Slashdot Mirror
72% of Xbox 360 Gamers Approve of "More Military Drone Strikes"
An anonymous reader writes "During the latest presidential debate, Xbox 360 owners were being polled live, as the debate was progressing, on a number of different questions, and asked to answer 'Yes,' 'No,' or 'Don't Know' using their gamepad. Out of these questions, one particular question produced a surprising result: Xbox 360 owners were asked 'Do you support more use of drone aircraft to attack suspected terrorists?' 20% answered this question with 'No'. 8% answered 'Don't know.' And a whopping 72% answered the question 'Yes.' This raises an interesting question in and of itself: Is the average Xbox 360 player at all aware that drone strikes in countries like Pakistan cause a serious number of civilian deaths on a regular basis? Or do Xbox 360 gamers live in a parallel, game-inspired universe, where a real world 'Drone Strike' is something seriously cool, just like it is cool to use it in popular games like Call of Duty? In other words, does playing simulated war games like COD on a game console on a daily basis, and enjoying these games, cause gamers to become blinkered to the at times seriously dire real world consequences of using military tactics like drone strikes for real?"
Or, perhaps they feel using a drone to make an attack, rather than risking American soldiers, is the better choice?
The more correct question is "Are civilian deaths lower from drone strikes than from conventional military action?"
What a horrible summary for one, and two, how the fuck is this news????
The gamers understand it's unrealistic to expect civilians not to get killed, and the best that you can really do in any war is to not go out of your way to kill them like the Nazi's did.
I am starting to suspect those players of being in favor of the use of violence in order to advance a political agenda. Should we send in drones to attack these suspected terrorists?
I watched all four debates on XBox Live.
Every single time a question came up like
Have you already decided who you want to vote for?
Definitely [ 80% ] No [ 15% ] Not Really [ 5% ]
Will you vote for Obama or Romney?
Obama [ 72% ] Romney [ 23%] Not Sure [ 5%]
It was like that on every question, every debate. SO that's the audience we're talking about.
Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
Regarding drone strikes on terrorists, we need to know what our other options are:
1. Let the terrorists live.
2. Send in a SEAL team to kidnap them.
3. Assassinate them by some other means.
Would these create more civilian deaths?
Is it worth taking civilian deaths on our side, through terrorism, to avoid civilians deaths on the other side?
Despite all the pretense of morality, voters are going to side with sending screaming death down upon these people if there's a chance that some of our people are going to get killed.
This is a loaded question. I'm quite anti-military but taken at face value I could answer this question with an honest yes. Do I support more use of drone attacks against suspected terrorists? Sure, if it prevents troops being deployed in a ground war. Absolutely, assuming they are actual terrorists.
At the surface it seems a positive thing, similar to less than lethal options for law enforcement. In practice though I expect that like less than lethal weaponry the positives will be used to justify increases and result in itchy tazer trigger finger syndrome. In practice I find it hard to trust the intelligence. In practice I can't ignore the civilian casualties.
Geezuz....no agenda in this "news" story. How about it's because gamers know the efficacy vs. collateral damage of drone strikes and accept the numbers? Genuis whoever approved this as a /. story. It's going to be the hottest topic of the day probably.
The whole "Video games make you violent" debate was squashed in the 90s. Lets leave it dead. I suggest that people who play xbox 360 are in general more pro military than most. I don't want to make a stereotype here, but we all know what the xbox stereotype is: a 16-24 year old "bro" who is libertarian, holds slightly sexist views, and is pro military. Maybe there is some truth in that stereotype.
Then it must be the popular opinion is wrong.
Drone attacks are not perfect. However it is better than having our soldiers in harms ways doing the attacks. Or would you prefer these terrorist organizations to flourish and grow and get better organized again?
The biggest question is the fear of the US dones creating more terrorist then we are killing? That is a tough call.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Most of these gamers are probably not too old to serve in the military, whether by draft or choice. Using more drones means they personally are much less likely to be in the line of fire. So, duh, 70% prefer that idea.
The question about "ignoring dire real world consequences" is a gross oversimplification.
I think if you talked to most of those who support drone strikes they probably see this as an alternative to sending flesh and blood troops to try and deal with the situation. Even sending a traditional plane puts a soldier in potential harm's way. To most people "Use drones instead, they are expendable" is an easy answer.
Most people are not going to weigh "are we hitting the right targets, have we caused collateral damage?" they are going to look at it as "Are we risking the lives of people who are on Our Side(TM, patent pending)"
I put on my robe and wizard hat..
Perhaps it just shows that the 360 users understand it would be better to sit in a bunker (or at home on the couch) where it's relatively more safe to send air attacks, regardless of who is hurt.
XBOX Live is pleased to offer a new real time, real world game, "Drone Strike." In an innovative and wonderful new partnership with the Pentagon and US Military, gamers will now be able to pilot real drones on real actual strikes, killing real actual people. The first game of its kind, now you can help your country by helping the Pentagon cut costs through outsourcing, and experience the thrill of remote controlled combat at the same time. Only $9.99 on XBOX Live.
Asking the "Do you support more use of drone aircraft to attack suspected terrorists?" against what was probably a large group of 15-22 year old males, is probably why the results are misleading. It's a loaded question. Of course they would respond with "yes". A better question would have been "Do you support taking military action, which may result in untold civilian murder, against alleged terrorists?, and if so, what is your banks routing number?" The results would surely have been more swayed towards no. An even better question would have been "In the event of a government sponsord asassination, which results in X deaths, who is to be held responsible for those X deaths, and if no evidence of malice is found on behalf of (X-Y) victims, what should the punishment of the government be?" There are way too many hidden variables in this type of question to take any valid results away from a poll like this.
Jack Thompson was right!
/ducks
They don't expect people to give insightful answers while sitting on a couch and holding a gamepad which was used to shoot people's heads off probably just an hour ago, do they? This, and probably just a dash of the good ol' American ignorance.
Do most of the Xbox poll questions come anywhere near other polling on each topic? If not, is their an observable leaning? Is that lean towards liberal views, conservative views, just plain 'Yes', or something else? Are they just way off in all sorts of random directions?
And once you've got all that covered, how does that 72% compare to polling on the same topic done by other polling methods?
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
How many military-esque games have civilians (particularly in multi-player mode)?
In any of the games I've played where drones etc were an option, it's just "your team" (good guys) and the "other team" (bad guys).
A drone strike/airstrike/satellite bombardment/etc only hurt military characters. Heck, on many settings you don't even get friendly-fire.
Is your average gamer going to know what a real drone strike is like? Probably not. Accompany the poll with some documentation + pictures of mangled civilians and see if what approval rate you get.
> drone strikes in countries like Pakistan cause a serious number of civilian deaths
And terrorists also cause a serious number of civilian deaths.
It is probably due to most of the 72% not being educated and basing their knowledge from video games. I am a gamer myself, and have play a lot of COD, but I disagree with any tactic that causes civilian casualties on a regular basis. Is it the fault of the games? I think not. I would hope that the 72% consists mainly of 14 year old kids who just think it's cool to call in a predator missile, and not voting adults that are clueless to real world consequences of such actions.
We will have an entire generation where all of their knowledge of the military comes from playing video games, and so their opinion of war, fighting, etc. is going to reflect that.
Most of these gamers are probably around 15 years old, and have no concept of what life is like outside of their own little bubble in their parents house. Their minds are not yet completely formed, and they probably don't watch the news all that much because news is boring to kids.
For the majority of them, their opinions will probably change somewhat as they get older.
That article doesn't even attempt to be objective.
Tl;Dr: Author believes drone strikes are wrong, that our government redefined the term militant so that drone strikes will statistically have less collateral damage. Also, Xbox users by inference are hawkish ignorant trigger happy gamers. Btw, turns out the Xbox polling number isn't so far off from the national polling number.
I'm not familiar with Xbox 360 games, but do many of them have friendly fire? Do the higher-level strategy war games (are there games like that, on consoles?) model civilian casualties? It might be that console gamers don't know drones can do collateral damage, but it also might be that they know that other forms of warfare have collateral damage too.
It's not like "replace the drones with B-29s loaded with incendiary bombs and send 'em to Tokyo" is a smarter alternative, and I'm pretty sure there were at least a hundred thousand Iraqi deaths in the 1991 war, where drones played essentially no important part. (2003 is less clear to me, someone else pipe in about that one.)
Most gamers are male that may have something to do with the support for a more aggressive action.
I bet close to 72% hit whatever button they normally use to acknowledge some popup in order to get to their game/netflix. I'm betting it was either A or X. Put "yes" on left button and you'll have vastly different results.
So a bunch of people who play near-photorealistic games of combat simulation, wherein rewards are meted out based on one's ability to kill brutally and/or efficiently, hold favorable views of their pastime's real-world analog?
Goodness me. I think I need to sit down.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Is it worth taking civilian deaths on our side, through terrorism, to avoid civilians deaths on the other side?
Civilians, by nature should be valued as equally as possible. Obviously, a state's military has a duty to their own citizens, but I think we should find a way to avoid civilian deaths on each side. It is not their fight. Their children didn't ask for this. As decent human beings, it is our duty to prevent harm to civilians on either side.
The only people in that poll are 360 users who choose to watch the debate on their XBox and not just over the regular broadcast. People who didn't want to be bothered by random questions during the debate ether didn't answer, or watched it on broadcast. The given response isn't that far out of line with the US Population ether, or at least the Republican population of the US like in this talking points memo poll where 74% approve of drone strikes. The summery is clearly written by an anti-military nut job who believes that their view is the one held by the majority when the truth is clearly pointing and laughing at them.
Makes me wonder: which answer was selected by default? Were the Yes/No answers equally randomized, or was "Yes" initially selected by default, and people just clicked "Ok" to get rid of the question?
Yeah, we should go back to fighting in jungles and plains, in trenches and holes....oh wait, then tons of farmers get raped, robbed, and killed...
Drone strikes just make sense in the type of fight we have today.
Ever asked a troop member what it is like? You can clear a building on the ground, move to the next, and the get attacked from the building you just cleared!!!
There is no friendly fire in COD, so drone strikes are super effective. If you could get killed by your team-mates with these, I think the numbers would skew the other way. if you pose the question "should we restrict sniper rifle usage to close range no-scope 360s" im guessing that you would get a resounding yes.
If you are sitting in a hide out with or travelling in a caravan with a known terrorist, are you truly a "civilian"?
Modify the game to show photos of actual war casualties, so every time you shoot someone in COD or BF you get a photo of a bullet mangled corpse, or if you use a UAV or other weapon you get real photos of blood and guts.
I'm amazed at how powerful television and video games can be as teaching tools, it's just a shame what we are teaching most of the time.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
72% of Xbox 360 Gamers are about 12 years old, full of raging hormones, and love yelling "YEAH MOTHERFUCKER I PWNZ J00" at their fellow gamers. What the heck would anyone expect from such a poll?
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
4. Determine the conditions that inspire people to become—or, more importantly, support—violent extremists who threaten us and our values, and mitigate or eliminate those conditions.
Most people have the good sense to support that option, especially in recognizing that those conditions themselves fundamentally threaten our values as well, if it's presented as an option. It's so far from the dominant discourse that we end up facing the false choice you've presented.
...when fighting guerilla tactics.
The USA (and allies) are fighting guerilla forces using a conventional army. They are not allowed to hide behind civilians, leave unattended bombs in the road or use children as unwitting suicide bombers. They have to be in plain sight and wear uniforms. There are no rules of engagement for the Taliban.
Although civilian casualties occur and it's a tragedy every time an innocent life is lost, the Taliban over report every drone strike as killing scores of innocent people regardless of whether that is true or not, because they know they desperately need to stop drone strikes. Every Taliban killed while attacking a foreign soldier can be martyred but not so when a foreign machine kills them first.
Slashdot commenters approve of the use of drone strikes over other options...
You would also have to ask the question how much does the potential for foreign civilian casualties matter when compared to the perceived lower risk to American military personnel.
How many were just trolling? It's not a new thing on the Internet.
Blowing up civilians is like, extra points right?!?
Is the average Xbox 360 player at all aware that drone strikes in countries like Pakistan cause a serious number of civilian deaths on a regular basis? Or do Xbox 360 gamers live in a parallel, game-inspired universe, where a real world 'Drone Strike' is something seriously cool, just like it is cool to use it in popular games like Call of Duty?
Or a bunch of people, a lot of them kids, gave some bullshit answer? Awesomely scientific survey there. Did they massage the numbers with four year out of date voting patterns like the big boy polling outfits?
Last poll I heard had a pretty significant majority of people (Gamer or not) in favor of drone strikes. The submitter is making a big deal out of the fact it's gamers, but in reality it's probably not that statistically different than what the majority of Americans think.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I remember an online discussion I had about the Collateral Murder video. This guy took the stance that the civilians killed shouldn't be in a war zone. When I tried to convey the idea that the war zone came to their homes by asking my counterpart to imagine Chinese helicopters circling his neighborhood shooting American civilians (in precisely these terms), he accused me of distorting the argument by bringing emotion into it.
Apparently empathy for people from a different part of the world is in short supply with some people. Especially online.
Truth be told, I'm as guilty of this as the next person. When I read about shooting sprees in the US, I don't really care beyond the sensational aspects. I should, but I don't.
Is it worth taking civilian deaths on our side, through terrorism, to avoid civilians deaths on the other side?
These civilian deaths are not 'on the other side'. They're innocent bystanders. Further, killing them is extremely unlikely to diminish terrorism; it's far more likely to encourage terrorism. It's not just immoral, it's also stupid.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Video game players like video game wars.
if you level a building with a drone or with an A-10 it does not matter if the building in question has "civilians" in it.
drones at least can be lost without needing rather long term (and expensive) build processes.
the ideal drone should be able to "redact" a single building and leave the surrounding buildings intact.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Just want to kill more fucking terrorists
This raises an interesting question in and of itself: Is the average Xbox 360 player at all aware that drone strikes in countries like Pakistan cause a serious number of civilian deaths on a regular basis?
So, as I understand it, your point of view (we should stop drone strikes) is the one and only valid opinion?
Because, as far as I can tell, everyone who disagrees with you is either: uninformed, stupid, or calloused?
Have you considered that, maybe, just maybe, there are educated people out there who happen to believe that the civilian casualties are worth saving the lives of our soldiers.
This post is a massively biased piece of shit. I'm not used to seeing things so clearly biased on Slashdot.
Polls like this are a waste of time. They are more a measure of media's impact than actual informed intent over issues.
This is where all attempts at direct democracies and most democracies fail. Democracy requires an educated and informed population. And media campaigns are usually have negative impacts on proper and balanced information.
Anyone with a brain knows that the US is engaged in wars of aggression
against countries which have NOT attacked the US, in order to secure
access to resources which are found in the countries which are under attack
by the US.
Support our troops ? Why ? Because they are serving our masters who
become ever more wealthy at our expense ?
What a joke it all is, and most of you are too god damned stupid to even
realize what is really going on.
This question shocked me. I was watching the debates on xbox because of the interactive polling feature. This question fell somewhere near a question on 'Do you support the use of military against US citizens suspected of being a terrorist'.... Right when this drone question came up i got flashbacks of terminators, skynet, and drones patrolling burnt out city streets. Normally I consider myself to be highly conservative and a hawk on pretty much all foreign policy issues but for this question i chose "No"... still feel weird about it because at least half of me is thinking damn right drones are pretty cool... the other half is warning me not to trust any of these assholes with a weapon that can be automated so easily.
...from jumping to conclusions.
"In other words, does playing simulated war games like COD on a game console on a daily basis, and enjoying these games, cause gamers to become blinkered to the at times seriously dire real world consequences of using military tactics like drone strikes for real?"
How does someones answer to the poll question directly relate to what game(s) they are playing? How does their enjoyment factor in?
"Well I didn't enjoy it when I played CoD, but I voted for more drone strikes, so that means I'm aware of the dire real world consequences of using drones."
Not sure why I bothered wasting my time responding to this troll's bait. That or they have no idea on how flawed their assertions are about the respondents based on an Xbox live poll response.
The option was to send in Master Chief
Maybe those who were playing XBox 360 during the presidential debate were pissed off at being interrupted while they were playing and just hit any answer to get the question to go away? My personal thought is anyone that was playing with XBox during the presidential debate hopefully isn't voting anyway, since they seem to show no interest in learning what the issues are much less what either candidate's stance is on those issues.
So 72% of gamers playing a video game hit A as fast as they could to make the poll disappear so they could get back to there game! Good news!
Than all other forms of combat. If we're going to kill terrrorists, there's no less civilian killing way to do it (currently).
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Someday soon it will be more dangerous to be a civilian and a solder.
Already is in some contries.
2010 US deaths in Afganistan: 499
2010 Afgan civilian deaths: 2777
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41084.pdf
You're missing some vital data.
1. Not everyone becomes an extremist, because there are other ways of expressing discontent or changing policy.
2. You assume they have no choice in the matter, and that our acts manipulate them directly.
This seems to be the type of permissiveness that rewards bad behavior and ignores good. If you're worried about bad things happening in politics, find the people who are doing good and get them into power.
By encouraging us to see the choice to become an extremist as normal, you are encouraging the devolution of politics into more conflict and terrorism.
it's a good thing that all combatants wear uniforms and can be asked after they were blown up if they were a threat, because you know if not, a government might just have to report them as civilians because well, they wouldn't harbor TOO many people that might not like the US, that'd be like asking to have your palace/estate/mcmansion raided by SEALS or something.
We are where we are because every civilian in the world has watched and allowed it to happen, right back to fighting the "cold war" in the region(and far beyond that, but im trying to be region specific).
Not saying i'm for randomly shooting up a building full of people because there are a few confirmed combatants in there either, but politics are a bitch, and if the tables were turned we (US citizens) would have to bear the responsibility of letting our government go so freaking nuts I'm sure.
Who cares what these assholes think?
You referring to the XBox gamers or the candidates? Or both?
All air strikes can cause civilian deaths. Doesn't matter if it is a pilot in jet, helicopter, or drone.
1 American pilot's life is worth more than hundreds of Pakistanis
They were watching a presidential debate, and their console offered an option to send in attack drones. They may not have paid sufficient attention to the subject of the proposed strikes ...
In the parallel poll, 100% of Duke Nukem players said using drones strikes on everything that moves is a good idea.
Is it worth taking civilian deaths on our side, through terrorism, to avoid civilians deaths on the other side?
The question that needs to be answer first is: Does killing people with drones reduce terrorism at all?
Let's assume that 10 % of people killed by drones are terrorists. (This is probably generous. The estimate from stanford is 2 %) Let's further assume that each person that is killed has 10 close relatives/friends.
Now if more than 1 % of those whose close relatives/friends are killed by done strikes are turned against the U.S. by that event, then drone attacks actually increase terrorism. This makes them a bad idea regardless of how little value you place on foreign civilian lives compared to American.
So the real question is: If a foreign nation invades your country (removing a previous leader that you probably didn't like) and that nation then sends a drone to kill your son, daugher, brother, father, mother, lover or best friend. How likely is that to make you start fighting them? Is the probablility higher than one percent?
o, as I understand it, your point of view (we should stop drone strikes) is the one and only valid opinion?
Because, as far as I can tell, everyone who disagrees with you is either: uninformed, stupid, or calloused?
Have you considered that, maybe, just maybe, there are educated people out there who happen to believe that the civilian casualties are worth saving the lives of our soldiers.
Um. . . I'm seeing a huge disconnect with your comment. You're not seeing a huge disconnect with your comment?
Perhaps you should replace the words, "Educated" with "Programmed" and "People" with "Sociopaths".
You used "gamers" and "real world" in the same sentence. Silly article writer. Explains a lot, though, don't you think ?
The part of this that really stood out and raised a flag in this question is 'suspected'. Suspected of what? With any evidence or just because you don't like the look of them.
Is it ok for people to be killed just on suspicion?
"20% answered this question with 'No'. 8% answered 'Don't know.' And a whopping 72% answered the question 'Yes.' "
I dunno about anyone else, but I wonder how big the sample size is. I'm suspecting it should read like this...
"4 people answered this question with 'No'. 2 answered 'Don't know.' And a whopping 18 answered the question 'Yes.' "
XBox 360 gamers voting for "awesome" drone strikes unwittingly validate their own suspected terrorist status, firing missiles into each other's homes. However, some Kinect users' experiences varied.
Why can't they both be correct?
2% high-level targets (subjective)
11% civilians (how can you tell a peaceful civilian vs a terrorist civilian?)
87% terrorists
89% enemy combatant deaths is far better than 60% enemy combatant deaths, 40% friendly casualties.
"Is killing, rape, pillage, and watching children burn, good?"
I suspect this would also receive a "yes" from most if the players.
Like you said, it's all about "good guys" and "bad guys". It's so pathetically clear who is good and bad that it doesn't generate any cognitive dissonance in the player when they're killing bad guys.
That's one of the reasons why I liked playing The Witcher so much. In that game, the two fighting factions (Scoia'tael and Order of the Flaming Rose) are not clearly good or bad. Most players can identify a little bit with both of them, and most players can see that both of them do some good and some bad. The Scoia'tael suffer from racism that the Order helps to impose on them, yet the Scoia'tael also engage in terrorism against the humans that the Order protects.
You can choose which of the two you want to align with (personally, I went Scoia'tael because the Order was too religious for my taste), and you can even choose "none of the above", and each of the three story arcs has different consequences, none of which are clearly good or evil. Truly, The Witcher is the greyest game I have ever played.
:(){
And if the general population answered 80% yes, then we'd have a debate about the pacifying effect of XBox 360 games. Without context, the observation is irrelevant.
I'd like to add that in addition to civilians not only being innocent bystanders, the moment that their deaths becomes acceptable to you, in order to reach a goal - you become the terrorist.
If there are alternatives to extremism, and others have taken those, nothing is forcing or encouraging anyone to become an extremist. They chose that path in preference to other options for dissent or political activism.
We are tracking your IP address: we know where you live: so that you comprehend the consequences of air strikes, would you like to have the "Military Drone Strike" demonstrated at your home address? Please press "Yes" "No" or "Don't know" to have a missile express-delivered to your home within seconds.
72% vs 62% for the entire population. Shades a little more towards drone use but not over and above Republican sentiment.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/13/global-opinion-of-obama-slips-international-policies-faulted/
"Americans are the clear outliers on this issue – 62% approve of the drone campaign, including most Republicans (74%), independents (60%) and Democrats (58%)."
Before you get all high and mighty, how are they different from the general population? Does 70% of the general U.S. population think it's a swell idea too?
Although it's been 11 years, lots of us still have pretty vivid memories of when it wasn't a nice quiet little drone strike that Taliban supported attackers sent raining down on us, but airliners full of people and fuel, into crowded buildings in major population centers. Things like that, or shooting a girl in the head for going to school, or poisoning the water supply at a school, they can make the public pretty open to the idea of fiery retribution. It's seen as a war here, one with actual troops in the field. We were willing to burn Dresden, and all the people living there with it, to get a factory and to make a point. You think killing a comparatively small number of remote villagers over the course of several years is going to make us blink? Getting bombed is part of the price they have to pay for tolerating the Taliban in their midst. They want it to stop, they can stop putting up with the Taliban.
Easy Online Role Playing Campaign Management
Joe Klein is a columnist for Time Magazine. He recently went on Morning Joe to discuss drones.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/23/klein-drones-morning-joe
So you're exactly right, a 4-year old American deserves protection but a 4-year old Pakistani? Oh well, that's what you get for having a terrorist neighbor or relative.
Just like that 16 year old American boy who was assassinated without any sort of due process, far away from any battlefield...merely for having a terrorist for a father. When Robert Gibbs was asked to justify how we can kill an American citizen like that, his reply was...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/robert-gibbs-anwar-al-awlaki_n_2012438.html
:(){
It does not matter if the bomb or missile is fired from a drone or a human piloted aircraft - the pilot has a bad direct view of the target and relies upon indirect views - GPS information, video from a camera mounted on the bottom of the aircraft, or ground guidance. Bombs and missiles are inherently imprecise -- we brag about being able to hit targets like "a window" or "a car" -- sounds precise right -- except that a car is about 6 x 15' - so the "target" is about 90 square feet of space. Your "high valued target" is in that space, but if the munition is even a foot off he's alive unless it explodes. So bombs and missiles are designed to explode. In particular they are designed to explode in a messy way that sprays lots of shrapnel around - because it is the shrapnel that kills, not the heat and blast force of the bomb. Now -- that bomb is made to kill the target if it lands "close" to him or her, as in - within a 15-30 foot radius. And we're dropping these into towns and cities.
/drones/ that leads to high civilian casualties, its the use of drones dropping bombs and missiles. If we switched to drones that fired large caliber bullets precisely enough to hit a target, that problem would be lessened. Hey, guess what: we want to be able to do that.
So, yes, bombs and missiles are messy. They kill lots of people, do lots of damage to the surrounding area, rip up the roads, knock down buildings. It's not the use of
So, yeah, there's nothing wrong with using drones instead of risking American lives to accomplish the same bad results. Maybe my fellow gamers thought about all this, maybe they thought about how useful (read broken) it is to have the use of an unmanned aircraft in the few games that allow them - in order to sight enemy troops and avoid risking your "life," or maybe they just though "WOOH! Gaming with real blood." I don't know -- but the underlying conceit of this post is that these gamers are morally wrong somehow for choosing to support drone strikes because drone strikes are inherently bad. It's BS.
So many explanations of human behavior on a global scale (or any scale outside your Monkey Sphere) can be found right here.
http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html
What about change the question to "'Do you support more use of drone aircraft to attack suspected terrorists and EVERY people around the target?
So many explanations of human behavior on a global scale (or any scale outside your Monkey Sphere) can be found right here. http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html
COD is real. The Drone strikes were caused by you, Player 1.
-badford
That this metric of people is either too young, or too lazy to actually go and vote. All this does really is measure how many XBOX gamers actually paid attention enough to hit the buttons, not whether they even thought about it.
Despite all the pretense of morality, voters are going to side with sending screaming death down upon these people if there's a chance that some of our people are going to get killed.
OK, let's look at the poll question again:
Do you support more use of drone aircraft to attack suspected terrorists?
Now, let's put that in a different context:
Do you support execution of suspected child sex abusers?
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
The point is that extremism is not a necessary consequence of their complaint. There are other ways.
I would rather encourage good behavior than give credence to bad behavior, because by acknowledging legitimacy to bad behavior, you encourage more of it.
This is composed of two parts:
1) Xbox gamers approve of drone strikes
2) Editorializing on how we really shouldn't be approving of drone strikes and how drone strikes are a bad thing, etc.
If we did a poll that found that some percentage of Xbox gamers support Obama for president, should we have an article which reports that and then goes into detail about why Obama is a bad president?
On Wikipedia this is known as a "coatrack"--it's an article that is supposedly about one subject but which is really there to give the author an excuse to discuss some other topic that wouldn't belong there on its own and may not deserve an article at all.
So... go back in time to the ninth century and kill the Prophet before he can muck everything up? Let me fire up the Delorean...
Let's sensationally reframe that.
98% of all drone strike estimated casualty rates are NOT THE INTENDED TARGETS.
In other words, the efficacy rate of drones is 2%....all else aside....this alone will inspire more terrorism than what they do manage to accomplish when the DO finally hit the intended target....assuming it does anything more than cut one head off a hydra.
This is a shit poor rate for any military operation, period. It will be seen as nothing but a cowardly act if these metrics cannot be reversed. I don't care how many lives saved on "our side"...more will be lost as a result of this shitty way of waging war.
Get it now, war is ugly, war requires death on both sides, it requires enough loss for one or the other to yield....or it will never end. One side only incurring said loss does not break will, it galvanizes it. Learn from the past.
Because we weren't in Afghanistan and they attacked us
And here we have the #1 reason why the business of government is able to expand continuously and without recourse: because the ruled *actually believe* they are somehow also the rulers.
What's even more astonishing is that the same people who so easily and willingly reject organized religion fall into the very same trap -- as long as they *actually believe* in the religion of government.
Rephrasing:
"A significant fraction of Xbox360 players have an immature perspective on the application of military force and its ramification in countries that they probably can't find on a map". Is that news?
Besides, the question was grossly loaded and the OP summary equally editorial in tone. "Is the average Xbox 360 player at all aware that drone strikes in countries like Pakistan cause a serious number of civilian deaths on a regular basis?"
This has almost no impact on the question, in reality. The only time geopolitics cares about morality is when it's useful to do so. The cost/benefit calculus of a drone strike is far more complicated (and subjective) than this oversimplified screed.
And let's be absolutely, brutally honest: why should Xbox gamers care more about the citizens of these countries than their own leaders do? If they continue to ALLOW drone strikes with the collateral damage, they see a net value in it (even if this value is in usefully directing the public's anger toward America instead of themselves).
-Styopa
If you ask a question on the 360, the majority of the answers you get will be trolls.
Of course 72% of gamers approved of more drone strikes. If they have any brains, this is the closest thing to backing something that will give them a job playing videogames one day. I don't know why there isn't a Kickstarter for it, to be honest.
What did PS3 gamers say?
Man, that Prophet was very forward-thinking, to be able to foster a context for violent extremism 12 centuries later.
What we have here is a classic confusion.
All A produce B does not mean that all B indicate A.
B is violent extremism. It arises, but not in every instance does it have a legitimate complaint.
You are claiming:
This validates all extremism (B) by claiming that it must have had a valid complaint (A).
My point is that every valid complaint can produce a better way of handling the situation than extremism, and this acts to filter out the people who have legitimate complaints from those who are most likely to be deranged and violent. Further, we don't want to give extremism legitimacy by listening to its complaints.
What violent extremist movement exists today that does not have a public, democratic, social, economic or otherwise legitimate way of addressing its concerns?
I ask you to answer that regardless of whether you, I or others consider the movement itself and its desired results to be legitimate. For example, for purposes of this discussion, al-Qaeda and neo-Nazis are movements who are seeking a legitimate way of expressing their concerns.
Double tap drone strikes killing people simply trying to render assistance that may not have a damn thing to do with terrorism? How about if they've even seen the real results of a drone strike?
In 1992, Roger Waters wrote these words about Iraq (Desert Shield/Storm). You may find them rather pertinent today, too.
I don't suppose "Stop being such huge pussies over a perceived threat that doesn't actually exist" is an option?
No, seriously - how many terrorists have tried to attack Americans in America since 9/11? BTW, the one's that the FBI created just so they could then bust them, thus justifying their insane budgets and powers, do not count.
Take away all the TLA created 'terrorists', and I'll bet the number is close to 0. Which kinda makes the rest of the debate moot.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
A majority xBox360 gamers are kids and young teens, where as PS3/PC are where older generations seem to gravitate. So it would be interesting to see the age range of polled. A kid obviously is not going to be thinking about collateral damage.
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
So... The gov't is working on getting these drones deployed in the skies above America...
Meanwhile, they also attempt to gauge how Americans feel about summary executions of suspected "bad guys" without trial, via these same... kind.. of... drones....
You know, people like me, who don't believe in coincidence, get really fucking paranoid when we see this kind of shit...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
shooting sprees are just a example why gun control in the usa needs to go. bad guys/crazy's will always have them but if everyone else does to then the outcome will never be as bad. and crime will go way down after all nobody likes getting shot. but that's not what happens they just use it as a excuse to fuck up even more with more crappy laws.
Try querying book readers (Kindle could still count)
Alexa has recently given Torrent state.com a very high ranking. There supposedly is a historically large encrypted DDoS attack on their www root, smtp servers, dht tracker, and their digital rf modulator forced encryption satelitte telecommucations system.
Or, perhaps they feel using a drone to make an attack, rather than risking American soldiers, is the better choice?
Do non-gamers feel any differently? Seriously, I think you would see similar stats in many other segments of the US population, soccer moms, blue collar workers, etc.
Isn't it highly likely that the XBOX gamers are mostly kids and they're trolling the polls?
Well put. Some decisions in life are easy and some are very, very difficult. The decision to execute a drone strike that might result in collateral damage is the later. Anybody with 100% confidence on which way to go is not an analytical thinker. That said, on a slightly different note, I see the Taliban targets as bad guys that should be eliminated by the people governing the land, so much of the responsibility for innocent deaths lay with the (Pakistani) government. Can’t hold the kids responsible for any of itso tragic.
Of course, we know this is true, because every country that has stricter gun control laws in the US experience shooting sprees at a higher rate than the US. There is clear inverse correlation between the strictness of gun control laws and the frequency of gun crime.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
First, Saudi Arabia attacked us, not Afghanistan, nor Iraq. The 911 attackers were overwhelmingly Saudis. But, we support that right-wing oppressive dictatorship.
Second, "hate us for our freedoms." You fucking idiot. Learn a bit of history before spouting off your fucking ignorant comments. We have been fucking up the world for decades.
Afghanistan was our ally in the cold war. We trained and armed our current adversaries during a (post-cold war) war between Russia and Afghanistan. No Afghani has attacked the U.S. They are just defending their homes from a ruthless invader who bombs wedding parties and then the funeral processions with their drones.
Iraq had a larger percentage of women in college than men _BEFORE_ we attacked. Now they are descending into a hell of the American's making. We murdered 1/2 MILLION children with the Clinton administration's sanctions against the Iraqi people. Then, we murdered OVER a MILLION more, in Bush's Christian Crusade. Yeah, that idiot was motivated by his little Christian doomsday cult, as much as anything else. You should look up the Christian-Crazy blather he spouted of to Sarkozy when trying to get the French on-board in his illegal war of aggression against Iraq-- how also NEVER attacked us.
In Iran, for example, we overthrew the democratically elected government in 1954. We installed a right-wing bloody dictator. The people overthrew the dictatorship in the 70s, but the right-wing religious idiots co-opted the revolution, and now we get the current theocracy. Again, the US reaping what it has sown.
Get a life (and educate yourself) you fucking moron. Oh yeah, "USA USA USA USA"
The irony of the anonymous name isn't lost on me, but as a "drone" pilot, I can assure you that these aren't drones in the literal sense. Calling them a drones suggests they are autonomous killing machines. But these RPAs (remotely piloted aircraft) have not only a pilot and sensor operator controlling them when delivering munitions, but a slew of authorities watch the feeds as well. An RPA strike is no different than an F-15E or F-16 strike except for the fact that an American life is not at risk (also, they don't make so much noise). And I'm not even talking about being shot down, I'm talking about mechanical failures or pilot errors (risks for any pilot flying any aircraft). If anything, the identification of targets is easier and more positive using an RPA. If a person isn't making the decision to shoot, that's when we need to worry...
Fucking COD jocks
The people hanging around Al-Qaeda or Taliban members may in fact sympathize with those groups (barring a missile completely missing or bad intelligence). At the very least, they should acknowledge there's a danger in hanging around these people.
I mean, no one would complain if we drone striked Hitler and accidentally killed Eva Braun, right?
Right?!
and asked to answer 'Yes,' 'No,' or 'Don't Know'
Can you repeat the question?
100% of useless statistics are useless. More tonight at 11...
UAV Online
NT
Given that the other options involve potential for much higher collateral damage, what is a "significant" number of civilian deaths within the scope of this discussion?
You lose one internets if your answer is "zero".
From the summary: "Is the average Xbox 360 player at all aware that drone strikes in countries like Pakistan cause a serious number of civilian deaths on a regular basis?"
References please. What is a 'serious number', how often is 'regular basis', and what is the ratio of civilian kills to combatant kills?
What you consider a 'serious number' of civilian casualties may in fact be completely meaningless depending on the number of combatant kills, and some of us have different thresholds for the number of deaths we consider to be a problem.
Alter Aeon Multiclass MUD - http://www.alteraeon.com
Yes, gamers know about war. So ask them.
But what is funny is there usually is NO civilians you can shoot in the various popular fps. MW, CoD, Medal of Honor. You kill other players, or NPC. Not Civilians. So to them, doing a drone strike is great, because it will complete the goal, get the objective. Now if any of those games put in civilians and you had to make sure you didn't kill any, I bet you'd get a different response on those polls.
Be seeing you...
...also think I am-and I quote-a "N00b fag!"
At the most they might designate a target for a combat aircraft. Drones aren't anynear near as special as call of duty makes it out to be.
I did three rotations in Afghanistan, the first early on when there were larger operations through the devolution to bombing until the expansion of "training" a few years ago. Invariably when a gamer discovers I have been in action he, and it is always a he, asks if I have played X and wants to tell me how "realistic" it is. They somehow equate their gaming experience with what actually goes on in one of the most visceral experiences of real life. They exhibit an extreme example of the disconnect I noticed when talking with those involved in drone operations. A close friend who works for the NRO invited me to an event where I met a number of officers who were involved with a range of drone programs. They bragged about how the "best" pilots combined solid flying sense and a comfort with "video games."
Many of the video game "combat veterans" I have met show a complete lack of empathy to what their experiences on the screen represent. They have the magic button that allows them endless "do-over" moments along with a range of flawless actions to go with it. There are few video games that show soldiers tripping, shaking so badly they can barely reload their weapon, weapons jamming in heavy use, or even dud ordnance to say little about the mental discipline involved keeping those under your command fighting effectively and seeing to casualties.
My father was a combat veteran of WW 2 and when I played war games as a kid he told me "the sand table isn't combat" and the same is true with video games no matter how "realistic" they are. No matter how good a simulation is it isn't a replica without the associated risks. Are there computer golfers who try to button hole Tiger Woods to brag about their game? Sim pilots who tell actual pilots about their "experiences" being so "real?" There is something different with combat games that makes some users associate their gaming accomplishments with the actual experiences of people in the front lines. Believing drones are an inherent good is short sighted at best. They have a wide range of operational roles but they raise other issues regarding what is actionable and how that is determined.
1. Provide intelligence information to the countries in question and have them arrest the terrorists and try them in a court of law.
If those countries don't cooperate with international law (because of course we have real solid evidence that these terrorists have committed terrorists acts right?) then it becomes a problem between us and those countries. A country is something we can declare a war on if things get bad enough. Declaring a war on the idea of terrorism with no end in sight is an obviously slippery slope with no bottom.
We are looking at a bunch of trigger happy want-to-be-soldiers that dream of doing something as senseless as killing someone else. Only 72%? I would have expected a higher percentage from that crowd. Essentially, the only skills required to play that kind of game are very basic analytical abilities, good eye hand coordination and a fast finger. Anything that requires deep thought and understanding of the consequences of their actions is not required. Very much like soldiers. You do not want any thinkers there, just follow orders and go to kill.
What other job can they ever hope to get? And, those drones are going to be substituted sooner or later. Who's going to get them as hand-me-downs, then? Obtuse self-interest is a nasty, petty, cunning little thing.
They thought you were talking about Call of Duty's Killstreaks! In that case, yes, bring on the drone strikes!
I mean come on, how idiotic this sounds: 'Do you support more use of drone aircraft to attack suspected terrorists?'. More drone aircrafts instead of fighter jets? Instead of bombers? Instead of ground troops? Instead of unnecessarily wasting human lives? Instead of ground vehicle attacks? More than what? More than before? More than planned for the future? At more locations? Attacking suspected terrorists? What does that mean: if we suspect them to be terrorists then we should blow them to hell with a drone and investigate later? Blow them to hell more than before, with more drones than before?
Yes? No? Don't know? Are you an idiot?
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
"violent extremists":
- Spartacus
- the French Resistance
- Afghan civilians
"us and our values":
- the Roman Empire and slavery
- the Third Reich and invasion and subjugation of other countries
- the United States and ?
Resolve '?' to discover what the problem is and how to fix it.
I know, I know! Is it: "drone strikes on civilian populations"?
In other words, does playing simulated war games like COD on a game console on a daily basis, and enjoying these games, cause gamers to become blinkered to the at times seriously dire real world consequences of using military tactics like drone strikes for real?
Slashdot sloooooowly and belatedly begins to understand a major problem produced by video game culture.
*sigh* There needs to be more people like you in this world. I am basing this on just this one comment of yours. I hope the rest of your comments are just as awesome (lucid, rational, fair, etc).
Hm. I would add something to your sentence though since reality is such a bitch:
4. Determine the conditions that inspire people to become--or, more importantly, support--violent extremists who threaten us and our values, and mitigate or eliminate those conditions as much as practically possible.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Seems like it would be a good idea to include more civilians in modern wargames, with serious repercussions if they get harmed.
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
We do no longer know whether the story is that US must bomb afghans because there are terrorist hidden amongst them, or the terrorist must attack US because they bomb the afghans.-Ignacio Agulló
The way I understand this question is :
When we attack suspected terrorists, do you prefer when we use drones compared to other means ?
A pacifist could still answer "yes", reasoning that "if we have to attack people, at least do it in a way that doesn't endanger our own troops".
It is not the same thing as "Do you support more attacks on suspected terrorists using drones ?" as implied in the summary.
I think it's more of a lack of realization of what a modern battlefield looks like. The front line starts at the edge of the base, and inside the base is less dangerous rather than safe.
The problem would be if American military leaders are also Xbox 360 Gamers.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
so uh there's that.