Sure, it's a recruiting tool. So if they added it, sure they would be gambling lightly with old time RTS fans. Might even liven it up a bit. Maybe some RTS games I haven't played yet have that sort of thing, but none in what I've played. Sounds like yet another person making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Oh, what sad times are these when passersby neglect an obvious reference to the Black Knight...
"I'm invincible!"
"You're loony."
Your monitor is staring at you.
Joining the military is not a stupid decision only for the dumb and hopeless. Did you learn nothing from John Kerry's stupid comments? Joining the military is a calculated decision. It has it's benefits and it has it's drawbacks. Being in a contract for at least 4 years is a huge drawback. Getting money for college and free technical training (for those who qualify) is a benefit. The pay is guaranteed and you don't have to worry where your next meal is coming from. Having military experience is great on a resume and is sometimes a prerequisite to entering politics and having anyone take you seriously. The possibility of being deployed into a combat zone (which is high at the moment) is a drawback. The possibility of getting some great leadership training and then getting to sit on your duff and get paid for it (happened to me) is a great benefit.
The point is that joining the military is a decision that is about looking at opportunity cost and weighing risk. Some very smart people look at all of this and decide to join. That is why you were moderated as a troll kind sir.
In this day and age, individuals with heavy explosives, biologicals, or various other weaponly can do as much as or more damage than the heavy vehicles. Sure, the US might kick the crap out of a foreign country using jets, warships, and tanks, but it has already been proven to some extent that having a dedicated human force counts for a lot.
I've very few doubts that the US employees agents and spies in most foreign countries, but also that many foreign countries have their own agents on US soil.
You don't need to deliver a hoard, you just need dedicated agents - sleepers etc - and officials placed or bribed in the right place. Having a larger population and a certain amount of economical clout gives countries such as China fairly big clout in these areas. Furthermore, when the US is important many of their eletronics (in both component and assembled form) from cheap foreign suppliers, how well are they going to do when said countries slip a few defects or Easter-eggs in key products.
the enemy doesn't learn, in contrast to a certain real-life conflict where the hallmark of insurgents is their ability to rapidly gain knowledge and evolve
Well, most game AI sucks in this arena, but there's not reason that human players couldn't improve as opponents over time. The limitation there is that - without hacking the game itself - they are sandboxed by the available in-game-tech etc.
http://www.snopes.com/humor/nonsense/kangaroo.htm Just about says it all. Nothing new under the sun.
So I guess the point is just that the new game has less realism than America's Army. Since AA does have weapon jams and more learned enemies. Ok, onto more pressing news...
The problem is that our troops did what they were trained to do; They successfully invaded Iraq and got rid of Sadaam. It may have been that a coward,liar, and a traitor caused us to do it, but the military did do it successfully. But the problem is that they are now being asked to be a police force for which they never trained. Worse, they have had Rumsfield, Cheney, and W. all trying to tell them how to do their jobs. Thoughout this occupation, the threesome had the goal of taking the oil rather than re-building a nation. Even the multi-billion dollars that was suppose to go into re-building Iraq's infrastructure (water, food, electricity, govs, etc.) was flowed instead to protecting the oil flow. Had the 3 actually spent the money on what they told congress, Americans, and the World, then insurgents NEVER would have gotten a toe-hold and the oil would be flowing easily today.
All in all, the American Military did their job, and they now pay the price of greed and incompetence in the white house.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
So it's unrealistic, but a good training tool? I guess that's the kind of nonsense I should expect from an "e-learning expert". Unfortunately, judging from the performance of the US Army in Iraq, it looks like they really have learned their tactics and "strategic thinking" from a video game.
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.dea ths/
Summary: Many deaths go unreported officially, so researchers used the same survey methods used to estimate deaths from natural disasters like the massive tsunami, or earthquakes in Kashmir. The methods have been used in other war zones like Bosnia, and compared to the post-conflict results, and have been shown to be fairly accurate - a little on the high side, but the actual number is within the error range. Applied to Iraq, the number of estimated deaths due to the conflict (all causes) is about 650,000, but with a wide margin of error (maybe as low as 400,000 deaths).
* the lead-acid car battery;
* crocodile clips;
.
* the black hood.
If you end up in an "Abu Ghraib Hidden Level", you don't want to touch those things, they are a trap to catch bored, stupid jackasses out for a sick thrill:
Plus, you might not respect yourself:
for the things that you might do for "amusement":
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Critics say the new recruiting tool lacks reality? Recruiting is a sales activity: sell these jobs to the public. While you can't outright lie when selling something (at least, by law, in the US), omitting "the rest of the story" is a common and accepted tactic. Why should we expect that a *recruiting* *game* be realistic? If it were a war simulator, now that'd be another thing, but I don't think anyone's trying to suggest we use this for formal military training... This isn't news, it's just people looking for something else to complain about.
akad0nric0
This sentence no verb.
Do you mean the enemy can think for themselves ? They're not stupid hamburger eaters ? we're doooomed ! oh wait, you're doomed, I'm not one of yours :D
Of course, even if the US can't win in their simulation it can always been restarted with different rules to ensure they do win (Millenium Challenge)
I suggest you enlist immediately. Put it where your mouth is.
The fact is, the US actively supported all sorts of nasty regimes, including Saddam Hussein's. And trained Osama Bin Laden, when it was in your political interests. You only take out nasty dictators when there's some oil involved - I don't see you doing the same in other benighted regions of the world.
Look - you aren't the world's police force, and we don't want you to be. But don't pretend that your recent military action is some kind of global heroism. It won't wash.
Check out his book:
"The Coming China Wars: Where They Will be Fought and How They Can Be Won"
ISBN 0-13-228128-7
~$24
I saw it at Borders, but it's probably in many "fine" booksellers "everywhere" (as the commercials say of such large stores...)
My attitude over the years and some reinforcement of my supposition from the book is that China is basically keeping the US afloat right now. The rules of economics and the fact that most damned economists will sell granny for a buck means that as long as China keeps buying US debt, the US is afloat. Once China cuts back, the US is in deep shit. If the world goes Euros and China calls its debt from the US, the US will likely plunge. But, being "Masters of the Universe" and not being willing to take 2nd place to ANYone, the US will likely set up nations for upheavals, coups, insurrections, and even assassinate a good number of those who won't play the US way. Sort of gives some credence to those who suspect that the US poisoned the Russian defector to make it look like Putin ordered it, though Putin probably WOULD have done it himself if pushed any more.
The book also talks about how China boondoggles and allows billions in US dollars to be frittered away via corruption which led to numerous dams being build of shoddy materials. It talks about how around 1976 cheap materials substituted for the specified materials led to a dam collapse in which some ***200,000*** people died as one dam after another gave way to an onslaught of flooding from upstream. I only skimmed it, but for $24, had I any money, it would be in my book collection.
And, don't forget that even though we love to make the US a villain, a LOT of the US activities are nuanced by... yep, old money ties back to Europe. So, maybe that's one reason people persist in talking about bloodlines between bush and Churchill, old crowns and scepters and crap that people hang on to for the sake of family crests. Money might make the world go round, but it can also sure as hell screw it up, too. Just look at the disenfranchised, gentrified, starving, and politically oppressed who don't fit into the money-making, power-expanding schemes.
As long as no real trans-national wars occur, history might be able to show all posturing was similar to intramural, childish phallic stroking self aggrandizement. We'll see. Humans are wily, deceitful, ingenious, and amazing, and many things. But, violence is in the blood. Greed is eternal, and all those other things which apply to those who seize power.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
I have enlisted before on Sept. 13th 2001 and then again 2 years later, but due to a medical condition, I was not accepted. And contrary to popular belief of some democrats in this county, I am an educated professional. So if you haven't served, or tried to serve, shut your pie hole.
The support of nasty regimes has long been a form of political and military strategy for THOUSANDS of years.
"The enemy of my enemy, is my friend."
Which is why we've helped the France (Independence War), The Former Soviet Union (WW2), and Afghanistan (Cold War), and Iraq (Iran-Iraq Conflict after the hostage crisis). ALL nations do it, including the terrorists. So if you don't know anything about world politics (Other then what you see on the BBC or CNN) then shut your pie hole.
Oil is needed by the ENTIRE planet, not just the US. So if you drive a car, heat your house, use plastics for anything (including the computer you type your dribble on), shut your pie hole.
If you are from the US, shame on you. If you are from another country, don't complain the next time someone comes goose-stepping into your capital building.
Wow, you really have no understanding of how worldwide currency systems actually work.
First, you should understand that more American currency sits in banks outside the US than banks within the US. That is hard currency, actual paper bills, not just "value." All of this money would be lost. All of it. Trillions of dollars of money which is the oil that lubricates the worldwide economy.
Everyone of these countries would suffer a great deal. The entire worldwide economy would collapse. I mean collapse. You show that you have no understanding of the gravity of this scenario when you say "the rest of the world would lose out a bit."
Every major economic power in the world uses fiat currency. That is, the currency has no intrinsic value. Loans and financing the world over are secured with US dollars in a bank vault somewhere. Once those are worthless, worldwide banking and lending falls into a crisis. Obviously not ALL loans are backed in this manner, but so many, for such a high amount, that central banks in europe and asia would have a crisis.
Countries that have a large amount of exports to the US would watch their currency collapse before their eyes. Their economy would implode.
Food prices the world over would skyrocket. The US is the single largest exporter of food. Much more than you seem to understand.
Oil markets could not just simply "switch to the euro" and saying so makes you seem naive. What about existing transactions? What about credit-based transactions? (And nearly all oil sales are credit based. Nobody is sending a boatload of dollar bills to get a boatload of oil) What about futures? The economies of the middle east--which rely almost exclusively on large amounts of US hard currency to run their economy--would crumble.
The worldwide import/export market would be crippled. China would lose TRILLIONS. Furthermore, the Chinese currency which, as I said in my OP, is the YUAN not the YEN, cannot simply be "re pegged" to the Euro. Do you think that they can just say "Hello. Yesterday 1 Yuan was worth 1 Dollar but today 1 Yuan is worth 1 Euro" ??
I'm not trying to be a prick, but your scenario and your explanation of it is just asinine. If China sold off its US Hard Currency the world economy--not just the USA--would be DEVESTATED. And the countries that trade for food would be hit the hardest. That's the Middle east, asia, and Europe to a lesser extent.
This is the single biggest reason why China would never declare war on the US. They need us more than we need them.
By the way, the value of the Euro would plunge, also.
I know this is slashdot, but do some homework before you post moronic things like this. That way I wouldn't have to embarrass you.
I'm still amazed that people subscribe to the idea of "winning" a war. It's like the idea of a husband "winning" in domestic violence, except on a much much larger scale.
"I won 'cause I only got a couple of scratches on my arm but the missus has two black eyes. That'll learn her. I don't care if she brings her pussy friends 'long, I'll just smack them 'round as well."
Sounds much the same as:
"We won 'cause we're killing 3,000 a month of them and the're only killing 350 a month of us. That'll learn 'em. We don't care if they bring their pussy towel head friends 'long, we'll just nuke their cunt-ry to glass."
Lets just lay them on the table and get a tape measure out!
have courage
Please see: U.S. Economic Slowdown Will Not Curb China's Growth, By Jon A. Nones, 26 Nov 2006 at 10:58 PM EST Now what were you saying about leverage? Incidentally, the US Dollar has only just begun the bottoming out process against other world currencies and has a long way down to go.
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
... but missed the dartboard altogether.
This game, much like America's Army, is a recruiting tool. It's designed to get teens and twentysomethings interested in signing on the dotted line and raising their right hand. So naturally it's going to be "hard to lose," because actually losing might discourage someone from peeking his head into the Army recruiter's office.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
in a study from John Hopkins University published in the Lancet. Their estimate is actually between 450 000 and one million.
But hey, who should you believe, renowned epidemiologists from a reputable institution publishing in the world leading medical journal, or Haliburton Corp. and its subsidiary on Pennsylvania Ave.? I know, tough choice.
The US army was state of the art in the 50s, yet it lost a straight war against an army equipped with, basically, sticks & stones. And it fucking lost. (sidenote: I'm not a big fan of Kim Il Jong and his daddy, but remember that SK was a bloody dictatorship until not too long ago; it became a democracy in spite of the US, not thanks to it)
NK and China just basically threw millions of expendable grunts at the US.
Anyone who's done some work on a real-world simulation of any kind will recognize just how hard they are to do at all, much less realistically. Even simple tasks like "Can person A see person B" have funded 6 months of work by themselves, to use my current project as an example. Other tasks - like determining the course of a bullet, or where the kill zone of an explosion is when a bomb is detonated in a building - are harder. If you go for ultimate realism by allowing deformable terrain and destroyable buildings that operate according to physical laws, it just gets insane. Reuse is pretty much nonexistent, too, because everyone does such a craptastic job of their algorithms or their interface. Military simulations are especially fun because most large military contractors don't give a damn about research or improving their technology, but rather just milking the cash cow that is the U.S. government. Projects go on for YEARS longer than they should because the contractor doesn't bother to do what they promised, but the military project leaders can't afford to admit to their superiors that the project was a failure, and their superiors aren't technically savvy enough to figure it out. The smaller contractors are better in terms of their commitment to research and actually improving the technology, but they don't have the resources or the marketing to actually have any real influence. U.S. Army: "Hey, this simulation doesn't do X and Y correctly, and doesn't do Z at all, despite what you promised, and it's already two years late." Contractor: "Oh, it's not a big deal, just give us more money and we'll take care of it." U.S. Army: "It's alright, we understand, here you go. Make us proud!" When the military actually gets ANY simulation into production that actually does what it was supposed to do, that's pretty impressive by itself. If the technology isn't over four years old or does something that's not found in commercial games, that's almost unheard of. The punchline is that it would be a miracle for this game to offer anything above and beyond existing FPS games.
If I remember correctly, the last bit about U.S. special ops troops picking up AKs in Afghanistan had more to do with the lack of NATO 5.56 rounds for their weapons.
Actually it may have more to do with tactics. Special Ops often does not want a toe-to-toe fight. One tactic upon contact is to open up with only the enemy's distinctively sounding weaponry. Maybe use some of his distinctively colored tracer rounds as well. Hopefully there will be a slight amount of confusion over a possibly friendly fire incident, this can facilitate breaking contact and leaving the vicinity.
Of course in Afghanistan with all it's tribal warfare you would have to hope they were not expecting contact with local rivals. Also, a jihadist may not care about friendly fire. The dead died carrying arms in the service of God and are now in paradise, and since it happened it was obviously God's will, no harm done.
Some reserve units are actually pretty experienced and can beat Opfor. They are the minority.
;-)
It depends on the historical timeframe. In the mid to late 1970s 30-something year old AF Reservists flying "inferior" aircraft often beat 20-something year old AF Regulars. Nothing like a couple thousand more flight hours and a combat tour to hone ones skills.
Today, with the rate that Reserve and Guard units are mobilized and deployed overseas I'd expect that we'd be seeing another convergence of capabilities in Infantry units.
The Iraqi War has not really increased the threat to the west or created more jihadists. The outrage amongst extremists would be the same due to the war against the Taliban and Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. Jihadists from around the world would have flocked there rather than Iraq. The Jihadists stress Iraq today because they are media and PR savvy enough to know that Iraq is where they can drive a wedge between westerners. They learned from Vietnam that wars can be won by victories in the press, despite defeats on the battlefield.
Keep in mind that both sides are lying to you and manipulating you. Militant Islam has been attacking the west since the 1970s and they have been getting better and better at it each year. They want a conflict with the west, they want to destroy the west. The only thing that the Iraqi War has changed is that the IEDs are going off in Bhagdad, Iraq rather than Kabul, Afghanistan.
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
Ha, some feed!
On average, recruits are more educated and well to do than the general population.
Statistically absurd. Compare it to a big company, not the population at large because that also includes the braindead etc. Even more, somebody that willingly signs up must be suicidal, depressed, hopeless or just plain dumb. Why don't you come and die for your country next?
Shot at? That comes with the job. And if your stupid enough to not expect it when joining, then join your friends in canada. Sure enough, that comes with the job. And that's why I think your are suicidal, depressed or just plain dumb when you sign up. And as for friends in canada, well, did you notice that my nationality is not american?
Blown up? War is war. And our boys do the best with what they have what what they are ordered to do. Personally? I think they being restained. Let em loose and let them do their job. At the moment, they are acting as 'peace keepers'. Not 'soldiers'.
They were not trained as social workers or abitrators. They should send in ACLU for that. (grin)
Yes, and it even is a war that the US started, so not remorse about some of them being blown up. It only makes it even more sad for the blown-up grunts and their family. Don't you think that it is quite unfair that some village idiot and his 'advisors' can start a war in their private interests, but it is somebody else taking the hits when it turns out not to be a good gamble?
I agree with you(!) that an army is not very good at peacekeeping. That army should never have been there in the first place.
Can we conclude from your snide ACLU comments that you are very willing to hand over your civil liberties? Go welcome your new overlords and tell them that you can be very usefull in rouding up fellow humans to work in their underground caves.
Oh.. A page for Sheehans book eh?
who is that?
A reminder buddy. Its the SOLDIER that gives you the right to say such things. Not your teacher, or the New York Times.
Its our boys in uniform that protect this country, its constitution and YOU.
Gosh, does that mean that the US has expanded its territories to Afganistan, Irak, and every other place they invaded, and that these places need to have their liberties protected against their evil inhabitants?
An army does not give any rights, it either just sits in their barracks and cost a lot of money for doing nothing, or it goes to war, seeds a lot of death and destruction and costs loads of money. No army has given me any rights. The country(state) I am in does so, and those rights have nothing to do with a grunt with a gun or a cowardly general. As for those boys with uniform fetishes that 'protect' your country: tell me, when was the last time it was invaded? Or when was the even the remotest threat that that might happen? So, if it is not against an evil enemy, who does your country need to be protected from. Its own civilians perhaps? And why does FEMA have concentration camps ready on standby? Bad news boy, your papa is on the red list for toughtcrimes.
Thank you very much for letting me blow off some steam, was it as good for you as it was for me?
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Some fair points there, sorry if I misjudged you. The trouble with "the enemy of my enemy" is it often seems to come back and bite us a few decades later. We are collectively paying the price for our meddling ways now, and we still don't seem to have learned.
If you look at some of my other posts, you will see that I am not attacking the military or the soldiers risking their lives in this misguided war; I am attacking the political establishment and anyone who thinks we cannot criticize a war due to some misplaced notion of loyalty or patriotism. I live in a democracy, I'm proud of it, and I would fight to defend it.
I am not in the US, by the way, I'm from the UK, and we are still extremely grateful for your assistance in WWII. That doesn't mean I support all war under all circumstances though. To me at least, the war in Iraq stinks of corruption and lies - it is not a just war.
Not to mention the fact that if China sold every last dollar bill in their vaults, the US currency would be far from worthless as you seem to imply. It would mean hyper-inflation, but your comment about Bill Gates not being able to afford whatever is just silly. The value of currency is not just related to supply/demand of actual dollars, it's also very closely tied to the credit-worthiness of the US government.
In fact, most of the negative consequences I wrote about would not happen because the dollar would be worthless, they would happen because a huge number of U.S. financial institutions would crumble and leave a vacuum in their wake.
You see, all the large banks, and every large corporation that runs a financing arm (car companies, heavy equipment, etc), basically runs their company on their receivables. That is, they have doled out, say, $5 billion in credit, and they get loans and buy materials, etc, based on their promised revenues. Well, when hyperinflation occurs, all this debt is made worthless.
For the Americans that don't own property, and live in basic poverty with a large amount of debt, this would actually help them. It would, in effect, erase their debt.
The middle class and above would be devastated. Stores would be ghost-towns outside of the essentials of food, etc, and a lot of looting. This would further supress the economy, and this is what would lead to the bulk of the problems.
The simple fact is that it hurts China and Chinas interests so much that it will *never* happen. A slow, gradual draw-down would be the only way to go.
And if China did try to offload a large-enough quantity at once to scare the worlds central banks, I would be surprised if some of the wealthier CBs (Japan & the EU for example) would pool resources and purchase the entire lot before it goes "on the market."
In other words, China has no leverage on us. China buys our debt, and we buy their products, and the cessation of either would cause a lot of problems for both.
I can certainly understand the emotional aspects of hating war. All war is bad, all war is corrupt, and war involves lies and deceit. You can't get rid of it, as long as people have free will and religion, there will always be war.
/. is for.
But when it comes to being attacked, or a real threat to my way of life, or the threat of others losing their rights to a good life, it's not our responsibility as a country, but our responsibility as human beings to stand up for those that can't stand up for themselves.
It's unfortunate for the U.S. that there is oil in Iraq and that region. You can argue its about oil, but it's not just our oil, it's the world's oil. We aren't protecting our economy as much as we are the ENTIRE planets economy.
The original article was about the U.S. having the best military on the planet, and nobody can argue that fact. There isn't another nation on the planet that could even begin to compare (why do you thing WMD's are so desirable by other countries and terrorists?)
That being said, I there isn't another nation on earth that could even attempt to fix what's going on in Iraq, except the U.S.. The UK comes in at a close second, and we appreciate your help. Everyone knows that democracy in the Middle East is the answer, but how we get there is unknown. Nobody else stands up, but waits for the U.S. to take action. It's a catch 22, because then the U.S. is solely responsible for what happens.
That goes for Darfur, or any other crisis in the world.
Thanks for the great debates. That's what
What did they evolve into this time, perhaps a bee?
Interesting you mention religion as a cause of war. I'm no fan of religion, but I suspect that war is something that people would find reasons for even without it.
I will have to respectfully disagree with you on the oil issue. Important natural resources may be essential to the world economy, but surely you aren't advocating that nation's should invade each other over them? Iraq wasn't withholding its oil under Saddam Hussein, and (admittedly under a rule of terror) he held together that fractious nation. The supply of oil wasn't in danger under Saddam, and neither was its price, as they were under economic sanction.
As far as fixing the situation in Iraq, I rather think the US and the UK caused it! I don't think it's fixable by any nation on this planet, other than the Iraqis themselves - and they may not be able to stay united as a single nation to do so. The only way I can see this action having worked is if the United Nations (with substantial international support) had authorised military action, and a multi-national force was in place. I think this would have been a more acceptable solution to the Iraqis, but I'm just guessing.
Hello dear gunnut,
we have had out little slapfest and sure it was fun. I could insinuate your are a fascist, and you could call me a liberal! btw, did you know that in my neck of the woods, liberal means the right wing (you know the money hoarding elite) of the political spectrum, makes you think eh?
And for the moderation points: maybe you should work a little on getting a good karma. It allows me to troll a little once in a while.
btw: did you put your money/life where your heart is and sing up for the military, or would that be too inconvenient?
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you