Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A violently true depiction of what war really is

mediumdifficulty.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 264 posts

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#111

Post by bh42222 »

noarchy wrote: post #104
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #21

I am very tempted to flag this. the sociopath thing really rubs me the wrong way -- there are logical flaws with using that label. War is a part of society. If society tells you to go kill somebody and you do, you can't be a sociopath. Having said that, it's a great first-person account of what real combat is like, at least for this one guy. I am concerned the effect on HN discussion will be negative. Hopefully I'm w…

>The United States made a huge mistake in moving to an all-volunteer army in the 1970s. With a draft and mandatory conscription, everybody had the common experience of serving and perhaps doing really bad things in the line of duty. As it is now, the vast majority of civilians have absolutely no idea what military service is like, as the author points out. The last time there was coerced/forced military service in th…

Imagine how the disproportionately-libertarian leaning crowd in places like HN would react to being compelled to serve in the military.

That's exactly the point. It is almost certain we would have fewer wars, and they would be shorter.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#112

Post by scott_s »

run4yourlives wrote: post #101
scott_s wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may be interested in Dave Grossman's "On Killing": http://www.amazon.com/On-Killing-Psychological-Learning-Soci... Grossman is a Psychology professor at West Point (or was when he wrote this), and a former Army Ranger, although he never saw combat. His conclusion is actually similar to the author of this piece. First, he argues, with evidence, that humans have a pretty high disposition to not kill each other unle…

On Killing DOES NOT agree with the premise that soldiers are sociopaths. It makes the exact opposite claim. He says that tools that have been employed to increase firing rates have themselves increased the PTSD rate to astronomical levels. PTSD's existence itself (at levels since Vietnam) proves that W's thesis is incorrect. Grossman's allowance for sociopathic behaviour is a demonstrated, consistent 2%.

Yes, I agree with what you said. However, Grossman also talks about the soldiers who do not experience PTSD. And he posits that those soldiers have sociopathic tendencies. And he further posits that those soldiers tend to self-select into the special forces.

W says up front that he is talking about infantry and special forces: When I say soldier, let me be clear that I am talking about the Infantryman and the Special Forces operator, as I have next to no knowledge about anything outside of this relatively small percentile of service personnel. I suspect that he is special forces, and is reporting mostly on his experiences with other special forces soldiers.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#113

Post by [deleted] »

yason wrote: post #68
angrycoder wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>martial arts won't help This is patently false and completely ridiculous. Someone who is trained to take and give a hit will always have a significantly better chance in a fight.

The thing with 99,999% of martial arts is that they're practicing the wrong thing. At best they're practicing for competitions and some are even trying to pose as street-cred martial artists but yet that's a whole another universe away from survival . And survival isn't about fighting—at all. The thing is, it wouldn't be legal to teach survival in a dojo. Fighting is about winning but survival is about... surviving,…

[deleted]

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#114

Post by lukifer »

I have a cousin coming of age who's downright excited to join the military and become a sniper. I have little doubt that war video games are partly responsible for that.

Now, I don't think violent games are inherently bad, and relatively few people playing them will actually sign up to go blow up insurgents in the desert.

But there is a significant difference between Modern Warfare and Hitman, Doom, GTA, etc.: most other violent games are either clearly fictionalized, or you knowingly play a villain. While a few nutcases might emulate the game, no reasonable person, not even most children, will draw the conclusion that the game activity is normal, real or justified.

But wars really happen, and they are seldom sexy or heroic. Even if you accomplish the most kick-ass mission ever, you probably lost friends in the process. Any soldier anywhere would happily give up their medals and glory if it meant the fallen got to go home to their families.

War is hell. While I would never advocate any form of censorship, selling video games that hides this reality is socially irresponsible.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#115

Post by Shivetya »

Cushman wrote: post #108
Homunculiheaded wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually think a bigger problem is not the fear of violence leaving the screen and coming into daily life, but that we increasingly see violence as 'that things that happens behind a screen, its pretty entertaining'. I have no data to back this up, but the general population certainly seems to be more 'meh' about US military actions abroad. I think your father's reaction was responding to the issue that you've triv…

I really don't see how it could be true that US citizens are "meh" about military action. We treat military casualties in the single digits as tragedies. We're somewhat less adverse to collateral damage, but compared to Vietnam, let alone the wholesale firebombings of WWII, even that is (and I hope everyone will pardon me for saying it) pretty minimal. That's the essence of Pinker's point-- the more aware we become o…

So now we make machines to kill for us. Pretty soon they will be nearly autonomous. All to remove our guilt.

My ex-boss, was a sniper in Vietnam. One phrase he hated over all others was "kill them all and let God sort them out". He always labeled those who used that as pussies. He had no respect for them.

We got all sorts of good stories out of him about his time over there, but never anything involving killing other people. That was discussed only with people who were there and even then rarely. He could tell us how he could take parts off a moving car from a long distance but never would mention the obvious connection.

I am quite sure a lot of them are sociopaths or just bastards. But did we give them any other choice, the nice guys don't even finish last, they just die first.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#116

Post by timr »

Cushman wrote: post #108
Homunculiheaded wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually think a bigger problem is not the fear of violence leaving the screen and coming into daily life, but that we increasingly see violence as 'that things that happens behind a screen, its pretty entertaining'. I have no data to back this up, but the general population certainly seems to be more 'meh' about US military actions abroad. I think your father's reaction was responding to the issue that you've triv…

I really don't see how it could be true that US citizens are "meh" about military action. We treat military casualties in the single digits as tragedies. We're somewhat less adverse to collateral damage, but compared to Vietnam, let alone the wholesale firebombings of WWII, even that is (and I hope everyone will pardon me for saying it) pretty minimal. That's the essence of Pinker's point-- the more aware we become o…

"We treat military casualties in the single digits as tragedies."

There's obviously a huge difference between television "mourning" for a stranger, and knowing the pain of losing someone you care about, or experiencing violence first-hand. And frankly, most of the statements you hear in response to military casualties are, at some level, driven by politics.

I don't believe that becoming aware of death makes us less violent, and I don't believe it makes us more violent. I think the general effect is to intellectually separate us from the horror of real violence.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#117

Post by ilaksh »

Cushman wrote: post #13

Reminds me of my father (who was in the Airborne) looking over my shoulder playing the training in America's Army. "That's pretty realistic. Do they have a level where you have to go knock on somebody's door and tell them their son was killed in a training exercise?" That said, I feel like this article, like the censors, gives video games much too much credit. Glorification of violence is everywhere in our culture an…

"A bit of a violence problem in our culture"

Fighting games are incredibly realistic and advanced.

Games like Battlefield, with the right mix of realism and "fun", are the greatest possible war propaganda instruments ever created.

The "Department of Defense" and other agencies have too many smart people working in them and too much recruiting pressure not to be funneling money into these "video game" projects.

Iran is specifically depicted in Battlefield 3. This isn't an accident, whether it was simply the fact that video game designers knew that Iran has been a coming target for years or they were given instructions.

War propaganda is a real part of contemporary American media and video games. Its not something that happened in the 1940s and 1950s and then stopped as soon as color television arrived.

Our media is saturated with violence, but this isn't unexpected. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e... We are constantly at war.

We are at war right now. There is a large multi-decade (multi-century depending on how you look at it) military campaign going on in the middle east and its surrounds that most people are completely unaware of because of how powerful the grip of the propagandists is on American media.

Take a look at this map, and think back to all of the lies we have been told about the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and everywhere else.

http://www.zeemaps.com/326199 Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria. All of these countries just happen to be adjacent to eachother.

We are told that these are all noble missions, vital emergencies involving "weapons of mass destruction", or glorious democratic revolutions, and led to believe that each is basically a separate case.

The order of the invasions and other deployments across these countries and regions continues to be tactical. The motivations are many -- territory, resource control, money control. The lies told to justify the next step, in each case, are not very material to the actual overall mission objectives.

Afghanistan -- a foothold, limited resistance, and it was key to restore the heroin funds used to back intelligence/covert operations and establishment bank accounts.

Iraq -- A key battle, money control, resource control. Made an Iran sandwich.

Eqypt / Libya

February 21, 1987

Early last year, President Reagan approved a secret directive under which United States military forces would support Egypt in the event of a ''pre-emptive'' attack on Libya...

...In March 1986, the semiofficial Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram said Cairo had rejected three requests from American delegations for joint military action against Libya...

...But several Administration officials who support President Reagan's policy on Libya insisted today that the meeting with President Mubarak and the subsequent planning were not an attempt to press Cairo to invade.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/21/world/egypt-us-plan-to-rai...

In April 2011, Mubarak was removed from power by a "democratic uprising" and by July rumors circulated that he was "in a coma".

Also in July 2011, "Libya Rebels" get formal backing by the United States and $30 billion. Within a relatively short period of time Qaddafi was killed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/world/africa/16libya.html?...

Syria -- A key strategic ally of Iran, tactical position.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7GVSx7yMaA Battlefield 3 Launch Trailer illustrating storyline in which noble American fighters rescue one of their own from "Iranian terrorists" while searching for "the nuke". Players are to act out exactly the myth presented by the propaganda on other popular media.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#118

Post by lukifer »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #21

I am very tempted to flag this. the sociopath thing really rubs me the wrong way -- there are logical flaws with using that label. War is a part of society. If society tells you to go kill somebody and you do, you can't be a sociopath. Having said that, it's a great first-person account of what real combat is like, at least for this one guy. I am concerned the effect on HN discussion will be negative. Hopefully I'm w…

> If society tells you to go kill somebody and you do, you can't be a sociopath.

I think there is social value to having some well-behaved sociopaths on your team (ie, the Jayne Cobb archetype).

But certain jobs/roles will absolutely self-select in favor of violent individuals with little empathy (and if you're not one already, the military, and to a lesser extent the police, are happy to turn you into one). This obviously isn't true of most military personnel, but there is a tendency, and the outliers on that bell curve will be ugly indeed.

I'm realistic enough to know that war isn't going to just go away, and in some situations is a necessary evil. But I would happy enough if we could just stop exalting war as inherently glorious, and instead viewed it as the utter horror that it is, only to be employed at the utmost necessity.

> The United States made a huge mistake in moving to an all-volunteer army in the 1970s.

I actually think I agree with the logic here. Forced conscription was part of the reason for public opposition to Vietnam; the opposition to Iraq would have come quicker and stronger if the costs and realities were more uniformly distributed.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#119

Post by tlb »

javert wrote: post #103
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #21

I am very tempted to flag this. the sociopath thing really rubs me the wrong way -- there are logical flaws with using that label. War is a part of society. If society tells you to go kill somebody and you do, you can't be a sociopath. Having said that, it's a great first-person account of what real combat is like, at least for this one guy. I am concerned the effect on HN discussion will be negative. Hopefully I'm w…

The United States made a huge mistake in moving to an all-volunteer army in the 1970s. My life is my own to live. It's not your right to dispose of it. The draft is a massive violation of individual rights. If a nation cannot get enough paid volunteers to fight a war, that war is simply not worth fighting. In my view, mandatory conscription is one of those first-class evils that we need to dismiss as a society---like…

The point is that the public wouldn't support unnecessary wars if they or their children would be drafted to fight.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#120

Post by mattdeboard »

bdunbar wrote: post #89
mattdeboard wrote: post #6

As a former Marine infantryman, and a former Marine PR idiot, I think his numbers are off but a lot of the concepts are right, with a caveat. It's not sociopathy of the organic sort. It's the kind of detachment from prolonged exposure to extreme, unmitigated stress. So don't take this article as justification to feel like there's something mentally wrong with people who join a combat arms unit.

Former 0311. After I EASd I realized that a _lot_ of perfectly normal behavior in the service is downright _weird_ in the civilian world. It was perfectly normal to make my rack (bed), tuck those hospital corners in, get the folds just so ... then sleep on top of the made bed, wrapped in a poncho liner or a comforter from the PX. Because you save time and hassle in the morning. Toss the blanket in the wall-locker, ti…

Yeah especially a lot of what would be considered racist humor in the real world is... much more acceptable. :P
Post reply on HN