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

121–130 of 264 posts

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#121

Post by Cushman »

ilaksh wrote: post #117
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 i…

There is certainly a propaganda campaign being run to encourage Americans to support war. It is being run by powerful people with vested political and financial interests who spend millions of dollars to project their message across all forms of news media.

If you think video games are anything more than a sideshow to this, you're delusional.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#122

Post by philwelch »

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…

I think you might be one of the only people in this thread who knows what he's talking about. Certainly your comment squares well with everything I heard growing up from my dad, who fought in three wars and was never shy about telling me stories, ranging from funny to grisly, about what he did.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#123

Post by philwelch »

apsurd wrote: post #38
Nitramp wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? All I ever heard from people who did serious martial arts is that an attacker with a weapon will always be in advantage, and an attacker with no moral qualms even more so. Your karate won't help you much if someone attacks you with a knife, or a shattered bottle.

I guess I understand what you are trying to say, but you can't seriously think you , with a knife in hand, are going to kick an unarmed Bruce Lee's ass? (using Bruce Lee because he is internationally famous, but assume I mean any world-renowned, elite trained multi-dimensional fighter) The person still needs to be trained how to use a knife in combat. Have you ever stabbed anybody? (I haven't) but it seems obvious th…

If your self-defense strategy entails being Bruce Lee (by which I also mean any world-renowned, elite trained multi-dimensional fighter), it's safe to say you're overpreparing. Trying to become Bruce Lee "just in case" you get mugged is like trying to become Michael Jordan to win pickup basketball games.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#124

Post by xyzzyz »

bdunbar wrote: post #95
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.

Someone who is trained to take and give a hit will always have a significantly better chance in a fight. All the judo skills in the world aren't going to help you when a guy 100 meters away tears a plate-sized hole in your back with Mr. 5.56.

And 5.56 won't help you if an enemy has a tank. What's your point? The argument was that as someone trained in martial has significantly better chance than someone that isn't. For instance, here where I live, the probability of enemy having a gun is infinitesimal.

I think some people here underestimate what kind of preparation regular, twice a week, hour and a half long training for a year or two can provide. Many brawlers train martial arts as well, but if your enemy is not one of them, he will not have spent anything near that amount of time on deliberate practice.

On the other hand, martial arts are not much of an use if there's more than one enemy. Sure, you may be able to take out one of them, but the second one will not wait gladly for his turn.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#125

Post by philwelch »

skeltoac wrote: post #55
munin wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think fewer people would have a problem with this if the outlet for sociopathic aggression didn't involve detonating women and children

Few people will like this, too, including myself, but the truth is that as long as they aren't "our" women and children... I'm kissing my hard-earned 198 away here by speaking truth. Hate the truth, not the speaker.

One thing I vividly remember from the Iraq war was how much everyone seemed to care about a couple thousand US casualties, and how little everyone seemed to care about a hundred thousand Iraqi casualties.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#126

Post by philwelch »

dfc wrote: post #78

How common is it for someone in the UK to drop out of school at 16?

From what little I know about the UK school system, there's actually a natural stopping point at 16 after the GCSE. Between 16 and 18 one would study for "A-levels", or not as the case may be.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#127

Post by rhaphazard »

I don't have first-hand, or even second-hand experience of war. I can only go by what I read in articles like this.

But logically, the author is making a lot of sense. Any apathy or desensitization to killing is either a result of social conditioning (sociopathy) or a psychological predisposition (psychopathy). There are of course other ways this could come about, and the author's 80% figure is probably an over-estimation, but I think the proliferation of military contractors really increases the chances that what the author says is true.

I wonder if there has ever been a study that tries to figure out how prevalent these kind of issues are.

Kids are going to have a hard time unlearning the fake reality presented to them by video games.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#128

Post by javert »

angersock wrote: post #110
javert wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

While I do agree with you in some regards, there is a very real policy impact involved in having a professional all-volunteer army. When you have to draft chunks of your population in order to conduct warfare, public opinion is very much against you if your cause is not 'just'. "If a nation cannot get enough paid volunteers to fight a war, that war is simply not worth fighting." The flaw here is that there are always…

It is good design to solve problems directly, rather than to solve them indirectly by introducting a different problem.

So let's solve the problem of the US entering unjust wars directly, rather than by introducing a new problem (the draft).

How to solve it directly?

The recent unjust US wars do reflect cultural problems: a belief among politicians and the populace that it is worthwile to sacrifice thousands of American lives and trillions of American dollars to occupy and rebuild other countries.

The way to solve the problem is to combat that notion on an intellectual level. To speak out about it. Some other solution (like requiring a draft) is just duct tape.

The ideas of society at large can improve over time. Just look at the history of women and minorities to see that. This is one of those areas where cultural activisim can lead to an improvement.

I am very optimistic that my generation (I'm in my 20s) will not engage in wars like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam once we become the generation that directly makes those kinds of decisions.

In fact, my fear is that my generation will be unwilling to take preemptive offensive action when it is necessary (e.g. to prevent untrusted parties from acquiring nuclear or biological weapons).

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#129

Post by Tossrock »

staunch wrote: post #66
muhfuhkuh wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Low-level, trained MMA fighters would wreck a street brawling toughman 10/10 times. If they rush the MMA fighter with a broken bottle, they'd get slammed to the floor on their own velocity and the MMA fighter would twist around, take their back, grab and arm, get their legs around it pull. Good luck fighting with a broken arm. We saw it play out recently. Remember Kimbo Slice? If you don't, he used to post videos of…

IIRC Kimbo was a street brawler who went MMA not the other way around. That he did so well against well trained fighters says a lot.

I don't understand this comment. The parent was saying that he was a street brawler who went MMA; why are you repeating it? And he by no means "did so well". He did not do well at all.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#130

Post by javert »

tlb wrote: post #119
javert wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

US drafts work from the bottom up. Because as you go higher up (e.g. people in college, then blue collars, then white collars, then leadership...) those people are increasingly indispensable to the war effort. In Vietnam, they made universities give them lists of the students that were doing badly to draft first, once they ran out of people not going to college.

And if I had children, I would definitely consider relocating them abroad as an option, depending on whether they personally agreed with the war and other factors.

In short, as you go up that hierarchy, people are increasingly politically active, yet are increasingly isolated from the draft.

So, if you wanted this solution to work (and I contend it's a very poor solution to the problem anyway), there are some serious obstacles.

Post reply on HN