PLA Develops First Person Shooter With US Troops as Targets

An anonymous reader tipped us to a People's Daily story about the (Chinese) People's Liberation Army's new shoot-em-up game with US soldiers as targets, and that story led us to a more complete description of the Glorious Revolution game at the Daily Mail, which includes a nice video (in Chinese, of course) toward the bottom of the article that shows how the game looks in action.

Comments

We are their enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

and best customer all at once.

Re:We are their enemy

[cplusplus]

I guess that makes the US and China "frienemies".

Re:We are their enemy

[Platinum Dragon]

The word you're looking for is "rival".

Re:We are their enemy

[hairyfeet]

Ha! to be rivals we'd actually have to compete with them. With the US and China right now it is more like a crack dealer and his customers, and we ain't the dealer! I'm just waiting for them to have enough US paper they can say "hey, you know that whole Taiwan thing? Yeah unless you want your money to be worth about the same as a Zimbabwean dollar you will STFU while we take it, kay?" and you know what? We'll STFU.

America is too hooked on cheap electronics to say shit to China anymore, and i'm sure they know it. Personally I don't see why we don't just admit it and be what we were born to be...arms dealer to the world. hell it is the only thing worth a shit we build anymore, we may not be able to build a TV but dammit we can build an F-18 or M1a1 like nobody's business! Hell if we don't start selling something the trade deficit is gonna kill us, and with all the floods and tornadoes exporting food might not be a wise move in the future. The Ruskies sell everything to everyone, why the hell shouldn't we?

I'm sure the Chinese would be happy to give back some of that paper for F-16s, great little bird that. They want to build up their military? Let every tank have "Made in the USA" stamped on it! While we are at it we got that boneyard with billions of dollars, just sitting there in the desert! Fire sale anyone? I bet there are plenty of countries that would like some of those warbirds, now at rock bottom prices! Hell we could put the Ruskies out of business!

Re:We are their enemy

[Red Flayer]

You're out of date with your perceptions of US dependency on cheap Chinese labor.

Turns out, costs to manufacture in the US are expected to reach near-parity with China around 2015. Chinese workers, when you factor in their productivity, are only slightly cheaper than workers in the southern states of the US, especially the states that are highly unfavorable to unions. This is one reason why a lot of European firms are planning production facilities in the US now.

Re:We are their enemy

[Grishnakh]

[citation needed]

While I haven't seen a whole lot of success in moving automobile production to China, for instance, I sure as hell haven't seen any new electronics production in the USA. There's no way I'd believe that that's going to be going on in Alabama in 4 years. Mercedes plants? Sure. Flextronics plants? No way.

Re:We are their enemy

[damiangerous]

[citation needed]

The U.S.: Where Europe comes to slum

U.S. to Become New Center of Low-cost Manufacturing?

Not surprising

[jonescb]

There are games where China is the enemy. Why is it suddenly a bad thing when the US are the bad guys?

Re:Not surprising

[0racle]

Because the US is always the good guys. It can't be the other way around.

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

There are games where China is the enemy. Why is it suddenly a bad thing when the US are the bad guys?

Citation needed for games where the Chinese army is the bad guy and the game is made by a world government.

Re:Not surprising

[Xest]

Because now Bin Laden is dead, and Al Qaeda has been rather unscary for a few years now, China is the new bogey man with which the US government prefers to beat it's citizens into submitting further to their control and scrutiny with.

That's why.

Re:Not surprising

[jonnythan]

Because those games are not created by the US government or US Army, nor are they used as training tools for actual soldiers.

Re:Not surprising

[berashith]

or go back to Command and Conquer : Generals... the choice is USA, China , or a random terrorist group . Choose your team and go kill... it is a game , no real people die , and the colors are just skill trees. Who cares...

Re:Not surprising

[mlts]

Show me a FPS where the Red Guard is a target.

The only recent game where I know of where Chinese soldiers were the target of violence was Command & Conquer: Generals, and the Zero Hour expansion.

Re:Not surprising

[Uhhhh oh ya!]

It makes even more sense for it to be used by military. At least you could sort of make the argument that civilians playing these game could create hostilities or prejudices between people from these countries but soldiers have to be trained in the chance that we ever go to war with this country. It does not matter if its an enemy or an ally our soldiers have to have some plan and some amount of training for if we ever met them on opposite side of the battlefield.

Re:Not surprising

[Maxo-Texas]

So did the game developed by the US Army feature chinese and russian enemies?
Of the article is accurate, this game wasn't developed by some third party but was developed by the PLA.

Seems a bit revealing to me.

And folks tell me I'm wrong when I say there will be a significant war with china in the next 50 years. But this is how things start. The chinese have a fairly enormous racial superiority complex laid over a deep inferiority complex due to the 1800's and early 1900's. That kind of thing can boil over in a bad way.

The best thing to happen will be to get them away from the racially pure meme they are nursing. That kind of belief has lead to bad things very reliably over the last several hundred years.

Re:Not surprising

[Bigbutt]

I'm not seeing where anyone said it was a bad thing. Of course I haven't read all the following posts yet so there may be someone down below who says that.

[John]

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

yes they are *ahem*
http://www.bisimulations.com/

Re:Not surprising

[Splab]

There won't be a major war, the Chinese will just require all loans repaid, that will end the US as we know it.

Re:Not surprising

[schnikies79]

Battlefield 2 was created by DICE and distributed by EA, not the U.S. government.

Re:Not surprising

[_0xd0ad]

Huh? Which country's government is EA Games?

Re:Not surprising

[SwordsmanLuke]

...And you don't think *that* would lead to a major war?

Re:Not surprising

[yurtinus]

We simply can't repay all the debt we owe at one sitting - that is as big of a problem for China as it is for us. Demanding all of our loans be repaid would wreak havoc in both economies.

Re:Not surprising

[wmbetts]

I don't think that game was made by a World Government.

Re:Not surprising

[mlts]

Doubt it. China actually could shitcan the US economy in 24 hours, either using currency manipulation, calling in the debt, or even military means (getting their puppet Kim to shell Seoul, overrun Taiwan, etc.)

Because companies know that, there is a reason why you don't see PLA posts as the target for FPS games.

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Can they make us pay it all in one sitting if they wanted to? Bonds can't be redeemed until the maturity date, can they? Kind of like a bank can't make you pay off your mortgage all at once. The agreed terms have defined pay back times.

Re:Not surprising

[DarkOx]

and we could shitcan the Chinese economy in 24 secs announcing our intent to default on that debt, and stopping the purchase of their exports.

Re:Not surprising

[AndyAndyAndyAndy]

This is some very non-insightful fud from a standpoint that does not acknowledge, let alone understand, the workings of modern international relations.

China and the U.S. are not nearly as rivalrous as you seem to insist. However, that sort of belief does make for some good domestic politics and policymaking on both sides, what with the faux nationalism that can be invoked pretty much anytime.

Re:Not surprising

[truthsearch]

Any attempt to seriously harm the US through economic methods would also hurt themselves.

Re:Not surprising

[phantomfive]

A) China can't require the debt be paid whenever they want. It has a time limit and a repayment schedule, much like a mortgage. Your bank can't require you to pay your mortgage back immediately either.
B) The US can easily pay the debt off, because the debt is denominated in dollars. We can print as many as we want. The resulting inflation will suck for people who saved money, and for those (like China) who loaned us money when it was worth more, but it won't be the end of the US as we know it.

Re:Not surprising

[truthsearch]

I disagree. I think the US will do anything to avoid all-out war with China. They can easily grow their army to tens of millions of soldiers and change their factories to building war machines.

Re:Not surprising

[_0xd0ad]

That was my reaction too, at first, but they'd probably enforce economic sanctions - no more cheap Chinese-made crap exported to the US - before they went to outright war... and then I decided it probably WOULD be the end of the US as we knew it.

Re:Not surprising

[Cwix]

Either way, probably wouldnt matter. I believe we would default and use the savings to go to war.

Re:Not surprising

[tgd]

...And you don't think *that* would lead to a major war?

Not when we need to borrow money to pay for it.

Re:Not surprising

[mlts]

I fear a Sino-American war, and hope it doesn't happen. However, there are a lot of things that worry me:

1: Two countries, one set of resources. Almost always, this is what wars end up being fought over.

2: China's nationalism. Race is second, because there are a lot of races in China.

3: Revenge, especially of what Japan did to them last century.

I just hope old hatreds can be set aside, people here in the US start using nuclear power as opposed to fighting over dino juice, and that both countries get some wisdom of their own that trading is a lot better than chucking ICBMs.

China is also going through a cultural renaissance. Now that people can do art and music without being lined against a wall and shot (like in Mao's time), people there are more interested in education and developing their economy as opposed to military gains.

I cross my fingers -- in a lot of ways, China is a command economy, but it isn't an extreme country (now that the nuts like Mao are cozily dead), nor is it one that would sacrifice its children for religious dogma meaninglessly. I just hope it stays that way.

Re:Not surprising

[Opportunist]

So, essentially, China is an ally to the US? At least the the Devil's Dictionary, they sure fit the description:

ALLIANCE, n. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third.

Re:Not surprising

[jonescb]

The latest Medal of Honor game had Taliban as a playable faction for mutliplayer, but they had to change it to some generic "Terrorist" team because of the backlash. There were people that were upset that you could play the Taliban and shoot at American soldiers in a virtual environment. I don't think most /.ers will find this offensive, but such people do exist.

Re:Not surprising

[larry bagina]

US Government debt has fixed maturities; they can't call it in. They could stop buying new debt(*), they could sell off existing debt, but they can't demand $5 trillion in cash right now.

* The treasury department has already hit the debt limit and cannot issue any more new debt, in theory. This year, 70% of all new debt was purchased by the federal reserve ("qualitative easing 2"). Helicopter Ben Bernanke would be just as happy to purchase 100% of it because Apple added new features to the iPad without raising the price so that proves there isn't any inflation, nevermind the price of things like food or oil or gold or silver.

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Not Chinese, but American Army is pretty damn close as it's made by US Army. You're always playing US soldier and shooting down some middle east guys. And always meaning it doesn't mean which side you play with, you always see yourself as US Army and the other ones as middle east guys.

Re:Not surprising

[truthsearch]

I think of it more like mutually assured destruction. Can't do anything too devious to the other or you potentially destroy the entire world economy.

Re:Not surprising

[Nadaka]

All in due time. All in due time.

Re:Not surprising

[bl8n8r]

> nor are they used as training tools for actual soldiers.

Not quite. Watch the movie in TFA.

Personally, I don't care who's shooting who in the game. The intent behind the creation of the game would be more of a concern.

Re:Not surprising

[Nadaka]

If they stop exporting to the US, China will need a war to keep their people employed and keep the an actual revolution from removing the current "revolution".

Re:Not surprising

[Mindcontrolled]

WIth the amount of American debt held by China, it's rather a state of economic MAD, than an alliance, I'd say.

Re:Not surprising

[Martin Blank]

While I agree with you on the economic front, China would have difficulties if they tried something like getting Kim to invade the South. North Korea's military is something of a joke technologically speaking, relying on numbers. Their most advanced aircraft are a few dozen MiG-29s, and the remainder are 1970s and older aircraft. Their armor is even older than what the allied forces faced in Desert Storm. Besides, it's not in China's economic interest. Remember that message that was released by Wikileaks about China's thoughts on North Korea? While they see an advantage in having North Korea as a barrier between China and US forces, they're OK with South Korea running the entire peninsula, too, provided it comes about by peaceful means in large part because they don't want to deal with the refugee influx.

A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be similarly disastrous. China does not have the landing capacity required to perform an invasion of the island. About eight or nine years ago, there was a paper published in China talking about how it could commandeer fishing boats, ferries, and other civilian vessels to cross enough soldiers for an invasion. The losses, however, would be extraordinarily high, and it's not at all certain that China could obtain air superiority over the island, or if it did, that it could retain it, particularly once US forces get involved. Maybe in 15 years they could (and that may be what the slow build-up of a blue-water navy is about), but not right in the immediate future.

Re:Not surprising

[idontgno]

1: Two countries, one set of resources. Almost always, this is what wars end up being fought over.

I assume you mean the resources currently in Chinese territory. I doubt we'd go to explicit war against a major military power with nuclear capability over resources. Easier and safer to bargain, like we have up until now.

2: China's nationalism. Race is second, because Han is the only race in China that matters.

FTFY. Ask the Uyghur about that. However, the concept of the Middle Kingdom is key to its foreign policy. China invented exceptionalism millennia before George Washington was born.

3: Revenge, especially of what Japan did to them last century.

I hope not. There's enough ancient hatred in the world as it is.

I still think the flashpoint will be when China decides it's put up with "its rebellious province" long enough, and the US will have to decide whether it will go to war on behalf of its little ally or just let it go, along with a fair bit of US military hardware and technology.

Re:Not surprising

[Martin Blank]

Isn't there an option to cash them in early for less than the face amount? It would lose money for the Chinese, but it might also create a cash problem for the US.

Re:Not surprising

[Nadaka]

There used to be a lot of races in China, most have been "ethnically cleansed" by the Han. The Han race is China is the Peoples Communist Party. Maybe things will go well, but they are pretty close to the Nazi party in the late 20's, so my hopes are definitely not up.

Re:Not surprising

[DarkOx]

Not the point; I was responding to

China actually could shitcan the US economy in 24 hours, either using currency manipulation, calling in the debt, or even military means

If they did any of those things to the extremes that would "shitcan" the US economy we would not be buying any electronics anyway. At that point it would simply be a matter of "if I am going down, I am taking you down with me."

China can't really call in the debt. These bonds they be sold on the market or redeemed. Redeemed is pretty close to "calling in the debt" but if the instruments are not mature something less than face value would be paid. The market lacks enough buys to absorb the assets if they were dumped at anything beyond firesale prices. China would lose a huge portion of their own savings, but it would turn the dollar into paper. They can't redeem them all at once at the Treasury either as they don't have the cash on hand to pay, and can't borrow it because we are in excess of the debt ceiling already. So we would default. That would again destroy China's savings and turn the dollar in to paper. With the even greater side effect of destroying our ability to borrow. T-Bills being reduced to a JUNK rateing would be a much bigger problem for our banks and private sector than those bogus valued CDO/CDS/MBS ever were, and still remain.

The DEFLATION that would trigger would be so incredible that nobody could find a dollar spend and few would have anything of enough value to trade for one if such a dollar was found. The ONLY spending that would be happening is completely on inelastic products like staple foods.

No US money would be purchasing electronics from China through intermediaries or otherwise.

Meanwhile in China FoxCon and friends have a problem. Their biggest market has vanished overnight. The only markets large enough in population to replace it (their own domestic and India) don't have a standard of living which would permit many to buy these products. The only way to fix that overnight would be a sudden and extreme revaluation of currency which would alter the political landscape so rapidly their governments could not survive. If they don't revalue until most citizens can buy and IPad, well everything grinds to halt. Workers go home because there is no need to build more inventory, wages are not paid to workers not working, farm products don't get bought even though people are starving, the farms collapse and then everyone is starving.

So yea its essentially a non-nuclear MAD arrangement.

Re:Not surprising

[Mindcontrolled]

This might be a candidate. Never played it myself - I stick with ARMA II.

Re:Not surprising

[Requiem18th]

Do we have a world government now?

Re:Not surprising

[ThurstonMoore]

Fallout 3

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, it's M.A.D.!

Re:Not surprising

[MaroonMotor]

PLA Song: We Can Rule You Wholesale

  Let others boast of martial dash
  For we have boldly fought with cash
  We own all your helmets, we own all your shoes
  We own all your generals - touch us and you'll lose. ...
  We can rule you wholesale
  Touch us and you'll pay.

Lyrics by the vampire Count Henrik Shline von Ãoeberwald (born 1703, died 1782, also died 1784, 1788, 1791, 1802, 1804, 1807, 1808, 1821, 1830, 1861, finally staked 1872)

Re:Not surprising

[DA_MAN_DA_MYTH]

I don't know how many games have turned killing Chinese into entertainment value? This isn't a game made by a game company. This was developed by the PLA. Did America's Army developed for the US Army attack Chinese, or really anyone? Propaganda is propaganda.

Re:Not surprising

[ZankerH]

It's called America's Army. And yeah, that's pretty disturbing.

Re:Not surprising

[the eric conspiracy]

What you write is true enough. And since China only owns about $1T in US debt it is unlikely that it would have that huge an effect if we printed the money to pay it off.

BUT you missed the idea China could dump their US debt onto the world market all at once. This would cause a large jump in interest rates and really do a lot of damage to the US economy.

BUT that damage would recycle to China pretty quickly because their economy depends on US consumerism in large part.

So ultimately the current situation is that the US and Chinese economies are quite interdependent. If you damage one the other will suffer a lot.

Re:Not surprising

[pluther]

Seems strange to change it, though.

Wouldn't the people who are upset that you could play as Taliban be just as upset that you could play as Terrorist?

Would they even know that the two words mean different things?

Re:Not surprising

[couchslug]

We had plenty of Soviet Threat briefings back in the day. Nothing wrong with doing it that way, and don't forget the ChiComs and the US have crossed swords in Korea and by proxy/advisors in Nam.

I applaud their honesty, though I don't see ANYTHING or ANYONE worth fighting for in Asia. Our clients are rich, let them build nukes and serious conventional forces or kiss ChiCom ass.

Viet Nam had the balls to fight back when China attacked them (Sino-Vietnamese War), and China wisely backed off.

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

if you assume that in a capitalistic society companies are the real rulers, or that in a communistic society the state/government is the biggest company around then you have plenty ...

Re:Not surprising

[Sky Cry]

Don't kid yourself. USA would "shitcan" their own economy just as much, if they do that.

Re:Not surprising

[couchslug]

The timid US clients in Asia fail to arm up, and as long as they can suck Uncle Sugars Military-Industrial cawk for Taxpayer Funded Protection they won't do anything to protect themselves.

I regard all our "allies" in Asia with contempt. Arm up or bend over. The US should leave Asia to its natural Chinese masters.

Our presence in Asia just helps destroy our economy. We get nothing and spend much.

Re:Not surprising

[Johnny Mnemonic]

So yea its essentially a non-nuclear MAD arrangement. +1 Insightful. Whether by decision or by accident, be assured that this is more likely than an other consideration to keep China and the US at peace.

We would almost certainly cancel our debt obligation to the Chinese if they were to do something overtly hostile, like invade Taiwan. And everyone knows it. Now--do we start a war with China just to have the legal precepts to cancel that debt, and erase the US deficit overnight? A war with China would probably be even more expensive, so doubt it.

If when China begins selling our debt, be aware that one of the hurdles to WW III has been removed.

Re:Not surprising

[SuricouRaven]

Not 'middle east guys.' Terrorists. They are clearly not (officially) supported by any country. There are only two situations in which it is considered politically correct to make a real country the villain of a game:
1. The events are set so long ago that not only does the side no longer exist, but nor do any direct successors. Eg, AoM you get to fight against ancient greece, ancient egypt.
2. The enemy is of a side so loathed that even the country of origin has condemned their action. The uberexample here are the Nazis - you can shoot them all you want without Germany making a fuss. This could also apply to, say, fighting the Confederacy in the American Civil War, but I can't think of any games that use that one.

If you defy these rules, then you can expect a bit of political fallout. Angry letters, a strongly-worded condemnation from the affected government, the banning of the game in some countries. On the plus side, it'll grab headlines, which means more publicity and thus sales.

Re:Not surprising

[interkin3tic]

and we could shitcan the Chinese economy in 24 secs announcing our intent to default on that debt, and stopping the purchase of their exports.

1. That would require agreement between democrats and republicans against what would be massive lobbying efforts.

2. Doing so would be so stupid that even elected officials would be able to appreciate what a bad idea it would be.

3. If we had some reason to do that, why would we do that and risk a backlash instead of nuking them? It would have about the same economic and political consequences, but would be faster and would prevent the Chinese from attacking us.

4. I don't think that mutually assured economic destruction could work in this case. If we did that and our economies crumbled, seems to me like the Chinese would have a decent shot of recovering pretty quickly compared to us. Again, command economy. We default and both our economies go to zero, everyone's job evaporates. The next day, the Chinese government announces that the Chinese economy is high again because they say it is, that every chinese citizen has a duty to work for two weeks without pay, and everyone who says otherwise will be shot. Chinese economy recovers. Conversely, the US economy hits zero, and the US government can't even get the word out to ask people to go back to work as the TV stations have already started burning from the looting.

Re:Not surprising

[spitzak]

Wasn't it a big deal where a game and a movie both changed the invading hordes of America from the Chinese to North Korea, to avoid offending China?

I think that is pretty stupid. First of all it would be a lot more realistic for the invaders to be Chinese. North Korea is not going to get very far, so any scenario where it ends up being the lone American with a big supply of guns killing the invaders off one by one is incredibly unrealistic. China at least is somewhat plausible.

Conversely the most formidable and realistic invading force into China would be the Americans (or perhaps NATO which would be led by the Americans). So I can't blame them for using America if they want their game to be at all plausible.

Furthermore all the worry about upsetting the Chinese seems misplaced. This does not seem to be upsetting us, just making us laugh.

Hell for all the work they did changing China to North Korea, the game developers should have reversed it to America invading China and sold the same game in the Chinese market! That would have been brilliant, actually.

Re:Not surprising

[FileNotFound]

Middle east != Chinese.

Either way, the reason Americas Army is the way it is has nothing to do with what you are implying.

If you could play as a terrorist in AA, there would be articles in newspapers about how US tax payers money was spent on making a "murder simulator" where you take the role of a terrorist and kill American Soldiers.

Re:Not surprising

[TheTyrannyOfForcedRe]

I fear a Sino-American war, and hope it doesn't happen.

It's not going to happen. The US and China are BFF's. They're practically twins. They're the two "most capitalist" countries in the world. Both are authoritarian regimes run by close parings between business and closed political parties. All the other political shit (communism/democracy) is purely for show. China is America's Eastasia. America is China's Eastasia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

Re:Not surprising

[jhsiao]

Someone should hack the game. Make the US soldiers automatically target and headshot.

China allegedly probes US network infrastructure security. Hacking their game is small consolation.

Re:Not surprising

[suso]

If there was a "right on" flag, both of you would get it.

Re:Not surprising

[SuricouRaven]

They might do that one day. China plans long term - I wouldn't put it past them to cause such an economic collapse, with the intention of hurting their competitors more than they hurt themselves. Having a centrally planned market would give them some advantage in the ability to plan ahead - they could have stockpiles built up years in advance, employ blatant protectionism to help domestic industry recover faster. They government could spend vast amounts of money propping up unprofitable industries for a decade so they are ready the moment recovery starts, while the rest of the world is founding new companies and building new factories. It'd hurt their economy, yes - but if it hurts the rest of the world more, it's still a valid plan for financial warfare. Collapse the economy, recover faster than anyone else, and use the window thus created to take over foreign markets and purchase what competition remains. The end result would be a situation where most economic activity, even that not performed in China, would be by Chinese companies.

Re:Not surprising

[JMJimmy]

While Russia is the enemy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Army effectively does the same thing.

Re:Not surprising

[Danny Rathjens]

The best thing to happen will be to get them away from the racially pure meme they are nursing. That kind of belief has lead to bad things very reliably over the last several hundred years.

Luckily this is already happening thanks to DNA. There used to be a fairly strong belief that was promulgated by the PRC that the chinese evolved separately from the rest of the world based on the discoveries in china of some homo erectus fossils - a.k.a. peking man. But:

A 1999 study undertaken by Chinese geneticist Jin Li showed that the genetic diversity of modern Chinese people is well within that of the whole world population, which suggests there was no inter-breeding between modern human immigrants to East Asia and Homo erectus, such as Peking Man, and that the Chinese are descended from Africa, like all other modern humans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peking_man#Relation_to_modern_Chinese_people

Re:Not surprising

[mswhippingboy]

You shouldn't be so hard on terrorists. They can't all bad guys, can they?

Um.. wait...

Re:Not surprising

[thelexx]

"Now that people can do art and music without being lined against a wall and shot"

Now they just disappear: Ai Weiwei

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/16/aiweiwei.china/?hpt=C1
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2063218_2063273_2063222,00.html

"China is a command economy, but it isn't an extreme country (now that the nuts like Mao are cozily dead)"

WTFever. Tiananmen Square.

Re:Not surprising

[index0]

America uses those games as recruitment tools

Re:Not surprising

[SuricouRaven]

North Korea's army is dependant on numbers, their air force is a joke... but their long-range artillery is quite real. If they did invade the south, their plan would be to first shell the country to rubble, destroy every major city, and then just walk in and take over what little is left. They don't, because it's not a fast plan, and would involve many civilian deaths - which means international involvement would be very likely. Given a month or two, even the UN would be able to get something passed, and NK would find bombs being dropped upon their artillery installations. Quite possibly Chinese bombs. They want stability - a north-south Korean war would result in that refugee influx, and that is something China would rather avoid. It's also really embarassing to the Communist cause if another tinpot dictator tries to conquer the world and fails miserably.

Re:Not surprising

[anss123]

China has been one nation since before the fall of Rome. Remember that.

Rome fell in 400-600 C.E, while the area we call China was 10+ "dynasties/empires/whatever" back in 923 C.E.

Re:Not surprising

[Nethemas the Great]

Middle east != Chinese.

Umm, we're speaking about the US, do you really think they would know the difference.

Re:Not surprising

[Nethemas the Great]

I thought we were already... Or was the Bush Jr. presidency a terrible, terrible dream?

Re:Not surprising

[SuricouRaven]

The US has nukes. China has nukes. An all-out war would inevitably result in one side or the other being forced to use them to avoid defeat, or in fear the other would first. The result would be disasterous for both countries. Both the US and China know this, and so an open war is off the table. That doesn't mean no conflict - the countries compete for resources and very some very fundamental ideological differences - but it'll be the cold-war type of conflict. Proxy wars. Economic manipulation. Espionage. Poaching the best scientists and engineers. Anything they can do to get an advantage over each other without having to actually admit to doing so.

Re:Not surprising

[realityimpaired]

2. The enemy is of a side so loathed that even the country of origin has condemned their action. The uberexample here are the Nazis - you can shoot them all you want without Germany making a fuss. This could also apply to, say, fighting the Confederacy in the American Civil War, but I can't think of any games that use that one.

The uber counter-example would be Wolfenstein, which was banned from the shelves in Germany because of its depictions of the nazis. Admittedly, the objections weren't so much that the enemies were nazis as they were to the fact that the swastika is everywhere in that game, but that game certainly did offend the German government a great deal.

Re:Not surprising

[Urza9814]

You train your soldiers to fight the most likely enemy. Nobody complains that we were training our soldiers to fight Russians during the cold war. So they're using video games now -- so what? Same principle, different tool.

Let's face it, the only real enemy to China is the US. We're the most opposed to them ideologically, we're pretty strongly opposed to them culturally, and we're really the only ones with the military power to dare attack them. Only other possibility is some NATO or UN action...but even that would be largely US troops. Plus that would require that China commit some massive atrocity. The US government has shown it doesn't need a reason to start a war, we'll do it just 'cause we feel like it.

Re:Not surprising

[Sir_Sri]

no it wouldn't. They have trillions of US dollars which to them are worthless. They may as well have a warehouse with skids full of paper with hand written IOU's on it. As opposed to say west germany, which 30 or 40 years ago was in a similar trade surplus situation, the west germans actually wanted the US dollars for something, and had other customers who wanted it. At that point the US had things people wanted, not necessarily the west germans but west Germany's (future) friends. They basically gave the money away, and used it to bolster their friends. Of course most of west germany's friends were friends to the US. China's friends (Burma, North korea, various african states no one cares about), usually don't care about the US, and can't buy US goods even if they wanted to. About the only exception to that is pakistan which is officially reasonably friendly to both.

And while probably not in one sitting, the US could repay it's debt to china fairly easily. Right now you're paying less than 2% interest on most of your debt to china. Offer new bonds at 3% and you'll find a whole new crop of customers. Sure 2 trillion dollars would be a lot of money to raise on very short notice (not impossible, just inconvenient). Of course if you offer to pay 5% interest the chinese might reconsider their lending and be happy to keep the status quo.

Re:Not surprising

[morari]

That would be true for any product displaying the Third Reich's version of a swastika. Germany is very funny when it comes to that period of their history. It's understandable, but also kind of ironic given the extent of related censorship.

Re:Not surprising

[morari]

If you could play as a terrorist in AA, there would be articles in newspapers about how US tax payers money was spent on making a "murder simulator" where you take the role of a terrorist and kill American Soldiers.

Isn't it already a murder simulator? Oh right, I forgot... murder in a uniform is heroic, but in a costume it's a crime.

Re:Not surprising

[morari]

I thought that the US government was just a conglomeration of corporations? Certainly that counts!

Re:Not surprising

[SuperDre]

But 'terrorist' is something in the eye of the beholder, for one it's a terrorist for another it's a soldier.. There are enough countries and people who consider the US to be terrorist with their 'You have to do what I say or else' attitude.. Which country was the first and only country to use atom bombs on civilians? yes it was the US..

Personally I don't care which ever side you can play in any game or how horrific a game can be, it's all just virtual reality, and as long as it stays there, I don't care.. And I like the US countryside, only sad thing is, there live so many 'not so intelligent' people there (next to a lot intelligent, but it seems those haven't got anything to say)..

Re:Not surprising

[Suiggy]

The recently released FPS game Home Front features the PLA as the enemy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homefront_(video_game)

In fact, I would hazard a guess that this new game pitching the US as the enemy is a direct response to Home Front.

Re:Not surprising

[alcmaeon]

You must be new to gaming to have missed such classics as "Ultimatum," "Fortress America," "Arab Israeli Wars," etc.

Re:Not surprising

[alcmaeon]

Now that people can do art and music without being lined against a wall and shot (like in Mao's time), people there are more interested in education and developing their economy as opposed to military gains.

Was that meant to be a joke? Countries fight wars precisely when they are rich. I can't think of any countries that have started wars when they were poorer than their opponents. That's a recipe for quick defeat and cultural extinction. I'm not saying it was never tried; I'm just saying the ones who tried it haven't left any descendant, so we'll never know.

Re:Not surprising

[blair1q]

You are wrong.

China has no reason to war with us.

We are handing over our economy without firing a shot.

Re:Not surprising

[t2t10]

I'm not sure in what way being shot at by the Chinese communist army makes one "the bad guys".

Re:Not surprising

[Maxo-Texas]

Armies and navies don't really matter to the US or China. It's impossible to mass a force when the enemy has nuclear weapons. Any concentration of ships is just a really expensive future coral reef.

But it wouldn't take much to disrupt food transportation and kill millions on both sides. Biological attacks are possible but have the risk of backfiring. Not sure of what form it will take.

As for bonds-- nations can and do just change the terms on bonds. In the past they have arbitrarily turned 20 year bonds into 50 year bonds.

The question is to what degree the american right wing will behave insanely and to what degree the chinese right will will behave insanely. If either side pushes too hard and "wins" economically, it could cause the other side to lash out.

The fact that the chinese have been putting out a lot of chinese nationalist propaganda over the last 15 to 20 years is a warning sign. They could talk themselves into doing something unwise.

Re:Not surprising

[shuz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_(series) http://fallout.bethsoft.com/

Re:Not surprising

[Paradise Pete]

Can they make us pay it all in one sitting if they wanted to? Bonds can't be redeemed until the maturity date, can they?

They can be sold at any time. If China chose to start dumping its bonds the market would be badly damaged. There's also an issue with Gold Futures. A Futures contract basically says "I'm willing to buy gold for X dollars at Y date." Currently there are many, many more active futures contracts than there is actual gold in the world. What happens in practice is that the vast majority of those contracts get "rolled over" into the next expiration period. But a buyer of a contract can instead choose to not roll it over and actually receive the gold, which means the seller has to come up with that much gold.

If China really wanted to cause havoc they could simply say "We want our gold. Fork it over." Because there is not enough gold in the world to satisfy those contracts, the price of gold goes to infinity as sellers scramble to fulfill their obligations. In practice there would certainly be some sort of intervention, but the fallout would be that the market would suffer tremendous damage.

Re:Not surprising

[jackbird]

It recalls the old saying "If you owe the bank a million dollars and can't pay, you have a problem; if you owe the bank a billion dollars and can't pay, the bank has a problem."

Re:Not surprising

[Kelbear]

China is just one of 3 factions in multiplayer (yellow guys vs. brown guys vs. white/back guys). They're not designated as "bad guys", they're just one of the two sides that you're randomly assigned to on each map.

The brown team and the white/back team could just as easily be interpreted as the "bad guy" in this game if you want to identify one of them as such.

Re:Not surprising

[Kelbear]

Per your link, the enemy in Home Front is not China, it's North Korea.

"The antagonists in Homefront were originally intended to be Chinese, but were later replaced by a unified Korea for two reasons: a possible backlash by the Chinese Ministry of Culture and the reality of economic interdependence between America and China that made the Chinese "not that scary"[8] said Tae Kim, a former CIA field agent and consultant on the game's backstory."

Re:Not surprising

[Red Flayer]

I don't think they'd play that game. In the current economic downturn, China is already having problems with a restless out-of-work population. The level of downturn we're talking about would lead to civil unrest, and possible overthrow of the government.

Yes, the economic revival of China is a matter of intense national pride among the Chinese people. But the excesses of those who have gotten very wealthy, and the growing economic disparity in China, would pose real problems should sentiment in the lower Chinese classes turn negative. Younger people in China feel the promise of economic growth, and hope to better their situation. But don't forget that older people remember Mao, and his message -- the New Left in China is growing in popularity as their economy continues to stagnate while the rich get richer. For all the reforms instituted by Deng Xiaoping, for all the stock we place in their planned economy, the people of China would have to support their government through VERY lean times for this plan to work.

TLDR: The government of China would be too afraid of overthrow or revolution to support such a drastic scheme.

Re:Not surprising

[Red Flayer]

added new features to the iPad without raising the price so that proves there isn't any inflation, nevermind the price of things like food or oil or gold or silver.

OK, we may disagree on whether or not food and oil should be included in inflation measurements. There are fairly well-established arguments both for and against inclusion of volatiles, and suffice it to say that I don't agree with you.

But the price of gold or silver in inflation measurements? That's ridiculous. The demand for gold and silver is driven not by consumption, but by speculation, often in direct response to perceived inflationary risk. Including them in inflation measurements doesn't make any sense, at all. Gold and silver are not consumer goods.

Re:Not surprising

[Red Flayer]

It's the old adage --

If someone owes you $10, it's their problem.
If someone owes you $1,000,000, it's your problem.

We borrowed enough from the Chinese that it has become their problem, not ours.

Re:Not surprising

[WindBourne]

Really? Is the US gov. pushing this in our DOD videos? Nope.

Re:Not surprising

[Muros]

Nuclear weapons are shiny, yes, but you'll find that America has made far much more impressive use of mundane chemically based weapons. I wouldn't go citing the use of atomics as proof of anything really. At the end of the day, body count matters more than method.

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

No, actually, most of them became the Han. Chinese history plays like a broken record: the Chinese do really well and grow rich, then grow lazy, then get invaded by outsiders. The outsiders live in tents and wear furs and eat yak meat for a few decades, but pretty soon the palaces and fancy clothes and delicious food start to seem pretty sweet. They learn Chinese language and history and literature and whatnot, and before you know it they're calling themselves Han.

Seriously, major Chinese dynasties that were started by non-Chinese (or borderline, yokel Chinese): the Qin (from whence comes the name 'China'), the Sui, the Tang, the Yuan, and the Qing. Those are only the major, China-wide dynasties; there were also the Jin, the Liao, etc, that just controlled major parts of China at some point or other.

Being 'Han', to a Chinese person, means more or less being 'Chinese'. Certainly, that's always the way it was. There were never really 'a lot of races' in China in the sense that you mean.

The flip side of that is that calling yourself something other than Han was kind of rebellious. And yeah, groups that did that had a tendency to vanish.

Re:Not surprising

[Squiddie]

Then again, anyone who fights the US military is now a terrorist right?

Re:Not surprising

[Grishnakh]

The Abu Ghraib incident wasn't even a fraction as bad as this:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327

I used to support the troops, but now any time I hear that phrase, I just think of the guys in that article, and how the government tried to cover for them. Our soldiers are really no more than a bunch of murdering thugs, and any soldier who doesn't want to be painted with that brush needs to get out now.

Re:Not surprising

[denobug]

You realize Foxconn is really a Taiwanese company and China won't care if it dies overnight right? It'll just be replaced by another real Chinese company and absorb all the talents and equipments and run as usual, replacing Foxconn.

Re:Not surprising

[mswhippingboy]

Actually they would be considered an "enemy combatant". A terrorist is one who perpetrates "violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies."

While I absolutely don't agree with how GWB handled Iraq and can see why that idiotic campaign has brought criticism on the US, out going after Bin Laden, ousting the Taliban, intervening in Bosnia, liberating Kuwait, etc... were just causes.

I don't necessarily agree that we Americans should be spilling our blood to protect and/or defend other countries or their populations. Personally, I think the US should butt out and let rest of the world should live or die by their own strength and weaknesses. Luckily for millions of people, some in the US don't feel the same way and so we continue to spend billions (or trillions) and thousands of lives saving their asses from their own tyrants while we get spit in the face, called "imperialists" or "terrorists" or any number of other slurs.

Re:Not surprising

[shutdown -p now]

So did the game developed by the US Army feature chinese and russian enemies?
Of the article is accurate, this game wasn't developed by some third party but was developed by the PLA.

US Army does not need to commission a video game involving killing scores of Russian and/or Chinese soldiers, because the Western - predominantly US - video game industry does it for them, and much more efficiently at that.

I mean, how many of today's US Army and USMC recruits have played the later Call of Duty games, or Battlefield series, or Operation Flashpoint?

Re:Not surprising

[shutdown -p now]

Han is the only race in China that matters.

The present Chinese government has an active cultural assimilation policy whereby they try to force the other ethnic groups on occupied territories to assume Han self-identification. So it's not really a proper "race" (did you mean ethnicity?) anymore, but more of a sociocultural identification of aligning oneself with PRC.

Re:Not surprising

[Sabriel]

And? If the reason Foxconn died overnight was because the dollar and yen had just simultaneously imploded, it wouldn't matter who owned it. They'd be screwed like everyone else.

Re:Not surprising

[Max Littlemore]

That's how a country turns into a basket case that no one trades with. How do you think the rest of the developed world would react to the U.S. throwing a toddler-style hissy fit and demonstrating that they have no integrity and their word is not worth shit?

Whose economy would suffer from that?

Re:Not surprising

[Tom]

Meanwhile in China FoxCon and friends have a problem. Their biggest market has vanished overnight. The only markets large enough in population to replace it (their own domestic and India) don't have a standard of living which would permit many to buy these products.

You've kind of forgotten about Europe there, haven't you? Bigger market than the US, standard of living similar on average, in some countries higher. And the Euro would profit dramatically from any of these scenarios, most likely replacing the US$ for things like oil and international trade.

China exports to the entire world. Losing the US as a customer would hurt them big time, but it wouldn't ruin them.

Re:Not surprising

[argStyopa]

Actually, Home Front was GOING to use the PLA as the enemy, but it was changed to be the North Koreans.

Try again?

Re:Not surprising

[The Snowman]

The Abu Ghraib incident wasn't even a fraction as bad as this:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327

I used to support the troops, but now any time I hear that phrase, I just think of the guys in that article, and how the government tried to cover for them. Our soldiers are really no more than a bunch of murdering thugs, and any soldier who doesn't want to be painted with that brush needs to get out now.

The actions of the few don't mean everyone engages in such behavior that is flagrantly illegal per U.S. laws, rules of engagement, as well as human rights treaties ratified by the Senate (e.g. the Geneva conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). I am more troubled by the Pentagon's coverup at first, and foot dragging later on.

As a veteran, I always hated the term "support the troops" when I was active duty. One aspect of a fascist regime is blind support and patriotism for the military. I hate to see our country go down that road. We should respect people of all occupations: why don't we have yellow ribbons and sayings for the electrical workers that have been working day and night to restore power to the Southeast, ravaged by tornadoes? Their job, in my opinion, is far more important than anything I ever did in the military. They are serving their country very well, and in a far more important capacity than carrying out orders to attack foreign nations in direct violation of our Constitution.

Re:Not surprising

[Grishnakh]

The actions of the few don't mean everyone engages in such behavior that is flagrantly illegal per U.S. laws, rules of engagement, as well as human rights treaties ratified by the Senate (e.g. the Geneva conventions [wikipedia.org] and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [wikipedia.org]). I am more troubled by the Pentagon's coverup at first, and foot dragging later on.

If this group of thugs were immediately taken into custody by the Pentagon and prosecuted severely for their actions, then I would by the "actions of the few" argument. The fact that this incident, and also Abu Ghraib, were in fact covered up and not harshly dealt with by the Pentagon shows me that the people in charge actually condone these actions by their silent assent.

We should respect people of all occupations: why don't we have yellow ribbons and sayings for the electrical workers that have been working day and night to restore power to the Southeast, ravaged by tornadoes? Their job, in my opinion, is far more important than anything I ever did in the military. They are serving their country very well, and in a far more important capacity than carrying out orders to attack foreign nations in direct violation of our Constitution.

Exactly right.

Re:Not surprising

[phantomfive]

BUT you missed the idea China could dump their US debt onto the world market all at once. This would cause a large jump in interest rates and really do a lot of damage to the US economy.

This essentially (in the worst case) would cause the US to become unable to borrow. Ultimately, if the US becomes unable to borrow, the sooner it happens, the less painful it will be. And we're going down the path where it might happen.

Re:Not surprising

[sortius_nod]

Both Battlefield 2 and C&C Generals had china as an enemy in them. There's plenty with Russia as an enemy too (Operation Flashpoint, the old ones, MW2, BF2), there is a definite need when making a game for the west to have the "good" side as US or UK and the bad side needs to be people who we don't know much about. At least that's how small minded designers seem to see it.

The same as all mass produced art, play to people's fears to sell a lot.

Re:Not surprising

[Yev000]

Fallout.

Not made by US Gov, but Chinese are (or were) "the enemy" of the US. In any case that scenario has been played out in a game back in 1997.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_(video_game)

In Fallout 3 you even get to play as US army killing Chinese in one of the addons. "In which the United States Army liberated Anchorage, Alaska, from Chinese forces." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_3_expansions#Operation:_Anchorage

Re:Not surprising

[rhook]

China would not collapse if they lost 30% of their export revenue.

Top Countries China Exports To

        United States = $162.9 (+30%)
        Hong Kong = $124.5 (+23%)
        Japan = $84 (+14%)
        South Korea = $35.1 (+26%)
        Germany = $32.5 (+37%)
        Netherlands = $25.9 (+40%)
        United Kingdom = $19 (+27%)
        Singapore = $16.6 (+31%)
        Taiwan = $16.6 (+22%)
        Russia = $13.2 (+45%)

Read more at Suite101: China's Top Trading Partners: Chinese Exports & Imports Soar | Suite101.com http://www.suite101.com/content/chinas-top-trading-partners-a3413#ixzz1NGeCLk7X

Re:Not surprising

[AmiMoJo]

So North Korea is okay because they are definitely bad guys? War isn't really like that. Most of the PRK army is conscripted, i.e. those guys didn't sign up to fight Americans. That was also the case with many German and Japanese troops during WW2, but there are plenty of games where they are portrayed at pure evil and the good guys take perverse pleasure in killing them.

Games and movies deliberately break the situation down into good vs. evil, the band of American Heroes (TM) fighting for Freedom (TM) vs. the hoards of [fascist|commie|islamic] darkness.

Command & Conquer managed to get away from that by letting you play the Chinese or Arabs and topple the US, but that was the exception.

Re:Not surprising

[AK Marc]

Let's face it, the only real enemy to China is the US.

But they aren't a military enemy. China would be hard pressed to invade Taiwan even if the US stayed out of it. And that's Chinese soil not too far off their coast. Most of the ships they'd use to get units over there wouldn't make an open ocean crossing.

Put another way, take a single gang in LA. Put them up against the entire Chinese military trying to invade LA with everyone else in the world staying out of it (even the civilians, where there are more guns in the hands of civilians in LA than in the hands of the entire Chinese military, as well as leaving out the police, guard, and US military), and my money would be on the gang being able to repel the entire Chinese military from landing in LA with enough forces to get a foothold indefinitely.

We may not be able to invade China and hold it, but China can't even invade China, so what makes you think they could invade the US? And if they can't do anything that could project military force that would affect Americans, how could they be classified a military enemy?

Re:Not surprising

[AK Marc]

They export less than 25% to the US and that number is falling. When it's at about 10%, they'd hurt if they cut off the US, but not as much as the US would hurt. China is trying to grow markets outside the US without losing the US, and if successful, would result in a situation where they could cut off the US without nearly as much pain to them as the US would feel.

Re:Not surprising

[losfromla]

..uhm, but, food and oil are and just as out of hand, you dismissed those. How very slick you must think you are.

Re:Not surprising

[Hythlodaeus]

In the current version of America's Army, you shoot at soldiers of a fictional country called Czervania.

Re:Not surprising

[AK Marc]

Or a limited war that becomes a full war, or a conventional all-out war in some other country. Something like a fight for Taiwan seems to be a flash point. Taiwan is part of China, but independently governed. I think at this point, the official stance from both the US and the UN is that Taiwan is de facto separate but de jure under PRC control with no formal independence ever declared, nor any formal recognition of control by PRC. And the US has committed to keeping the status as it is now, meaning the willingness to fight to prevent the PRC from exercising control over Taiwan, which the US agrees is under PRC jurisdiction.

When China is strong enough and ready, I see them willing to cause WWIII over Taiwan. But not until they are ready to completely sever all ties with the US economically, and that's at least 10 years away, maybe 20. At that point, there's nothing the US can do to prevent relegation to second-rate status, much like England now vs at the height of the empire, or the other ancient ones that all fell. The US has given up almost all manufacturing and moved to service-only. And if the flow of international money stops, the US will collapse.

Re:Not surprising

[AK Marc]

Revenge is easy, but I don't see a war fought for it. The average person there doesn't hate the Japanese, and wouldn't care enough to call for a war against them. Now, if they wanted Japan for other reasons, and they needed a justification, I can see them dusting off revenge as an excuse, but not a reason.

The US is nationalistic as well, in much the same way. There are plenty of races. The only difference is that the US races are all new to the US, but identify with it. The races in China predate China, but still identify with it. Well, except those pesky Tibetans, but they are being dealt with.

The war will happen. It will be 20 years from now. The question is whether it is a war of bullets or economics. China is preparing for both, the US only for a war of bullets. So if China starts it, it will be with the weakness of the US in mind, and so they will likely win, unless the US gets smarter before then (and the US looks to be getting dumber).

Re:Not surprising

[Xest]

Well, no one really at the moment.

But otherwise it's mostly been people who have a different world view to Americans, a difficult concept for people like you to grasp, I know.

Let me help you try and grasp it though. Imagine Pakistan led by the Pakistani Taliban invaded America, and tried to enforce the Taliban's semi-Islamic world view on Americans would you a) bow down and take it, b) rise up and try and perform hit and run sniper and IED attacks on the Taliban soldiers.

Would you also think you were a terrorist, a militant, an insurgent or whatever for defending your homeland and your values if the Pakistani Taliban then labelled you as such?

If you think al Qaeda has been a particular stand out problem in a long while you're living in a fucking fantasy world and are a gullable victim of the politics of fear.

Re:Not surprising

[Zoshnell]

Minor Nitpick: They were russian, but the important part of the story of Freedom Fighters were that they were Soviet. As opposed to, say, Battlefield Ba Company 2 which pits Russian vs US soldiers, not soviets vs US of A and whatnot.

Re:Not surprising

[AngryDeuce]

Most of it is related to the Denazification measures that were put on the books when the Allies took over Germany. I mean, we paraded German civilians through the camps and told them "look what you did, Germans", despite the fact that a good many were critical of the Nazi Party before that point but, you know, the whole Police State thing is a powerful motivator to shut up and do as you're told... I'm not trying to be sympathetic to the Nazis; they were scumbags obviously. But our treatment of all Germans as if they WERE all Nazis was harsh and left a lot of scars. In todays context, that would be like us holding all Pakistanis responsible for 9/11 and Bin Ladin. The UN would shit a brick if we tried something like Denazification today...

Re:Not surprising

[pacinpm]

I don't necessarily agree that we Americans should be spilling our blood to protect and/or defend other countries or their populations. Personally, I think the US should butt out and let rest of the world should live or die by their own strength and weaknesses. Luckily for millions of people, some in the US don't feel the same way and so we continue to spend billions (or trillions) and thousands of lives saving their asses from their own tyrants while we get spit in the face, called "imperialists" or "terrorists" or any number of other slurs.

Accidentaly you "save" only those coutries with oil resources or where your political interests lie.

Lots of other games

[gad_zuki!]

have done this. You can shoot US soldiers in Battlefield if you play the other team. In fact, I prefer playing the MEC in BF2 because the sniper weapon is just better. Not sure why this is news, other than getting censorship blowhards and right-wing nuts agitated. I'm sure we'll see this on Fox News tonight wrapped in a typical "Are liberals to blame" bullshit.

Re:Lots of other games

[icebraining]

You can also shoot US soldiers in almost every other multiplayer FPS. But it's not usually included in the campaign.

Re:Lots of other games

[jjp9999]

I think the issue is more in that this was developed by the Chinese military - not just another game developer.

Re:Lots of other games

[blair1q]

Come to think of it, being a German in MOH:AA was an advantage in certain maps.

Re:Lots of other games

[shutdown -p now]

Remember the Soviet campaign in Battlezone?

Not convinced...

[vlpronj]

Where are the screenshots of US soldiers as the enemy? I.E., American flag on uniform, American flag or markings on the Apaches? Apaches are heavily exported, the "enemy" could be one of many nations the US has sold them to.

Re:Not convinced...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nowhere in that video did I hear anything about the US being the enemies. Actually it sounds like this is a PLA developed game for PLA soldiers (for training... or however military forces justify making video games these days).

I would assume that the enemies are 'OPFOR'. There is a scene with an Apache(?) going down, but frankly that could be an allied aircraft; what are the chances you will ever hear that spin in the west.

Re:Not convinced...

[DriedClexler]

Also, are any of the enemies Chinese-American soldiers? America does have ethinic Chinese in her military, and I hope the PLA is aware of this.

Re:Not convinced...

[GameboyRMH]

This. I didn't RTFA in particular but I've read other articles about this game, and from what I've read the whole idea that the enemies are Americans is based on the resemblance of an in-game helicopter to an Apache, a relatively generic-looking gunship helicopter in the first place.

Is it Really US Troops?

[Sonny Yatsen]

I can't quite listen to the Chinese audio since I'm at work, but based on the video alone, is it really against American troops? I only saw very generic urban warfare tactics in a very generic Chinese city and a very generic set of bunkers and pillboxes. The only "indication" that it was against American troops was a very fuzzy helicopter that might be an Apache or might be something else entirely.

In any case, so what? We in the US has been playing games where the Chinese Army was the antagonist for ages. Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising and Battlefield 2 are two that I can name off the top of my head.

Re:Is it Really US Troops?

[gman003]

Not to mention actual wargames. 11th Armored Cavalry (to name one, can't remember the others) is actually dedicated to acting as a training enemy during training/wargames. Up until '05 or so, it was a replica Soviet unit, with tanks modified to look like T-80s and transports modified to look like BMPs. Right now, they're a mock-insurgent unit, but I wouldn't be surprised if all the heavy gear is being modified to mimic Chinese gear (shouldn't be hard - most PLA infantry gear is derived from Soviet gear).

Re:Is it Really US Troops?

[Sepultura]

I personally don't like violent video games or other violent entertainment for myself. But I don't assume that those who do, especially when we're dealing with pretend like in video games, are necessarily going to be violent or "evil" persons themselves.

However, someone who takes issue with the fact that it was a person of their nationality that was targeted does scare me as it reveals to me that they (1) don't understand that it's not real and (2) they don't have an issue with one of them being killed.

Re:Is it Really US Troops?

[Opportunist]

Well, technically, after all we're talking about a communist country, whether it's a company or government doesn't matter since they are the same.

Re:Is it Really US Troops?

[icebraining]

we're talking about a communist country

I thought we were talking about China?

Re:Is it Really US Troops?

[Opportunist]

Why sure, China is communist, isn't it?

You want to tell me Fox News is lying?

Re:Is it Really US Troops?

[the_raptor]

China is run by the Chinese Communist Party but these days that is about as Communist as the National Socialist party was Socialist.

Re:Is it Really US Troops?

[Opportunist]

They weren't even National (ceded South Tyrol to Italy, didn't want to have any part of Switzerland...).

Platforms?

[Mikkeles]

When will it be available for the XBox?

Re:Platforms?

[gman003]

Well, since that game console is banned in China (as is the PS3, although since Nintendo partnered with a Chinese company to distribute there, the Wii isn't), I would venture to say "no".

Re:BUT DO MUSLIMS IN ME HAVE PCS ??

[Zedrick]

Most likely not. And why do you have Muslims in you?

Fair enough

[papabob]

Every "great" nation has to have its own enemy. For years in USA had the URSS (and viceversa), then URSS dissapeared and three years later it was Irak, then dissapeared. Later was taliban, Irak again, and the difuse Al-Qaeda. Just like every fascist against every comunist. It's a must to prevent people to think too much in what the goberment is doing.

Re:Fair enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure you meant USSR and Iraq. Oh and government.

Re:Fair enough

[gad_zuki!]

>For years in USA had the URSS (and viceversa), then URSS dissapeared and three years later it was Irak,

Ah yes, the United Republic of Soviet States. They were truly an incredible enemy. Remember when they launched a theremin guided tesla space coil at Atlanta and it turned everyone into an ape for 10 days? Or when they landed on Mars only to find an ancient race of rock-based life who beat them back with mud weapons? Or when Kennedy and Khruschev fought each other telepathically on national television to win control over the the Fidel Castro android that was running Cuba?

Oh man, don't get me started on Irak. Lord Irak himself killed my grandfather in a electric sword duel. Those were the days...

Re:Fair enough

[MysteriousPreacher]

>For years in USA had the URSS (and viceversa), then URSS dissapeared and three years later it was Irak,

Ah yes, the United Republic of Soviet States. They were truly an incredible enemy. Remember when they launched a theremin guided tesla space coil at Atlanta and it turned everyone into an ape for 10 days? Or when they landed on Mars only to find an ancient race of rock-based life who beat them back with mud weapons? Or when Kennedy and Khruschev fought each other telepathically on national television to win control over the the Fidel Castro android that was running Cuba?

Oh man, don't get me started on Irak. Lord Irak himself killed my grandfather in a electric sword duel. Those were the days...

Where can I buy this game? I must have it!

Re:Fair enough

[icebraining]

Or maybe English isn't his first language? Irak and URSS are both the official spellings in e.g. Spanish.

Re:Fair enough

[Requiem18th]

Pretty sure he meant Eurasia

Re:Fair enough

[GameboyRMH]

goberment is also how someone with Spanish as a first language might pronounce government :-P

Re:Fair enough

[repapetilto]

The USSR landed on venus and found plastic. It turned out to be the lenscap from the probe's camera. At least that was the official story.

Re:Fair enough

[Smurf]

goberment is also how someone with Spanish as a first language might pronounce government :-P

Pronounce it and spell it: gobierno. Which makes a lot of sense since the word govern comes from the Latin gubernare (in Spanish, gobernar).

Finally something different

[Hultis]

The enemies in FPS games are always whoever the US doesn't like at a given time (this includes most titles produced outside of the US as well), be they russians, germans, vaguely-middle-eastern-something, vietnamese, chinese, the list goes on. Now we finally get a game where the roles are changed. I can see why some Americans are upset, but frankly it's about time.

Re:Finally something different

[leonardluen]

And if you are playing the russians, germans, etc in those games, the US is the bad guy for half the people playing as well.

Re:Finally something different

[Hultis]

Often the opponent (in multiplayer) yes, but rarely portrayed negatively. Considering how many countries should hate USA it's a little bit odd. However, I should have used "usually" rather than "always".

Re:Finally something different

[GameboyRMH]

Yep, Crysis was the North Koreans, and you get plenty of hints that the generic-Asian Panauans of JC2 are supposed to be North Koreans...interesting timing on those two recent games...

Impressive

[JB19000]

I'm impressed. Graphics look good. Movement is smooth. This doesn't look like it was developed by a first time game studio.

i always complain about false equivalency

[circletimessquare]

i always complain about false equivalency morons posting on slashdot and elsewhere. you know, the morons who say "but the u.s.a..." whenever the issue of chinese internet censorship or human rights violations comes up. even though chinese internet censorship and human rights violations are genuinely orders of magnitude worse than in the west. not that the false equivalency morons can see that. whether out of intellectual dishonesty or genuine stupidity, who knows

but this is entertainment, not government policy

as such, it is innocuous and without consequence. frankly: who fucking cares if the chinese shoot westerners in their video games. no, really, who fucking cares?

why is this fact important or even surprising to you? the west makes plenty of games and movies with the red chinese as fair game for military adventurism. therefore, it is entirely fair for the red chinese to make video games and movies with westerners as fair game for military adventurism. no big fucking deal. a big yawn

in other words, true equivalency

don't be hypocritical, westerners, by expecting those you demonize not to demonize you in turn. turnaround is fair play

Re:i always complain about false equivalency

[DBNickel]

I think the controversial point is "Glorious Revolution, which is used as a training tool for People's Liberation Army (PLA) soldiers" + "US Soldiers"

Re:i always complain about false equivalency

[Anonymous Coward]

but this is entertainment, not government policy

Actually, since it's being used as a training tool for the army, this does count as government policy. On the other hand, I have to admit that I have a hard time getting offended, since it looks more like Call of Duty than a useful training tool. If China really wants to equate mouse accuracy with martial readiness, who am I to persuade them otherwise?

Re:i always complain about false equivalency

[Anonymous Coward]

i always complain about false equivalency morons posting on slashdot and elsewhere. you know, the morons who say "but the u.s.a..." whenever the issue of chinese internet censorship or human rights violations comes up. even though chinese internet censorship and human rights violations are genuinely orders of magnitude worse than in the west. not that the false equivalency morons can see that. whether out of intellectual dishonesty or genuine stupidity, who knows.

Funny thing that, by conflating genuine criticism of US actions with false equivalency you join the ranks of those false equivalency morons. And all the times I've seen you do it, it sure looked like wilful intellectual dishonesty on your part. Far easier for your id to paint those you disagree with as "unable to see" than to consider that the arguments are more nuanced than you'd like.

Re:i always complain about false equivalency

[gman003]

Slight disputes here (I generally agree with you, this is all technicalities):

"Glorious Revolution" (as it's been translated here, I've also seen "Revolution of Glory", "Battle of Glory", "Glorious War", etc.) is produced by the People's Liberation Army. It is, in effect, a government product, and cannot be directly compared to American entertainment-only products.

However, we can compare it to America's Army, the game produced by the US Army. Current version (AA3) does not have a foreign force - it is all American-vs-American combat. The story is that it's a training excercise. Rather boring. If I remember correctly, though, the last major version (AA2) was US vs vaguely-middle-eastern-insurgents. Still no actual story, though, so it could be anywhere from Morocco to Pakistan.

However, the point was made elsewhere that it might not be explicitly America in Glorious Revolution. American equipment, yes, maybe even American styling, but it doesn't seem to be American flags and American symbols. So it could be compared to how, in the 70s-90s, the stereotypical villain country was always vaguely Russian, but usually fictitious (look at, say, the GI Joe cartoon, how COBRA sounded/acted rather Eastern-Europe without (IIRC) actually being such).

Just my $0.02.

Re:i always complain about false equivalency

[circletimessquare]

"conflating genuine criticism of US actions with false equivalency"

it is entirely fair to criticize the usa, the usa does plenty wrong in this world, and i welcome all criticism of the usa

fuck the usa. let me say it again: fuck the usa. two things:

1. i am free to criticize the usa, within the usa, which is an ironic meta-commentary in itself (you can't criticize chinese political decisions in china, do you understand that and why that is so much worse than RIAA and MPAA shenanigans?)

2. i am motivated by PRINCIPLES, not tirbalism here. on the gauge of PRINCIPLES, not tribal chest thumping like hooligans at a soccer match ("go usa!" "go china!"), china is far worse

if you lose sense of proportion on the principles you comment on, in other words, when you excuse or rationalize genuinely far worse crimes by other countries in your effort to criticize the usa, then you are more about tribal chest thumping than you are being motivated by principles

example #1: conflating throwing someone in prison for 10 years just because they advocated for democracy, versus waterboarding a confirmed terrorist asshole.

1. i don't agree with waterboarding. it's ineffective: torture doesn't help you get real intelligence.
2. its morally repugnant. if we are supposed to be fighting for higher moral purposes, lets demonstrate those higher moral purposes and not torture people
3. finally, by waterboarding al qaeda assholes, all you do is give al qaeda wonderful recruitment talking points, and create more terrorist assholes

so obviously, the west shouldn't be waterboarding anyone. however, having said all that, guess what?: waterboarding a terrorist asshole just isn't even remotely like a guy doing 10 years hard labor, just because he advocated for democracy. do you see the proportionality here? to me, with a logical and moral understanding of proportionality in condemning criminal behavior by world governments, jailing your own citizens just asking for their rights that most of us in the west take for granted, is nothing REMOTELY like waterboarding a guy who's life duty is blowing up civilians. do you feel me?

example #2: china frequently suppresses political free speech. criticize the government, and you will be censored. i can sit here, and, as long as i don't threaten his life, i can criticize obama and the democratic party and their policies until my face is blue, for months on end. no one is going to knock on my door. but in china? your political opinion will be censored. continue to criticize the ruling party, and you will be harassed and eventually arrested. do you see a slight issue of proptionality in censorship here yet?

and the crime in the west? well in the west, corporations run roughshop over people who share media, claiming intellectual property. i hate this, and i actually think the very idea of intellectual property is invalid. i think that what these corporations are doing is pure evil. but having said all that, i still clearly recognize that going after your own citizens just for engaging in political speech is far, far worse than intellectual property shenanigans

proportionality in framing equivalencies. feel me yet? i'm not about blindly defending the usa and blindly attacking china. i'm not nationalistic soccer hooligan. i am saying go ahead and criticize the usa. but i am saying, in your rush to do so, don't forget how much FAR FAR WORSE things are going on elsewhere in the world, and please don't belittle those far far worse things or claim them as just as bad as what the usa does. it's simply not!

it's not about the west is better than china or china is better than the west, rah rah rah, tirbal chest thumping. no, its about principles. on the basis of PRINCIPLES, not tribalism, china violates human rights and freedoms to a much greater degree than the usa

simple fact, that if you don't understand or agree to, i really have to wonder at your mental faculties or motivations

Re:i always complain about false equivalency

[Hatta]

Why is that controversial? Shouldn't it be entirely expected? I'm more surprised that the US army doesn't* have training sims that include a Chinese adversary.

*Do they? I know they have terrorist simulators, they ought to have commie simulators too. Same for central american drug lords, middle eastern oil barons, and anyone else the US is likely to go up against.

Re:i always complain about false equivalency

[circletimessquare]

"I don't really understand what you're trying to say here - are you suggesting that human rights violations in the West are beyond comparison with what happens in China?"

yes, that is exactly what i am saying

"I can think of several specific incidents ( Gitmo, Iraq , Panama, Vietnam, Pakistan ) of Western powers shitting all over the human rights when it suits them to do so."

yes, the usa did these things, and they are evil, and the usa deserves to be criticized for that. and i am also saying that what china does is far, far worse. based not on empty tribal chest thumping nationalism, but based on a sound understanding of the actual principles in play here

"In fact, I would say that even suggesting that it is a false equivalency just shows your ignorance of history."

no, i think a good grasp of history would put a proper amount of proportionality between waterboarding terrorist assholes whose duty in life is blowing up civilians, and jailing your own citizens for 10 years hard labor just because they had the audacity to ask for the same dignity and human rights afforded in western countries

waterboarding terrorists: wrong and evil. 10 years hard labor for asking for democracy: much, much more evil

Re:i always complain about false equivalency

[heathen_01]

The games are not about physicall training but mental training. Soldiers who won't shoot the enemy are not very useful soldiers.

Re:i always complain about false equivalency

[circletimessquare]

thanks, i would take your advice, if i weren't arguing with genuine passion

Re:i always complain about false equivalency

[icebraining]

I have around eight years of Call of Duty training by now, but I'm pretty sure I'd be unable to shoot anyone else any more than I would if I didn't had that training.

Re:i always complain about false equivalency

[amicusNYCL]

There's no reason that should be controversial. The US fields the most advanced military in the world. It makes sense for any country, even our allies like Britain and France, to run simulations featuring an opponent army that is advanced as it can be. Right now, that's us. It doesn't seem like we're in the game for ideological reasons, it seems like we're there for technical reasons. It would even make sense if we base our own simulations on an enemy with similar capabilities. If you train for the worst possibility, then you should be able to handle anything less.

Re:i always complain about false equivalency

[EnglishTim]

no, i think a good grasp of history would put a proper amount of proportionality between waterboarding terrorist assholes whose duty in life is blowing up civilians

You say they're terrorists, but out of 775 people taken to Guantanamo since October 2001, only three have ever been convicted of any crime. A lot of them just seem to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Many of them seem to have just been held because they had useful intelligence, not because they did anything wrong. Some of them were children.

Some of those being held will have just been defending their country from a foreign occupation force.
Some will have fought just because they or their families would have been in danger from the Taliban if they hadn't.
Some will have just desperately needed some money.

Now sure, the scale level of human rights violations in China is much higher than in the US, but let's not pretend that Guantanamo isn't super fucking shitty and not something to be ashamed of.

Re:i always complain about false equivalency

[gman003]

Apparently, I neglected the "knowing" half of the battle.

Re:i always complain about false equivalency

[repapetilto]

I follow and agree with you (actually 100%), but still... what makes you think those principles you have aren't determined by your own self interest? Like do you actually live consistently by them? I'm thinking about Kholbergs moral hierarchy here.

Re:i always complain about false equivalency

[repapetilto]

Haha, there's a wargames gap

Ohhh no the Chinese can beat us in CoD!

[Uhhhh oh ya!]

If China wants their soldiers to be better at video games who are we to stop them. Now our soldiers will take them on with actual battlefield training and us here on /. will beat them on the video game front.

On a serious note, I seem to remember not to long ago when I was playing call of duty and it had me mowing down a bunch of civilians. I don't think we should be should be wagging the finger at China.

Re:Ohhh no the Chinese can beat us in CoD!

[Opportunist]

Depends. If there's any way to farm gold in the game, I doubt you'll outgun a Chinese.

Battlefield 1942 - Battlefield 3

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure that since Battlefield 1942, if I didn't get on the US team, my targets were US troops...

How the fuck is this news?

Re:Battlefield 1942 - Battlefield 3

[MysteriousPreacher]

Any article summary that links to the Daily Mail as a source of news is automatically excluded from being anything worthwhile. Roblimo wants us to fear the yellow peril, and the Daily Mail can always be relied upon to deliver the best irrational and confused fear money can buy. I look forward to a future article citing Conservapedia as its source

Re:Battlefield 1942 - Battlefield 3

[Kittenman]

In the Mel Gibson version, the US were mowing down British troops.

(Thank you - I'm here 'til Thursday)

Re:Not to be anal

[spire3661]

A shoot'em up can be any high action entertainment with lots of shooting. They were calling movies 'shoot em ups' long before shmup video games (which i believe would be the right term.) A schmup can only be a video game but a shoot em up can be any type of video entertainment that shoots alot. In this case the wikipedia article is a bit narrow.

Re:So what

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm from the U.S. and I think it's fine when we do it. I also think it's fine when they do it.

In other words, who gives a shit?

Re:So what?

[GPLHost-Thomas]

You should rephrase: are Americans scared to face the reality, which is most people on earth think they are the evil? Look in the last 60 years, and see who's fought the most wars, corrupted so many regimes, and the entire world economy, and you have the big picture. When I was a kid, the USA imperialism was even one of the topic I had to discuss to graduate from high school.
DISCLAIMER: I make a distinction between governments and populations.

The Difference Is Government Funding

[Huckabees]

Games like Homefront or other similar games that has a sort of "USA vs them" feel to it is not an appropriate comparison for the game discussed by the article. These games are designed, developed, sold, and used independently of the US government.

The better comparison would be to America's Army per the article's suggestion. In these games the enemy combatants are generic pseudo middle eastern/central asian insurgents and terror groups. People who are universally decided by security council nations and most of the world to be "the bad guys". You aren't able to fight virtual simulations of a real life standing army as these articles suggest a facilitate of the US army is depicted.

Naturally this is going on the article's suggestion as I have not played or watched extensive footage of the game in question.

That is how the Chinese view us.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just a game people - time to teach the imperial dogs a lesson! ;)

Yes, the Chinese people do believe that we're imperialists - and I can't really blame them. We do, after all, have military bases all over the World, two wars and military support in the Middle East, control of NATO, and pretty much a military that rivals several countries put together.

Re:Will this be available on Steam?

[gman003]

I always enjoyed playing as Chinese in BF2. "Midnight Sun" map, usually, invading Alaska. Very interesting experience.

Part of it actually made me think. The visuals for the different locations are so wildly different (the good China maps actually feel like China, the good American maps feel like America, the good MEC maps feel like the Middle East). I can't shake the feeling that I'm in a new world, of sorts. Add in (talking an actual invasion now) the interaction with civilians, the learning about the new place, and I suspect that any Chinese army that invaded the US would return home and bring a lot of American ideas with them. Hell, that might even be how the revolution starts. So even if big bad evil China wins, they won't stay big bad and evil for long.

It's a somewhat reassuring thought.

Bad summary: No US troops, only a drill

[NekoYasha]

The game is named Glorious Mission, or sometimes Mission of Honor, not Glorious Revolution, and the plot follows a soldier's life through military camp and cumulates in the eponymous large-scale drill, as reported by China Daily. No US Troops anywhere.

It also supports 32 person multiplayer. You can watch footages of the game on YouTube here.

Re:Bad summary: No US troops, only a drill

[_anomaly_]

...cumulates in the eponymous large-scale drill...

I believe the word you're looking for is culminate.

Re:Bad summary: No US troops, only a drill

[vampire_baozi]

The game is Guangrong Shiming, which is better translated as "Glorious Destiny".

I can see their point about American soldiers, since the footage from 0:25-0;29 in the Youtube video looks alot like American soldiers in desert fatigues (made famous by Iraq/Afghanistan). If it's a training mission, it's pretty realistic, since you can see blood flying out from the headshot.

Damn, I really wanna play. Good thing I'm going back to China for two years next month.

Re:Bad summary: No US troops, only a drill

[NekoYasha]

Yeah, Glorious Destiny would be a more accurate translation.

Re:Bad summary: No US troops, only a drill

[shutdown -p now]

the footage from 0:25-0;29 in the Youtube video looks alot like American soldiers in desert fatigues (made famous by Iraq/Afghanistan).

All I see are figures in what looks like desert camouflage. Of course, any army that can potentially be involved in combat in desert areas has such camouflage.

It seems that they have been careful not placing any flags or other insignia that would clearly identify OPFOR as Americans, even if camo and weapons are similar or identical. That's not much different from America's Army.

Download?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the free download link?

If it's not free and FOSS, it's COMMUNISM.

The US videogame industry will be outsourced

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Its coming folks. Some companies are already buying game assets from China.

The biggest problem for our country is not that China has a videogame with US targets, but that China itself is out to destroy our economy.... and we willfully help them do it.

So lets keep selling ourselves out boys!

Re:The US videogame industry will be outsourced

[GameboyRMH]

Good username/post combo.

Battlefield 2: china, vs US, vs "arabs"

[SuperBanana]

I'm not surprised either. EA's Battlefield 2 featured soldiers who were very obviously Chinese and generic "arab".

Re:Battlefield 2: china, vs US, vs "arabs"

[egamma]

I'm not surprised either. EA's Battlefield 2 featured soldiers who were very obviously Chinese and generic "arab".

Are you sure they are Chinese, and not Japanese/Korean/Vietnamese/Thai?

Re:Battlefield 2: china, vs US, vs "arabs"

[shutdown -p now]

The faction is explicitly called "PLA" in the game, they use Chinese weapons and vehicles, and carry the flag of PRC.

We can learn something from history...

[Johnny Mnemonic]

From TFA:

"Admiral Patrick Walsh said Washington is seeking to improve its relationship with the Chiese military, and an officer exchange program would provide a better understanding of Chinese culture, goals and thoughts".

The Native Americans tried the same approach. The US Gov't was happy to let them think that there was some chance at reconciliation as it simply made killing them all a lot easier.
br China won't be so foolish as to Pearl Harbor us. We can't wait for that kind of defining event. We need to treat this like another Cold War, or we will be speaking Chinese in 50 years.

Re:We can learn something from history...

[Quiet_Desperation]

or we will be speaking Chinese in 50 years.

We need to make a new Godwin-style rule for this. Any discussion of China has a 1.0 probability of us speaking Chinese in XX years.

Except Destro

[Anonymous Coward]

was actually Scottish, and Cobra Commander, well, turns out he was an evil snake man from the land that time forgot.

Most important question:

[DF5JT]

Does it run on Linux?

What is this meant to teach?

[gknoy]

I don't see the player taking cover very often -- how will this teach people to be effective soldiers? Is it just meant to be a propaganda piece (like the America's Army game was)?

Re:What is this meant to teach?

[Eulogistics]

That's the most entertaining part for me: Video games like this can't really instill soldier skills and they can't prepare you for the ridiculous noise and confusion of any battlefield. I speak as a veteran: you can play as much Call of Duty as you want, but you won't be ready the first time you get knocked on your ass from the pressure wave of an explosion. Doesn't matter to me what's going on with this. If the chinese are not using this as a training tool, then they can have their video games; Call of Duty sucks anyway. If they ARE using it as a training tool, the more fool them.

Re:Missing the point....

[Opportunist]

You mean like, say, America's Army?

Counter-Strike

[LoudMusic]

Yes, and in games produced by US citizens I can play as a terrorist where I can shoot hostages and SWAT officers.

Though, I do have a somewhat difficult time referring to software that mimics the and glorifies the act of killing humans as a game. It's just easier than coming up with a new term, and it's not quite a simulator.

Always troublesome, too many single males

[Shivetya]

China has a significant imbalance in its female to male population. Which is a source of unrest. So their government will need to keep them busy, distracted, etc.

Now this would be more troublesome to local adversaries than remote ones, simply because moving that many men is a logistical nightmare. So I would think that should they need to be aggressive Taiwan is toast of course quickly followed by Korea. Will they? Not while they have relatively stable finances, but if it implodes like a house of cards that some suspect they will need an outside bogeyman to keep those in power safe.

Re:Always troublesome, too many single males

[SuricouRaven]

China has more serious things for people to be unrestful about, but it also has a government that excels in oppression. It's of a level so skilled that the people can actually feel *happy* in the oppression, and believe it's for their own good. True masters of propaganda and indoctrination.

Re:Missing the point....

[_0xd0ad]

I wasn't aware that the OPFOR of AA were of any particular nationality; they had generic camouflaged uniforms which didn't bear any national flag insignia. At least, they did when I played it. Did you play the version where you're fighting Chinese soldiers?

Re:Not to be anal

[Stormwatch]

Nonsense. This is the traditional, historical, well-established definition: a "heir of Space Invaders" is a shoot 'em up, or shmup, or simply a shooter; while a "heir of Wolfenstein 3D" is a first person shooter, and absolutely not simply a shooter.

Re:Missing the point....

[Opportunist]

What's in a texture...

WAR!

[Smigh]

What? The Chinese made a virtual combat simulation? I guess this means war!

No I didn't...

[pla]

Thanks for the writeup, guys, but really, I have nothing to do with this.

More of an RPG and puzzle game fan, anyway.

Re:No I didn't...

[blair1q]

If you were Viet Namese you could be nam-pla.

Re:Missing the point....

[_0xd0ad]

Oh, I dunno, what's the difference between burning a white bedsheet and burning a piece of red, white and blue fabric that looks exactly like a US flag?

Don't forget...

[MrEricSir]

...we're also one of their largest investments.

And it should be noted

[Sycraft-fu]

The US Army HAS created a game. It is called America's Army and is free for all to play. You play as US forces, of course. So who is the enemy OPFOR, basically the generic professional opposing force the Army itself has. Whatever side you play on always appears as US Army, the other side always appears as OPFOR. No country is the "bad guys" in their game.

The Army game doesn't make a political statement, and indeed is based off of the Army's own training idea and methods.

Re:And it should be noted

[blair1q]

If we were friendly with everyone but the Chinese, you can bet those OPFORs would be yellow-skinned.

Re:And it should be noted

[x6060]

It stands for Opposing Force. Its a term used in the military to designate a non-descript force that is opposing the soldiers.

Re:And it should be noted

[shutdown -p now]

So who is the enemy OPFOR, basically the generic professional opposing force the Army itself has. Whatever side you play on always appears as US Army, the other side always appears as OPFOR. No country is the "bad guys" in their game.

Wouldn't that make it look extremely silly, since what weapons you see the "OPFOR" using, and what weapons they see themselves as using, does not match?

The Army game doesn't make a political statement, and indeed is based off of the Army's own training idea and methods.

Using US as an enemy in a computer game is no more a political statement than similar use in several dozen games produced by Western gaming companies. It's not done to somehow highlight the evilness of the opponent. It's just the game is supposed to be interesting, and for that you need an opponent that roughly matches your strength (unless you want to make a "shooting fish in the barrel" type of game, such as CoD4 or DF:BHD). The only such opponent that China could possibly - even if very, very unlikely - face in present geopolitical situation is US. That this particular game was commissioned by Chinese army does not make it fundamentally different.

In any case, the more interesting question is, what is the storyline of the game? I somehow doubt it's about the Chinese invasion of US, or even of Taiwan... more likely some hypothetical scenario where they are defending the mainlain from US invasion.

Re:And it should be noted

[AK Marc]

Wouldn't that make it look extremely silly, since what weapons you see the "OPFOR" using, and what weapons they see themselves as using, does not match?

They see themselves using an M-16. You see them using an AK-47. They see you using an AK-47. You see yourself using an M-16. The damage from each is similar enough that in a video game (even a very realistic simulation) you wouldn't be able to tell the wounds apart. So I don't see what the problem is.

Re:And it should be noted

[shutdown -p now]

They see themselves using an M-16. You see them using an AK-47. They see you using an AK-47. You see yourself using an M-16. The damage from each is similar enough that in a video game (even a very realistic simulation) you wouldn't be able to tell the wounds apart. So I don't see what the problem is.

There's much more than just damage that characterizes the weapon.

So long as we stick to caliber itself, there is e.g. effective range, and flatness of bullet trajectory - for which there is a significant difference between the two. Then there are armor-piercing capabilities, also different.

More importantly, the weapons are obviously different in the simple fact that AKM has full auto, while any widespread variety of M16 does not - that would be kinda tricky to reconcile (or does the game actually use M4)? Then there's rate of fire - a 20% difference. Base accuracy difference is very significant, even after accounting for trajectory earlier. Reload time should presumably be a fair bit less for M16.

Finally, there's the weight of the loadout - either those armed with AKM should be more burdened (and hence be slower), or else they should get fewer magazines.

Re:And it should be noted

[AK Marc]

Finally, there's the weight of the loadout - either those armed with AKM should be more burdened (and hence be slower), or else they should get fewer magazines.

Let me make it clear for you. Everyone gets US armament. Everyone believes they have an M-16 (or whatever US armament they are given). They use it as such and have the restrictions as such. The "enemy" actually has the same thing you have. However, the pixels as delivered on your screen show them to be in enemy uniform or civilian clothes. The pixels as delivered on your screen show them with enemy weaponry.

The general layout of America's Army that I've played have been more close-in combat. The flatness of the bullet trajectory, the effective range, and armor piercing capabilities of each are irrelevant when in a scenario with the distances limited to well under the maximum range of the worst weapon, and you aren't wearing body armor capable of stopping a bullet from either (and the walls are infinitely strong and the trajectory is unrealistically flat, as often happens in games, even realistic ones).

You aren't going to be examining the reload time of the enemy, nor questioning why they are firing single shots against you when they could be doing auto (auto being a really bad choice, especially in weapons which, as you point out, have a higher weight of the loadout).

Perhaps you just need to play the game, it is free after all, so that you can see how they do it. I'd bet that if you didn't know everyone had the same uniform and weapon before you started playing, you'd never guess it. If you still don't believe me, then play the game and report your findings.

No they can't

[Sycraft-fu]

The people who act like that are just people who don't understand the world economy. They see it on a narrow, personal, level and think it is like a loanshark situation: China gave the US money and can call it due any time. That is wrong, what actually happened is China chose to invest in US securities and bought them. They pay defined rates at defined times and there is no ability to "call in the loan."

Also important to understand is that US securities pay in US dollars. So if the government chooses to inflate their way out of it, you are SOL. A note pays a fixed dollar amount and unless it is a TIPS or inflation protected one, and long term bonds are not, then it isn't paid in adjusted dollars. If you have a note that pays $1 million then that's what you get, doesn't matter if that $1 million has 1% of the buying power as when you purchased the note. Means there's a reason for holders of these to not want the US economy to tank.

Now what China could do it sell the securities on the open market. While the government doesn't pay the balance on a note until it is due, you can sell it to other investors. Ok, but if they unloaded all their securities at once, it would cause a massive price depression which would mean a massive loss of money for China. If they tried to unload securities with a face value totaling a trillion, but could only get people to pay ten billion because of oversupply and people being worried, they'd take a massive financial hit.

There's more to this (like the fact that default is an option for the US, or that the notes are all just accounting entries managed by the treasury, not physical notes) but what it comes down to is it is not a situation of "They loaned a lot of money and can hold it over your head." It is rather a situation of "They have invested a ton of money in your securities and need those securities to do well so they don't lose their investment."

Re:No they can't

[MaroonMotor]

I agree with what you said above, but would like to add an caveat. Taking an economic hit for fucking with the US would not necessarily be a deterrent for China. If dumping US securities causes them a trillion dollar worth of loss, China might consider it preferable and cheaper than an actual shooting war. Specially so as it might result in a chastised US and not an gutted one, which really is in Chinese interest.

And China can as well squeeze the US by refusing to buy any more of their securities - hard for the US to go to war or default for that one.

The ideal outcome from a Chinese perspective is a "managed decline" of the US, one that quietly fizzles out like the British Empire than pops like the FSU. Less economic impact and hardship all around, while China smoothly moves into the drivers seat.

The real danger in this situation is of US lashing out in a bid to retain its waning power. US might well get into the situation that Imperial Japan found itself in 1941, with a narrow window of opportunity for military action as a hail-Mary pass at retain global dominance. If they don't act before China gets too far ahead then they might just have to sit and take it.

Re:No they can't

[jjp9999]

Well said.

Re:No they can't

[bfields]

Ok, but if they unloaded all their securities at once, it would cause a massive price depression

Would it? We talk as if China held most of the US's debt, but of course they don't (about 10% if http://www.businessinsider.com/who-does-the-us-owe-its-debt-to-2011-4 is right), so the market for the securities is huge, and why wouldn't more buyers suddenly take interest if the price dropped a little?

Well, of course it's a bit of a ridiculous scenario to start off with anyway.

Re:No they can't

[hairyfeet]

The thing is, I honestly think if we do go for the Hail Mary "Lets act like the Germans when they had that crazy Austrian!" asshole route, I don't think it'll be over anything the Chinese will give a shit about. On the contrary if both sides played their cards right they'd both come out ahead, and maybe even get our old former rivals Russia in on the deal.

How would that work? simple, if we decide to go crazy Austrian (which if our economy tanks ala Germany 33 IS a possibility. you don't think those in power will just quietly go away like Mubarak, do you?) then the two powers we will need to take out of the equation will be China and Russia, as we sure as fuck don't want to deal with the Red Army or the PLA mucking up the works. but how without going WWIII?

Simple we give them what they want and give both Russia and China a 'happy ending". Russia has never liked having an open western flank, and you can tell old Putin is a classic red, so we say 'hey friend, you know that whole Eastern Europe thing? Have fun!" and at the same time that will scare the crap out of the Germans by having the old USSR looking to spread its wings again. as for China? they want Africa, and they want it bad. Who can blame them? lots of resources, crappy armies, it would be a cakewalk for China if the USA and Russia STFU so we say "Hey our eastern friends, you know Africa? have fun!" if they balk we can throw in Taiwan, like we would care about them if our economy is in the shitter.

So what do we get? The "United Continent of America" of course! you know how much raw resources are south of the border? We just get our good friends the canucks to crank up the oil sands to feed the M1s (which I'm sure they'd do to keep us from looking in THEIR direction) and away we go! Hell we even have pre made bogeymen in the narcoterrorists and Chavez, it would be an easy sell to the American public. A couple of jingos, lots of flag waving, easy sell.

Who would stand up to a new tripartite consisting of USA, USSR, and China? Britain? Wolf packs showed how to fix THAT little problem. The French? Italy? Please. And Germany will be too busy watching their flank and trying to control the EU to give a shit. As an added bonus we could work out a "mid east security deal" between the three of us that would STFU anybody that would dare say shit in that region.

So I think if we have a Germany 32 style money collapse the Chinese won't be having to worry about us, too damned far and too much work, especially when they are so easy to make deals with. No it is the poor bastards south of the border that should be watching for the falling bombs. Hell we already have enough hatred of Mexicans that turning South Americans into the bogey man would be a piece of cake. but anybody that thinks the USA would go silently into the sunset is just nuts. We have too many weapons and too much pride to go down easy. if the shit hits the fan it WILL be nasty.

Re:No they can't

[Sir_Sri]

Many people are still thinking like the US dollar is on the gold standard. When it was you could demand gold for cash, essentially instantly. In this case the French and the Swiss threatened Nixon with calling in US debt in gold (which the US didn't have enough of), in effect forcing the US out of bretton woods and into the current state of affairs. In this case calling in debt, or calling in debt in gold were not much different in practice.

Gold as a money reserve worked for a while, and managed a certain price stability. But now that currency is based on both the value of a countries entire assets (which is decidedly better than just gold) and the inherent trust in the government to not radically debase a currency (decidedly worse than gold, since well, governments are corrupt and incompetent), the rules are different. I means you have to hold Euros/dollars/pounds/etc. instead of gold certificates, and there's no point in sitting on cash when you can buy securities.

IMO people can be somewhat forgiven for being biased by events 40 years ago to some degree. While the world has moved on, perceptions tend to lag realities. (How many people still think the US has only 300 million people after all...)

Re:No they can't

[dudeman500]

However, if the US needs to rollover its debt and the rest of the world insists on the debt being denominated as a mixed bag of currencies then in future it will not be able to get away with devaluing its currency. As soon as the USD is no longer the reserve currency there will be issues.

Re:No they can't

[AK Marc]

Ok, but if they unloaded all their securities at once, it would cause a massive price depression which would mean a massive loss of money for China. If they tried to unload securities with a face value totaling a trillion, but could only get people to pay ten billion because of oversupply and people being worried, they'd take a massive financial hit.

But what would the effect on the US be? If you, as a European investor, saw the US offering $1,100,000,000 for $1,000,000,000, and China offering $10,000,000,000 for $1,000,000,000, which would you choose? Or would you invest your money elsewhere because you were uncertain about the future of that security in general because of China's involvement? And, if investors shy away from T-bills, or put their money into the Chinese versions for a bargain rather than sending the cash to the US, then how will the US get cash to run the government?

If China put their T-bills on the open market at a discount, that has the same practical effect as calling in the loan. They'd lose money, sure. But the US government would be unable to operate. They'd be forced to print money to pay people. And once that started, it would end like Zimbabwe unless the international community stepped in.

I'm not denying that China would take a hit as well. But the can effectively call in the loan by offering the securities they hold at a discount. And that effect would likely be the collapse of the USD. And, given the large number of people here who assert China is an enemy, I'm curious how incompetent the US government needs to be to allow that situation to have developed (or, that most slashdotters are wrong on most topics, or, more likely, both).

Re:No they can't

[Splab]

I like how you claim we know nothing about economics and then go on to claim you can just inflate yourself out of it - how exactly do you propose to feed 300 million people? The US isn't self sustaining, causing major inflation will weaken the dollar (obviously) and make import impossible...

And if you think the Chinese can't use the loans against you you are forgetting history - the British Empire toppled on the exactly same situation, an "ally" didn't agree with what they where doing and forced their hand under threats of economic sanctions.

Re:No they can't

[uninformedLuddite]

if you think this systems bad just wait till its backed with carbon

Remember Anchorage!

[Quiet_Desperation]

If they try to invade Alaska again, my level Fallout character has a a whole chest full of alien blasters and Nuka-grenades!

Re:Remember Anchorage!

[Mindcontrolled]

Meh, alien blasters. Those are positively UNAMERICAN. Take the true Fallout approach - Duster, Sherrif's hat and a six-shooter! Your ideological purity leaves something to be desired, citizen.

Re:Not to be anal

[spire3661]

Either way the term is not exclusive to one sub-genre of game types, which was the true point i was trying to make. 'Schmup' is the video game exclusive term, 'Shoot em up' enjoys wider use.

Interface "America's Army" - "Glorious Revolution

[blanchae]

Now this would be a good open source project! A virtual war - America's Army on one side and Glorious Revolution on the other side and if you don't belong to either country, you get to select which country you want to fight on. Wahoo!

Cover! We don't need no stinking cover!

[Quiet_Desperation]

The glorious People's Army does **NOT** take cover!!1!!2! They charge! And charge! and charge again until the dishonorable barbarian enemy lies trampled with lamentations and impotent penises!

Cover taking is for weak, pampered Western pig dogs with their silly chain saw guns and thermal clips.

Re:So what?

[Requiem18th]

Indeed, whoever thinks the US (government) is always on the right side should have a talk with any Latinamerican historian.

Re:China Nonsense

[tnk1]

There is nothing outsized about the US military at all. It just happens to be the military that represents the world's largest economy and it's premiere superpower. Note that:

1. As a percentage of the US GDP, the US Military budget is in the single digits and much smaller in proportion to dozens of other countries. It must be remembered that the US GDP is massive. There is nothing out-of-proportion about the US military in relation to the size of its economy.
2. The percentage of the US population that is militarized is significantly smaller than other countries as well. While the US military is big, the US also has a population of 300 million people. There are countries that have significantly higher proportions of their population in the military. The US also no longer makes use of conscripts like many other countries do. The draft still exists, but its unlikely to be used except in the case of WWIII.
3. The US maintains its forces around the world in various places in agreement with the various countries that are hosting US installations. It's silly to pretend there is nothing in it for the US in these arrangements, but it is similarly silly to believe that the local governments derive no value from it either.

Should people fear the US military? They'd be stupid not to, especially if they oppose US policies. That doesn't mean that the US is some sort of hypermilitarized state. It just means that the US military is qualitatively better than any other force on Earth today due to superior equipment, training and motivation. What it is not, however, is the dominant influence in the US.

As for China, China cannot call in their debt, as it is structured, not on-demand. They cannot foreclose on the US government. There are some things that China could do, but the fact is that such a thing would bury them as fast as it would bury us. Indeed, we probably have more actual options than China does, including significant currency inflation or outright default, both of which means China would be holding billions in worthless paper and they would instantly lose their largest trading partner leaving them with heavy industries that churn out cheap products that their own people cannot afford to buy. Make no mistake, China may be doing well, but they are still playing our game.

Re:China Nonsense

[Quiet_Desperation]

If China wants to bury us all they have to do is call in the loans that finances 40% of our national budget each year, or simply stop loaning us money.

And no one would ever trust China as a creditor again. Bad move.

Besides, treasury bonds are not callable. They could trade them with other countries, I guess.

Re:Missing the point....

[Mindcontrolled]

None? Never really got that American obsession with the "sanctity" of the flag.

Re:Missing the point....

[_0xd0ad]

If it's a white bedsheet, it's kind of hard to tell who should be offended. Well, unless you're French.

Re:Missing the point....

[Mindcontrolled]

Hmm. Haven't thought of that angle...

Re:Missing the point....

[Opportunist]

The color might be made of chemicals that set off toxic fumes when burning.

The next step

[Walt Dismal]

I'd hate to see anyone develop an FPS with bank and oil company execs as the targets. That would be so wrong. Bankster gibs all over the place; oil exec, headshot, horrible. Just horrible. [cough]

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

ESRB

[thestudio_bob]

I wonder what the ESRB rating is, mom won't buy me violent games. She's such a commie.

Go home Yankee dog!

[Paracelcus]

Running dogs of capitalistic imperialist lackey aggressors against the glorious peoples revolutionary freedom fighters!

We win evely time you buy cheep sneakaa!
You go War Malt, we belly you cheep stuff!
You balo munny flum us we charge rotsa intlest!
We smataa than you!

Other interpretation of PLA

[snsh]

The headline takes on a totally different meaning if you read "PLA" as "NASDAQ:PLA", the symbol for Playboy Enterprises stock.

Business as Usual

[jjp9999]

We should expect this from the Chinese regime. Reminds me of when Lang Lang played a song praising the killing of US troops at the White House when the Chinese leader was in town. If you read Chinese military doctrine also, it's loaded with plans on how they can try to fight the U.S. - one of the better known reports was "Unrestricted Warfare" written by two Chinese colonels. The thing is that most of their strategy is based around unconventional warfare - using espionage to undercut foreign businesses like they were doing with Operation Night Dragon, using propaganda and soft power in what they call "the Three Warfares," and using cyberwarfare in what they refer to as "non-contact warfare." http://joshuaphilipp.com/2011/05/china-fights-a-war-without-firing-a-gun/ Hopefully this latest game will serve as a wake-up call.

Because we're the best

[Urza9814]

Maybe they just wanted to make it realistic and exciting? I mean let's face it, the US is the most exciting and realistic enemy they could put in there. Because we're the best. We have the strongest military in the world. We're also quite willing to use it. All the time. What, are they going to have themselves attacking the Swiss? For a good military game you need a strong and war-oriented opponent. To keep it realistic, they really have to use the US. Short of some kind of massive atrocity, the only nation that's going to war with China (and isn't getting flattened) is the USA. It was either that or terrorist groups. But it's China. Of course they're going to go with a structured enemy. Terrorists are too decentralized.

Re:Because we're the best

[beckett]

Agreed. Apache Helos and Abrams tanks look wicked cool, the designs are glorified in Hollywood movies, and an untold number of military fanboys have posted enough high res specs, diagrams and photos making modelling a piece of cake. the US military budget is six times larger then China's, and NATO is 2/3 of the entire world's military budget. Everyone has F16s, hummers, stingers, hellfires, etc. becuase the US is the world's biggest arms dealer. the US operates military bases all around the world. The PLA designers would have been idiotic to ignore such low hanging fruit.

Some of the responses to this article tell us more about the myth of American exceptionalism than it does the PLA's politics.

USA

[G00F]

U.S.A. government, http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000033404&year=2009

Or we can look up BSA or other "not for profit" orgs they use to buy the government with.

Re:Great game but...

[GameboyRMH]

You need to use the Pretzel launcher.

Not in our name

[Max_W]

We often attribute erroneously to a country characteristics as if it was one person. But it is not. In a country there are different people, there are social conflicts. It is not something homogenous.

I am sure in China there are a lot of people who would not kill American people, but would rather try to save them if a necessity arisen.

In Nazi Germany there were people who hated the fascism. German antifascists informed Red Army leadership about the exact location of the main attack on Moscow in 1941. Marshal Zhukov himself mentioned it in his video interview. He gambled on this information and won.

So, some people in China made this video game, but I am sure from all Chinese people would approve shooting Americans.

Re:Not in our name

[Max_W]

far from all

Re:Missing the point....

[_0xd0ad]

More likely that's going to be caused by the stuff that makes it weatherproof.

Re:Well documented that PLA thinks US the enemy

[Maxo-Texas]

This AC is worth highligting...

They said..

The following book (written by university profs and heavily documented with references) contains numerous references to high ranking PLA officers referring to the US as the enemy, well at least in internal chinese language publications.
http://www.amazon.com/Death-China-Confronting-Dragon-Global/dp/0132180235

Re:Mod parent up as sufficiently dismissive of idi

[BatGnat]

The problem is that development is being funded by a national government.

So it is OK for a national government to kill people of middle eastern appearance in a game. Before you play the "but they are terrorists" card, remember, the middle east, and possibly China Consider America as the real terrorist's.

And are you saying that you would be fine if a company did it, and not the government.....I didn't think so.

Re:I''ve had enough of these barbarian chinks

[AntiBasic]

They identify them as Soviets or Nazis in American made games. The point is exterminate the ideology, not the people.

It really doesn't matter in a corporate plutocracy

[Burz]

The government (including the military) mainly exists to do the bidding of wealthy corporate interests, and those corporations habitually portray China as 'bad guys' within their media.

Not coincidentally the governments and media from all major and emerging powers from Brazil to China now routinely portray the US as a plutocracy, with the government as a junior partner to Wall Street.

The distinction as to whether the US govt or a US corp made an anti-China video game hardly matters.

Re:Missing the point....

[Opportunist]

So I guess I'll prefer the white sheet. Too much of that colored stuff is bad for your health.

Most idiots here deny that China is in Cold war...

[WindBourne]

But, we saw that back in the 50,60,70's, in which Americans thought that USSR was NOT out to destroy USA.

American, and actually western, leadership MUST CONSIDER WHAT THEY ARE DOING.
China is not here to be allies. They are here to conqueror via economic first and then military later.

Stupid argument

[WindBourne]

They do not care if they lost their entire investment in America. Not ONE BIT. The fact is, that they had no choice BUT TO BUY AMERICAN BONDS. WHy? Because they have been manipulating their money against the dollar. If they had not invested the dollars back into America, their money would suffer 1000's of % inflation. As it is, they are thought to be at 50% inflation and rising. But Chinese' leaders would gladly suffer 2000% inflation AND give up their investment, if they could destroy the west.

Reply to point 3.

[Lonewolf666]

The Chinese have some ICBMs too. Not as many as the US, but enough to do some nasty damage to the US. Unless you get all of those with the first strike, they can shoot back and make a more nasty backlash than some economic warfare.

Re:Reply to point 3.

[interkin3tic]

Well good, then hopefully fewer people will actually propose we do that. I was not endorsing either course of action, by the way.

Recognizing irony is key to transcending militaris

[Paul Fernhout]

AC wrote: "Exactly, the best excuse to refuse to honor treasuries while saving face is warfare and the Chinese know it. That's why they are investing in supersonic cruise missiles, generation 5 fighters, submarines, uavs, and anti-satelite warfare. If push comes to shove, they will need to neutralize our GPS, artillery, & air superiority. This is also why the US is working on SCRAM-jets & rail guns. You can bet we've spent most of the past 10 years surveying the ocean floor in the region so we can cut the fiber backbone & have an advantage with sonar. There will be nuclear subs parked off the coasts of both countries ready to launch a nuclear bombardment if the other side flinches. Glad I don't live in DC."

The concern about honoring treasuries is a non-issue, since as long as they are denominated in dollars the USA can just print the money. Still, "war is a racket", so you may well be right in the end, AC, but if so, it is too bad both the Chinese and the US Americans are both caught up in a deep irony. As I talk about here:
    http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
"Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?
  Nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmills or solar panels) to replace oil, or why not use rocketry to move into space by building space habitats for more land?
    Biological weapons like genetically-engineered plagues are ironic because they are about using advanced life-altering biotechnology to fight over which old-fashioned humans get to occupy the planet. Why not just use advanced biotech to let people pick their skin color, or to create living arkologies and agricultural abundance for everyone everywhere? ..."

If China can make realistic computer games,

[Paul Fernhout]

and all that implies about their technological capacity to use cheap computing to create endless new resources, than what are they worried about fight over? Naturally, I could, and have, said much the same about the USA:
  http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
"Likewise, even United States three-letter agencies like the NSA and the CIA, as well as their foreign counterparts, are becoming ironic institutions in many ways. Despite probably having more computing power per square foot than any other place in the world, they seem not to have thought much about the implications of all that computer power and organized information to transform the world into a place of abundance for all. Cheap computing makes possible just about cheap everything else, as does the ability to make better designs through shared computing. I discuss that at length here: http://www.pdfernhout.net/post-scarcity-princeton.html
    There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all. "

Re:Interface "America's Army" - "Glorious Revoluti

[shutdown -p now]

We'd need to add factions for Russians and for al-Qaeda (Caliphate?), and then everyone will be happy.

Or not, if both sides start to tweak parameters of their weaponry to give a little edge to their troops... ~

Point of View

[Nemo's Night Sky]

All this shows is that the United States is still seen as the world's last military superpower. What better way to motivate than to be presented with what is commonly believed to be the world's best fighters? It is *possible* that somebody had motives that many here keep assuming, but chinese people have a different thought process than people in the west. To them, this game probably isn't about indoctrinating hatred or dehumanizing the "enemy"!!! We are the ones who see these things lurking in the shadows at all times. In the end, it amazes me, that here on slashdot, posters can be so worked up whenever there is an article about how "Video Games Caused Columbine, Censorship Now!", defending the beliefe that games alone don't make people into killers. This is just China's attempt at America's Army, and they probably programmed textures of us because they were thinking about us as they copied our ideas. They imitate us and we ridicule them. Yes, it has been pointed out already that America's Army depicts the enemy as a nationless terrorists, but that still doesn't allow us slashdotters be hypocrites and claim video games are able to manipulate. (Unless you are only implying that it was the PLA's intent to manipulate with the game, regardless of rationality.)

Re:Not to be anal

[Stormwatch]

Schmup

Now that doesn't mean a thing.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was a kid, the USA imperialism was even one of the topic I had to discuss to graduate from high school.

The indoctrination apparently was both successful, and is holding. You are a tribute to the skill of your former overlords. I’m sure any evidence contrary to your indoctrination would be wasted. The truly sad part is you probably have no idea what actually happened to you.

Here is something for you to ponder: why did the US put itself on the line to fight to protect South Korea from the North Korean Communist invasion, and Taiwan from Communist Chinese invasion? There isn't any oil there, so by the popular theories among "progressives" shouldn't that mean that those actions should never have occurred?