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.
I did not see you playing with your dolls again!
If you RTFS, the dummies here are used to train soldiers in field medicine, not target practice. They represent an injured comrade. In such situations, you really don't want to be emotional, as that soldier's survival depends on you thinking clearly, and that's where lifelike training is exactly what is great -- when confronted with such a situation, you do what you're trained to do. Of course, afterwards, processing things can be tough.
Does having a witty signature really indicate normality?
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.
Not starting decade-long wars under false pretenses.
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.
So when was the last time you volunteered to be shot in the chest, to help train field medics? Sure, dummies are limited, but every advancement means better knowledge beforehand. That means fewer mistakes when the real thing comes along.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
...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.
Which is what war is all about:
I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country. ...
- George S Patton.
You've obviously never used these. No, they're not real humans, but then again, there is a limited supply of real humans that can be allowed to bleed out in order to train people. The state of the art in medical simulation is a good physical facsimile of a human being with a very well modeled physiological system - they breathe, they open and close their eyes, their pupils dilate and constrict, they have pulses, they have veins, they vomit, they can be intubated. If you aren't giving chest compressions strongly enough, or in the right place, your patient will die. Conversely, if you do it right, the model will recognize that and will give the patient a readable blood pressure and pulse.He might even wake up.
I've trained dozens of medical students and new residents with these. They generally find it to be a very good simulation - not perfect, but very good - of the real thing.
int bodyCount = 0;
for(;;)
bodyCount++;
> ...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.
The goal is not to save net lives.
If the goal were to save net lives, it probably makes sense to betray a country in symmetric wars. (The enemy knows better where to strike and the war doesn't drag out as long.) But we trust foreign governments less than we trust our own, and foreign cultures less than we trust our own. Also, the last time we were in a symmetric war was really WW2; and there are sometimes normative concerns that make sheer logic and net saved lives irrelevant. In this case, I have a normative preference not to betray the rather-free world to the Nazis. Because Nazis suck.
So I'm okay with not saving net lives.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
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!
...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.
Wow, you're deep *rolls eyes*. But wait, maybe killing more enemies ends up saving more lives in the long run? Or maybe one of the saved soldiers goes home and ends up being the next Norman Borlaug and saves millions (and counting)? How do we know this isn't the single most important life-saving technology ever invented, in some "butterfly effect" fashion?
Or you could just silence your snarky pseudo-intellectualism and enjoy the damned article.
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
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.
After only reading the title:
"Mom, I can't stop playing Black Ops to clean my room - Slashdot says I'm saving lives!"