Slashdot Mirror
High-Tech War Games Help Save Lives
An anonymous reader writes "CNN is reporting on the new training mannequins being used by the United States military. Advances in technology have allowed the training dummies to become ultra-realistic. From the article: 'New battery-operated, remote-controlled mannequins can simulate bleeding and breathing, and they have blinking eyes that dilate. Medics can test their skills on these life-like mannequins. The new units, which are packed with technology, are used at 23 US Army Medical Simulation Training Centers as part of a program to teach lifesaving techniques to medics and nonmedical personnel. A Pentagon study says the training program has saved 1,000 soldiers' lives in combat, said Lt. Col. Wilson Ariza, manager of the US Army Medical Simulation Project.'"
I would like to play Global Thermonuclear War.
Who the heck is "samzenpus" and why can't I read his stories when logged in? This has been happening every Sun/Mon now for about three weeks. I've emailed cmdrtaco and robmalda and gotten zero response from them. Why is Samzenpus flagged as unreadable when logged in, but if I log out I can comment annonomously? I don't have particular editors censored in my settings.
... for Real Men.
Not getting into pointless wars, like the one in Iraq, helps save lives, too.
Medical training dummy = high tech war game?
You make it sound like there are wars that are justified, they are not, they are bloody murder and pillaging under the mantle of righteousness.
... is that you end seeing real people as dummies too. Is not "game over" anymore, but that a real life was lost, or that will have to live x amount of years without an arm or things like that.
I did not see you playing with your dolls again!
Come on CNN, surely you can do better. "Technology" is not a thing you can count, you might as well say they are "innervated with ideas" or "filled with facts" or that they "are expensive and have expensive stuff in them." If you don't know, don't say anything, but don't report like a dumbed-down version of simple wikipedia.
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
So defending against war by waging war is unjustified? Grow up.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
It's a little hard to tell from the article, but Googling makes it look like these are the ones made by METI. They are good physical simulators with a decent physiological computer model. (Most of the time, it's really good, but when it goes off track it goes waaaaaaay off.) I've served as an instructor for my medical center's simulation center for almost two years now, and they really do help people develop emergency management skills. We use them pretty routinely for medical students rotating through anesthesiology, and for getting beginning emergency medicine and anesthesiology residents up to speed with crisis management.
I'm by no means a warmonger, and the US has gotten involved in a bunch of stupid wars. Having said that: the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and World War II were almost unquestioningly necessary. In each case, action was necessary, and diplomacy had been thoroughly exhausted. But, as much as I hate to say it, sometimes you need to beat the crap out of an enemy for your safety or for what's right. It was time for the colonies to be independent, the union is not a fair-weather friend, and Hitler/Japan needed to be put in their place.
If you disagree, how would you have handled the above situations? Keep in mind that colonial control, secession, and a Nazi Europe are not acceptable outcomes in this game.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
...by making it easier for them to end their enemies' lives. You haven't saved any net lives, just switched which side lost the lives.
Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
Not starting decade-long wars under false pretenses.
Maybe he meant that initializing a war in the first place is pointless. The scenarios you described were really about defending yourself or others.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
When was the last time US defended itself in a war it didn't actively help to get going?
There is nothing like a human in distress on which to practice the analysis of a human in distress.
Dummies can only display a short list of items to assess, view, watch. They are extremely limited.
And they have become an excuse for supplying less hands-on experience, which is what is really needed, because getting that experience is less convenient and more costly.
I don't care what statistics you invent to prove how wonderful they are.
You should always initialize war: int war=0;
It's hardly pointless. It might be cruel, or evil, to start a war, but it's worth remembering that quite a lot of wars have achieved their goals magnificently. The wars against the Native Americans? Spectacularly successful. Britain's colonial wars? With the exception of the American Revolution, spectacularly successful.
What about the people living near the North Korean border under constant threat of attack? What about defending the citizens of Iraq targeted by Operation Anfal? Where's the line between initiating a war and defending others?
Maybe the ones who initiated Operation Anfal were the Kurds, who settled down to live in Iraq where they might someday have not been wanted. Maybe it's the fault of the immigrants' parents, for having children who might settle there. Maybe it's the fault of the first people over a thousand years ago who separated into modern-day Kurds.
Or maybe, just maybe, war isn't something that can be so easily avoided.
Conflicts happen in any society, and the violence increases as they escalate. I doubt there's any leader in recent times who has started a war for his own enjoyment. Everyone feels their cause is justified, whether it's bloody murder or not. The best anyone can do is try to reduce the number of conflicts (by choosing skilled diplomats as leaders) or reduce the amount of pain (by improving the accuracy of weapons, control of troops, and improving the medical care).
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
1. US
2. USSR
3. North Korea
4. iran
int bodyCount = 0;
for(;;)
bodyCount++;
It was time for the colonies to be independent, the union is not a fair-weather friend, and Hitler/Japan needed to be put in their place.
No argument from me about Hitler.
Many historians would point out to you that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour wasn't completely unprovoked, however: Japan never forgave Biddle, Glynn and Perry for threatening to bomb Edo Palace (now Tokyo) to force trade agreements through, and the final straw was when the US joined Great Brittain in a full trade embargo of Japan in July 1941 starving it of much-needed resources. One could argue that the US has never lost its strong-arm mentality in the name of "democracy" and "freedom."
We had these dolls in my school of nursing since 2009, and I'm guessing they're older than that. Now I think their use to train battlefield medics is brilliant.
What about the people living near the North Korean border under constant threat of attack?
If you've been attacked first, then I don't see the problem with defending yourself. When I said "initializing a war," I also meant attacking others, even if that isn't really correct. That should never happen in the first place.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I doubt there's any leader in recent times who has started a war for his own enjoyment.
No, but there's those that will start wars over profit or power, and there has been plenty of insane excuses to start wars or attack others (such as religion), but that's not really surprising.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
and I absolutely refuse to be treated as one. This is a direct violation of my rights.
I said: war = whatIsItGoodFor()
You can defend from war by building up defenses (both military and diplomatic) before an actual conflict starts, pillage is quite profitable, a war of attrition is quite the opposite. As an example, Spain never invaded Portugal for the very reasons I commented above.
capture. Some of them have exactly the same kind of trauma US troops have when captured, with the main difference being whose taxpayers paid for the ammo that blew holes in them. These skills will be used to save the lives of POWs, too.
And maybe even your life, lots of military medical personnel stay in medicine when they become civilians.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Not getting into pointless wars, like the one in Iraq, helps save lives, too.
I was against the war: Bush lied and the war was extremely expensive. But Saddam Hussein murdered many times more people in the decade prior to the US invasion than the entire Iraq cost, including Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence. On the whole, the US war in Iraq probably saved lots of lives.
Which is much better training because you actually get a sense of death with the things, simulates human anatomy(from a gunshot wound perspective) surprisingly well, is comparatively cheap, and we're going to kill and eat the thing anyway? Oh wait, PETA would protest the military if we did that. God forbid PETA doesn't like the military. (We actually do this, we just don't advertise it anymore because of groups like PETA).
What is right to somebody is wrong for someone else, that is why History is written by those who won the conflict. Gandhi managed to get independence from the British without waging war, is there any reason why it would have been impossible for the colonies to achieve the same using the same diplomatic strategy? The Civil War did not started because of freeing the slaves, that was an afterthought, it was merely a politically motivated war (remember Iraq?) by a very politically weakened Lincoln (would you like today a civil war just because the president is a sitting duck, think carefully, you might get your wish). World War II would have never happened if the Versailles did not placed such draconian economic penalties over the germans.
But can they perform sex? You won't have financially viable android production until they can properly perform that most profitable of human activities. And once you invent a better sex-bot then you'll have all the money you need to develop the technology to serve in other areas as well.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
After only reading the title:
"Mom, I can't stop playing Black Ops to clean my room - Slashdot says I'm saving lives!"
const int war = 0;
War never changes.
You think that waging war defends agains war? Grow up.
Good try, but history sometimes is pretty black-and-white (at least compared to most history).
Gandhi was fighting a British state that was pretty much ready to give up their colonies anyway. Look at Canada, they just kinda let them go. I'm not saying that what he did wasn't important, significant, or difficult - I'm sure it was. But Britain wasn't exactly convinced anymore that they needed their colonies by that time - though in 1776 they fought like hell to keep the new States. You're also forgetting that the American colonists were largely British anyway - the native Americans, even by then, were pretty much subdued (regrettably). The Indians (from India) were absolutely *not* from Britain. The occupying force dynamic is much, much different than the "but we're British!" thing the Americans had. And Gandhi wasn't exactly a diplomat... he used force, but an entirely different kind of force.
You've got the Civil War turned on its head here. The South seceded after Lincoln was elected, like they said they would. They also largely didn't vote in his Presidential election - funny that he won, isn't it? It'd be like if the Northeast and California just didn't vote in 2004. But in any case, the South fired the first shot (at Fort Sumter) and started the war. Not exactly Lincoln's political motivation at work, but he was perfectly willing, and expecting it, so you might count that. I'm not quite sure how you compare Iraq to the Civil War. What if Texas said "we're our own state" then started shooting us for good measure? Responding to an insurrection is absolutely different than going on some snipe hunt justified by lies. And for the record, the Civil War was *absolutely* about slaves, at least to the South. Read some of their declarations - they're full of "they're infringing on our right to keep slaves" or "they think slaves count as too much of a person" or so on. To the North (or Lincoln at least), the South hadn't seceded because that was impossible, so in his mind it was really a war against the "states currently in rebellion" as he put it. So it wasn't a war about slavery to Lincoln, it probably was to most of the North (though they may have agreed with Lincoln), and it definitely was for the South.
What happened to the Germans at WWII was quite unfair, and there's a good case that Hitler wouldn't have found the necessary public support (he got elected) were there not so much anti-everyone sentiment, not to mention fear of the Communists next door. But, according to you, shouldn't he have sought remedy through diplomatic channels instead of engaging in lebensraum? And before you talk about the Munich agreement and "peace for our time", that wasn't exactly diplomacy since Hitler wasn't acting in good faith. But disregarding WWI for a moment, and assuming that the situation sprang into being (of course not true), how else could you deal with it?
Your view of history has been twisted by your ideology. Don't worry, that happens pretty commonly - it's really the origin of a lot of quotes about history, really. But you've turned the Civil War, in particular, on its head. I suggest you read a number of different takes on history, from different viewpoints. It's fascinating stuff.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
What he said. :)
Fallout quote! The first and 2nd one have such good intro's.
Or maybe, just maybe, war isn't something that can be so easily avoided.
We haven't exactly been going out of our way to prove this point recently. Unless your point is that idiots will inevitably get elected and wage war on other idiots.
The ______ Agenda
Okay, I'll take that offer. Thank you though for expressing your opinion politely, and for inviting a response.
:
In World War II, Jehovah's Witnesses refused to take up arms on any and all sides of the conflict. This is because Jehovah's Witnesses endeavor to do like the first century Christians; Jesus said that his followers were "no part of the world" and that "all those who take the sword will perish by the sword."(John 15:19; Matthew 26:52). During the second World War, this earned them persecution from many of the countries involved.
This though, is not to say that they are pacifists, because they recognize God's right to wage war. They do not participate in wars because they realize that only Jehovah has the solution for all of the problems on the Earth, as well as the Power to accomplish that. More to the point of this issue, I'd like to quote directly this scripture, which shows God's means for cleaning the Earth of wickedness:
Jeremiah 25:31-33
31 “‘A noise will certainly come clear to the farthest part of the earth, for there is a controversy that Jehovah has with the nations. He must personally put himself in judgment with all flesh. As regards the wicked ones, he must give them to the sword,’ is the utterance of Jehovah.
32 “This is what Jehovah of armies has said, ‘Look! A calamity is going forth from nation to nation, and a great tempest itself will be roused up from the remotest parts of the earth. 33 And those slain by Jehovah will certainly come to be in that day from one end of the earth clear to the other end of the earth. They will not be bewailed, neither will they be gathered up or be buried. As manure on the surface of the ground they will become.’
Note: As a resource for this comment, I used the May 8, 1997 Awake Magazine. Also, I'm willing to provide further notation/sources on request.
The wars against the Native Americans? Spectacularly successful.
Yeah, Britain and Spain sure did exterminate the Native Americans, albeit mostly through disease, not war. The US government then spent the last 200+ years trying to cope with the broken societies that those colonial powers left behind, and trying to get new European immigrants under control.
If you RTFS, the dummies here are used to train soldiers in field medicine, not target practice.
How do you think the dummies get injured in the first place? They're obviously first used for target practice, then for field medicine!
Any references to back up your claims that the British decided to give up the Colonies but Gandhi fought anyway; and British fought like hell to keep the US?
What happened to the Germans [after WWI] was quite unfair,
I'm not sure it was unfair. Germany was a militaristic power not satisfied with the status quo and bent on dominating Europe. That's why it had the capacity to wage WWI in the first place. Europe mainly wanted to demilitarize Germany and demanded reparations for the damage that Germany had done. If Germany's goal had been to right the wrong of colonialism, it would have been good, but all Germany wanted was its own cut.
and there's a good case that Hitler wouldn't have found the necessary public support (he got elected) were there not so much anti-everyone sentiment,
Hitler only got a minority of the vote. What put him over the top in parliament were the votes of the Christian party (essentially same party that's in power now in Germany). The Christian party was fervently anti-Communist, dubious about democracy, and liked Hitler's party program of traditional Christian values and family values (sound familiar?); they voted for Hitler in parliament after Hitler made a deal with the Vatican. Sounds like a conspiracy theory, I know, but it's all there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erm%C3%A4chtigungsgesetz
You'd think that avoiding war saves more lives. Or is that solution already patented?
The program saved 1.000 lives it says, but is that the whole program or just the part where the dolls are used? So if they would have not used the dolls, would there be 1000 more deaths?
I am sure that it will be good to use a doll, just like one learns mouth on mouth with a doll. I am also sure that before the dolls were used, some training was given and people were saved as well.
So what is the REAL number and if it is indeed that high, why is it not used anywhere else?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
So the military gets a new doll and we get a headline. Great!
But Saddam Hussein murdered many times more people in the decade prior to the US invasion than the entire Iraq cost, including Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence.
Really? Did he also develop nuclear weapons, and do other things Bush attributed to him? Do you even know how many people were killed in US invasion?
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Or scream in your ear when you check its breathing? Or start convulsing and thrashing so hard that you need to have three people lie on it before you can treat it? No? Then it's not a replacement for an experienced casualty actor, who will do any or all of the above.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
We only initialized one of those wars: WWII
Maybe not colonial control and a Nazi Europe, but secession was definitely an acceptable outcome. If the south had won, you would be saying "it was time for the south to be independent". Instead of letting the South go, just as you clearly believe Britain should have let the US go, we started a 140-year spiral into the black hole of centralization.
The US Army spent most of its time in the 19th century killing Indians. Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor, and William Henry Harrison all fought those wars, to name a few "war hero" presidents. Disease did play an outsized role in reducing the numbers, and the US govt did eventually relent, but the same diseases affected Central and South America. It's worth noting that the Spaniards tried to keep them alive to work as slaves, while the Americans tried to marginalize and kill them to use the land themselves. A quick look at the demographics reveals the success of this technique.
These sins are hardly unique to the US, and I didn't mean to imply that they were. Genocides work, which is why they keep cropping up. And they're a great example of wars that could usually be avoided, but aren't.
Type mismatch on line 1.
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
If you disagree, how would you have handled the above situations? Keep in mind that .... secession ... are not acceptable outcomes in this game.
Any reasoning for that particular one beyond "slimjim sez so"? Is civil war in always acceptable?
Also w/ regard to a war being required to end colonial control, most (all?) former British colonies did not have to fight an outright war to become independent. Its hardly necessary. There were "Boston Massacre" or "Kent State" or much larger police actions in India, but I'm struggling to find another major intercontinental war ending British colonial control. The war of Australian independence? The war of Canadian independence? The war of Jamaican independence? The Falkland Islands war between regional powers whom wanted to control the islands in the 80s does not apply.
Like yourself, I'm by no means a peacenik nor warmonger, but when 2/3 of the "proof" is obviously wrong, then its looking like a trolling attempt.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Pretty sure the prototype for whatIsItGoodFor is:
null whatIsItGoodFor(const char *war);
so that wouldn't work.
And for the record, the Civil War was *absolutely* about slaves, at least to the South. Read some of their declarations - they're full of "they're infringing on our right to keep slaves" or "they think slaves count as too much of a person" or so on.
Waaaay out of context quotes. The whole point was the feds were bypassing the states and telling the states how their people will be governed. Not a fight over the finer points details of the regulations, although plenty of whining came from the folks whom were getting screwed over, but a fight over the concept of the feds infringing on the states turf. Its hard for moderns to understand, because the concept of any group other than the feds having any control over our lives has been so effectively crushed. Yet, thats how it was, back then.
Out of context quotes from slaveowners proves it was about slave ownership, in much the same way as out of context quotes from railroad executives about federal regulations proves it was about railroads, out of context quotes from cotton wholesalers about federal cotton tariffs proves it was about cotton, or out of context quotes from telegraph monopolies about federal common carrier regulation proves it was about telegraph monopolies.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Just to play devil's advocate, the US was rather hypocritical to revolt and declare our independence from Britain and yet insist that the southern states did not have the same right to secede from the resulting nation. I think it was in the best long term interests of the US that the Civil War was fought, but there was nothing equivalent to the Nazis that the Union was fighting - abolition as a war aim was a political calculation to keep the European powers out of the war and not an initial key issue. The south did have some legitimate grievances before the war in terms of tariffs and other measures that helped the north at the expense of the south, issues that they were powerless to redress due to the balance of congressional power being broken with the admission of California and the loss of the traditional counterbalance in the form of a southern president. They realized their interests were not represented by the federal government and so sought redress by their only real option, succession. The south viewed the war as one of defense (striking into the north only after it became clear that defensive victories could not end the war).
I said: war = whatIsItGoodFor()
That method returns:
ABS(0);
That's "Absolutely Nothin!" for the song-impaired.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
The South seceded after Lincoln's election because it demonstrated that they had lost any effective power in national government. This had been an ongoing trend - urbanization and immigration in the north led to a loss of parity in the House, then admitting California cost the South parity in the Senate, leaving the presidency as their only real check on issues of north/south disagreement. When Lincoln demonstrated that the south had no real power in picking the president, they realized they were disenfranchised and decided to secede. Fort Sumter was fired upon after Lincoln failed to respect the will of the South Carolina people and attempted to resupply a military base on Confederate soil. If the Civil War was primarily about slavery, why did the state with the fewest slaves, (I forget whether these figures are per capita or gross) North Carolina, send the most soldiers off to war? To some southern politicians, slavery was a key issue, but for many, particularly in those states that only seceded when the Union refused to let the Confederate States go peacefully, it was about state sovereignty and defending their homes. The war was about national power - were the states the prime power and so had the right to secede and return to their natural state as independent or was the national government preeminent as we see in the transition to "The United States" rather than "These United States"? Emancipation was a means of keeping Britain and other European powers out of the war, as demonstrated by the cynical emancipation of only those slaves that the US government could not actually emancipate at that moment.
Assasination should be the first and preferred method of resolving any conflict that "calls for war". After all, it is the elites in government who start war (and want war), not the common man. So let's see them put their money where their mouth is: assasinate the individual or small group of individuals responsible for making the decisions.
The reason assasination isn't popular among the elite who control government is simple: once they eliminate the reason for war, they've also eliminated their justification for more power and revenue. Furthermore, the last thing the elites want is a precedent that says "elites first" when it comes to war. As history shows, the elite who make the decisions to go to war intend themselves to be the very last people who pay the consequence.
Having said that: the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and World War II were almost unquestioningly necessary. In each case, action was necessary, and diplomacy had been thoroughly exhausted.
The powers that be in the USA ignored WWII until it was advantageous to step in. Wait, that's not true, they profited from it. The USA is as complicit in the events of WWII as Germany.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The US Army spent most of its time in the 19th century killing Indians.
The 1st US Cavalry stood on the north shore of Clear Lake and fired their weapons until every last man, woman, and child on an island now called "Bloody Island" was dead. None of them had yet been afflicted with any white man's disease. The massacre was in retaliation for the killing of Kelsey, an early settler who was enslaving and raping the Pomo people of what is now called Kelseyville; the massacre of this entirely other band was carried out between what is now Upper Lake and Nice. Kelsey's wife wetted the powder so her husband and his coconspirators would be unable to fend off the attack. Presumably she was tired of her husband raping indian women.
However, during the same century we also sent our navy down to bombard various towns to force them to sell to United Fruit Company (later Chiquita, now Bonita.) The USA is entirely built upon the subjugation of other people, people who are ostensibly entitled to the same human rights as the rest of us.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Keep in mind that colonial control, secession, and a Nazi Europe are not acceptable outcomes in this game.
But thousands, tens of thousands and millions of dead young men are?
Give me a break.
It's time for warmongers to grow up and enter the real world.
War is an irrational activity carried out by rational means. No war is ever economically rational, and the "logic" of war makes no sense except in terms of the irrational mechanisms of social control employed by small troops of social primates, which are completley inappropriate to the kinds of problems that war supposedly solves.
In the cases in point: Canada became free of Britain without war. TIME took care of the problem for us, as it would have done for you had not a bunch of irrational hot-heads gotten a bunch of young men killed for the sake of speeding things up by a few years.
In Canada there was very little will for independence, and we got it anyway less than 100 years after you did. In the 13 colonies you could have negotiated greater independence--and secured for yourselves the rights of Englishmen--in less than a generation, if your short-sighted idiots hadn't insisted on war.
If that had happened seccession wouldn't have been an issue because slavery would have been outlawed in 1837 by the Crown, as it was in the rest of the British Empire.
In Europe, the mess in the '20's and '30's that made war seem like a good idea to the NAZIs was a product of the "Great War", a fact you fail to mention. NAZI-ism was no more effective than Sovietism, and would have moderated under its own inadequacies in a decade or so if left to itself, with a far lower body count than WWII produced.
You've stated the problem as if the German conquest of Europe would be a permanent feature, ignoring completely the equally lame attempt the Soviets to do the same after WWII.
You'll note that Poland et al are not under Soviet rule today, all without a shot fired. If some hot-headed idiot with zero grasp of economic rationality had whipped up the Poles into a frenzy of violent opposition resulting in a bloody and prolonged rebellion that after millions of deaths resulted in a free Poland you would no-doubt be asking, "How else could this have happened?"
Fortunately for Poland--and Russian--the Polish opposition was rational, and therefore chose peaceful, efficient, effective means of resistance, instead of the least efficient, least effective solution to any large-scale social or political problem: war.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Wake me when they make a dummy that has a picture of it's wife and kids in it's pocket and/or is so short it can taste it.
As an American, I'm pretty sad to say that the US pretty effectively "won" in the warfare it pursued against the natives. It was war. On the one hand, I can't imagine being able to "give it back" (see the amazing TED talk video about the Lakotah), but on the other hand ... it wasn't my ancestors doing it, since they hadn't immigrated yet. Sorry.
Germany got pretty soundly shafted by the Treaty of Versailles. The allies determined the war reparations, and Germany didn't get to contest it. Repayment was estimated to last ~50 years, in contrast to previous treaties between France and Germany (France had repaid in ~3 years). Industrial equipemt was carted out of Germany and moved to France and other places. They were assigned full "guilt" for the war, when it was more a clusterfuck of epic proportions deriving from preexisting treaty entanglements. The costs of reparations basically completely raped what was left of the German economy, to the point that many (such as Keynes) felt it was impossible for them to actually pay them.
Others point out that history shows they were less screwed than they though -- given that they WERE able to recover enough to wage war, weren't occupied after WWI, and so on. However, the perception of the German people were that they were unfairly (and thoroughly) screwed. That dissatisfaction was one of the contributing factors in the Nazi regime coming to power. Perhaps if Germany hadn't been as unilaterally blamed, there might not have been a second world war... or if there had been, it might not have involved the sorts of exterminations that the Nazis inflicted on the world.
I could be wrong on all this. One of the few things I remember from my high school AP European History class was "Germany got screwed by the treaty of Versailles", and I may be interpreting the Wikipedia article incorrectly.
I agree on all counts; my point is very much to not forget what this country is founded upon when it's tempting to attempt to claim moral superiority.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And let's not forget Yugoslavia, where while every avenue of diplomacy was being exhausted, genocidal monsters were laughing all the way to the mass graves. Sometimes diplomacy itself is unethical.
Also, had we given a shit about Africa and Africans, we would have engaged ourselves in Rwanda and Congo.
What happens when you apply your training to real life and the patient fails to GetBetter() after you run the Heal(X) procedure on them?
The point here is that even if Hitler had managed to reach power, he would not have enough support to wage war to the world if the obvious Treaty of Versailles had not had the intent of growth of the german nation.. About Germany being a militaristic power, you seem to forget that before WWI they were not truly an unified nation, the economy blockage from the true military powers of that time period were the cause of WWI (the US/Britain did the same thing to Japan before WWII), had they allowed Germany to "take a seat" as an emerging economy would have prevented that war, or do you think the west should wage war on China and India to prevent them from emerging as military powerhouses? You would only get history repeating itself.
It is not that the British were eager to grant independence to their colonies, they were simply unable to control them after WWII devastated their economy and their troops. If they could, the British would have retained India as a colony at least a few decades after WWII because it represented quite an steady income, quite the opposite to the American colonies, which did not granted an important source of income at a time when the British were fighting a truly important war with the French, they would no doubt have preferred a negotiation that eliminated the need to send troops to the colonies but preserved the goods trade (that was the only real income they received from the colonies).
Diplomacy has limits, that is why Nations have armies, as deterrents for other nations which would no doubt commit mass murder and get the land (i.e. remember native americans) otherwise.
So if I were to punch you and take all your stuff, you wouldn't try and defend yourself, you'd just let it happen? If not, please clarify your position.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Keep in mind that colonial control, secession, and a Nazi Europe are not acceptable outcomes in this game.
Why not? Why is secession not an acceptable outcome? The states do hold the power to dissolve the federal government, and some states seceding from the union is no different from dissolving the federal government and some states reforming in its former image (just with a few less states).
Although I suppose it could be argued that the number of states that seceded would not have been enough to approve dissolving the union.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
This tech will be used to train civilians, who will save the life of an anti-war cowa..er, activist.
How ironic.
Steve, a navy vet in Pittsburgh, to lazy to log in
North Korea claims they were attacked by South Korean terrorists. Are they justified to attack South Korea now?
My personal religious views aside, I see no reason to count religion as any more insane than an historical land feud between rival groups. How is it any worse to believe that your god is mad at somebody rather than your great-great-great-great-grandfather?
What qualifies anyone, or any particular group, to decide what's an insane reason?
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
How is it any worse to believe that your god is mad at somebody rather than your great-great-great-great-grandfather?
It isn't, it's just as idiotic.
What qualifies anyone, or any particular group, to decide what's an insane reason?
No one, but it is my opinion. Senselessly attacking someone is idiotic, I feel. If you're just defending yourself (or others), then I have no problem with it.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
If you're just defending yourself (or others), then I have no problem with it.
I'm sure every leader who's gone to war would agree with you. They all had reasons they felt to be very good. Maybe it was defending their honor, their land, their resources, or their security. Maybe they just felt their precious bodily fluids were being corrupted by the terrible enemy at the gates. It all makes perfect sense to them, and everybody else's reasons are senseless.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
They all had reasons they felt to be very good.
Except the ones knowingly going to war for corrupt reasons, you mean?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
And who exactly might that be? Perhaps a mercenary or two starting a conflict between a few villages, but I can't think of any major conflict in the past few decades started by corruption.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
but I can't think of any major conflict in the past few decades started by corruption.
You mean that you know of? It's likely that the war in Iraq is for oil. Just because they don't openly admit it doesn't mean it isn't false (or true).
Also, let's not forget that starting wars for pointless personal reasons damages society as a whole. The ends should justify the means (not stripping people of their rights or attacking people because you don't like them), and no one gets to decide that based on their opinion.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Intelligence at the time indicated Iraq was a threat to its neighbors, and had offered allegiance to preexisting enemies. So, rumors and conspiracies aside, there's still no concrete examples of a corruption-led conflict.
On a purely hypothetical basis, let's assume the current Iraq war were simply to ensure a continuing supply of oil for the next few years. The American economy runs on oil. Is it sensible to leave America's economic security in the hands of a dictator who won't follow international treaties?
Also, let's not forget that "rights" are merely certain activities that people think certain groups of people should be able to do. They are as arbitrary as any other human decision, and having a uniform set of "inalienable rights" is damned near impossible. Any given leader can feel their particular group has a "right" to exterminate another group, and you quickly get genocide for the sake of rights.
War is hell. Go watch some children on a playground, and see how they start fights. One kid will do something without realizing it offends another, and it starts an argument leading to a fight. Countries are a lot like children. What one sees as an advance in research is seen by another as aggressive posturing.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Intelligence at the time indicated Iraq was a threat to its neighbors
How very convenient.
Also, let's not forget that "rights" are merely certain activities that people think certain groups of people should be able to do.
But it's no mere opinion that people are likely generally happier when they have more rights.
War is hell.
Which is precisely why it should be avoided unless absolutely necessary (defending yourself or others, which doesn't include invading someone for religious reasons). There's no benefit to society by going to war with another country for purely religious reasons, personal reasons, or profit (not to the world, at least). It might benefit you and your followers, but it benefits no one else.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
...convenient.
Conspiracy theories have convenience. Reality often has coincidence.
...happier when they have more rights.
That's getting closer to my point. What give any particular person/group the right to say what others' rights are? Why should you have the right to speak your thoughts, but I don't get the right to control all the natural resources in the world? Why do Americans get the right to practice some religions (that bury their dead), but not others (that, hypothetically, fling their dead at relatives' houses)?
As soon as any restriction is placed on anything, somebody's going to be unhappy with the situation. For kids on a playground, it's the limit of having only one toy. For nations, it's often having a finite amount of land. For the dead-flinging religion, it's having dead things contained.
I believe the best route to having less death through war is to try and understand the reasoning behind conflicts and change them through diplomacy, rather than telling nations to simply stop their wars, accept all offenses, and never return attacks because some arbitrary group finds their opinions "senseless".
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Conspiracy theories have convenience. Reality often has coincidence.
Indeed.
What give any particular person/group the right to say what others' rights are?
What gives someone the right to take away someone else's rights? What gives them the right to slaughter in the name of religion or something else completely irrelevant when it doesn't benefit anyone except perhaps themselves in the slightest?
but I don't get the right to control all the natural resources in the world?
Insane example. Freedom of speech (and rights similar to it) have no material cost.
that, hypothetically, fling their dead at relatives' houses
I don't know, but I don't see a problem with flinging a rotting hunk of meat other than the fact that it's just a waste of organs.
finds their opinions "senseless".
They sort of are in regards to the damage it does to society. They don't help anyone by going to war for petty matters (except, again, themselves). Certainly not society. The sooner such primitive mindsets die out (probably never), the less war there will be. Until then... diplomacy is possibly the best course of action, but all I've been doing the entire time is speaking out against war anyway, so that doesn't bother me.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!