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

161–170 of 264 posts

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#161

Post by Cadsby »

run4yourlives wrote: post #88
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.

Actually I don't think so, and I'm also a veteran. The winner is most often the person more inclined to inflict damage on the other combatant. The idea that you are worried about hitting and being hit means you are still operating in some sort of a rules-based sphere. This is why martial-arts isn't really taught to soldiers beyond a few "look how you can do this" training sessions. The ultimate combatant is the perso…

> The winner is most often the person more inclined to inflict damage on the other combatant.

I cannot stress enough how true this is. The person willing to take it the farthest, up to and including killing you, is the person that will win that fight.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#162

Post by Cadsby »

vacri wrote: post #155
cpursley wrote: post #10

I can't imagine how anyone enjoys games like these unless they really are sociopaths. War is when young men go die for the old men's mistakes and kill a lot of women in children in the process.

Can't men be innocents, too? Why do we only ever think of women and children as innocents?

Because most, if not all, societies have tended to view women as helpless physically and therefore unable to adequately defend themselves. There are broadly three categories people take particular exception to with regards to violence - women, children and the elderly.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#163

Post by leot »

vacri wrote: post #148
angersock wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You can't just use draftees, as you'd have no senior staff unless you draft for life. In my opinion, draft is only justified for defensive wars where the nation is in total war.

In my opinion, it's unlikely that a war is just if the citizenry is unwilling to submit to a draft.

In the same way, if an administration can't convince everyone in the population to pay for a war with tax increases, then the war either isn't defensible or the administration is too stupid to wage it effectively.

The worst possible situation is when you get a war that is fought by volunteers being paid with borrowed money.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#164

Post by icebraining »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #152
cobrausn wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The game does not have to 'justify' itself to you, or anyone. It is what it is - a virtual world where human conflict drives the story and the mechanics, and the goal is entertainment. And if people like playing games where other humans are enemy, what does that tell you about people? Maybe you have not noticed, but violence is part of human nature, and our creative works (of all kinds) have used this because, for be…

> And if people like playing games where other humans are enemy, what does that tell you about people? // I've played such games a little but never thought of the people I was playing with as the enemy. The people you play with are your friends normally aren't they?

I think parent means what the characters in the games are supposed to be. I don't think the vast majority of players see others as "enemies", they're simply adversaries, much like in a sports game.

There's the random oddball (usually an immature kid) that gets too worked up when he loses and starts insulting people, but then again, that's common in sports too.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#165

Post by cglace »

cellis wrote: post #46
gizmo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> War is part of society War is part of society? To barbaric ones maybe. Civilized societies don't settle disputes by mass murder. > If society tells you to go kill somebody and you do, you can't be a sociopath. Are you kidding me? Society can't tell a person to go kill somebody. A person tells another person to kill somebody. It is this absurd respect for authority that makes these wars possible, combined with a lac…

Politicians are the body and voice of society. I hate to expose an ugly truth to you, but it is not a single person deciding to go to war. It takes many people to nod in agreement before bombs start being dropped and troops start marching.

That is the way it is supposed to work but how many people would say politicians are doing what their constituents really want.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#166

Post by kiiski »

chrischen wrote: post #75
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. That doesn't make sense. If society asked for volunteers to torture someone, the first to step up would very likely be a sociopath.

I think the point is that while a sociopath might be more likely to volunteer for it, volunteering for it doesn't make one a sociopath.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#167

Post by bdunbar »

xyzzyz wrote: post #124
bdunbar wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 br…

And 5.56 won't help you if an enemy has a tank. What's your point?

My point? To paraphrase Han Solo: "Hokey religions and hand-to-hand are no match for a good blaster at your side ..."

Well, not quite. But that was too fun not to use.

The argument was that as someone trained in martial has significantly better chance than someone that isn't.

Depends on your definition of 'trained': attitude is everything.

A guy can be a trained martial artist, kick-ass in tournaments and still loose big in a fight because - away from the mat - he utterly lacks the will to fight.

My point - I guess this goes back to Mr. Solo - is that martial arts are great and all but it's way to easy to fool yourself that you're capable of kicking ass, but you're not.

Especially if you're facing off against a guy with a gun.

Which are pretty much available to anyone in the US, where I live.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#168

Post by potatohead00 »

javert wrote: post #158
angersock wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that there is anything terribly indirect about linking (explicitly) the blood of common Americans with hawkish politicians. An intellectual argument is irrelevant in the face of the masses--by definition, half of them are of below-average intelligence, yeah? So, we should pursue policies that make it concrete--even to the slowest citizen or smartest zealot--that there will be immediate, personal sacrifi…

An intellectual argument is irrelevant in the face of the masses No. If you look at history, from the middle ages until now, you see a continual improvement. Moreover, the idea that people are brutes is disturbing. We have to see people as reasoning individuals; otherwise, we decay into fascism, religious extremism, etc. Why is it so that Pakistan can have the atomic bomb, but not Iran? Why Israel and not Iraq? It's…

I'm more in agreement with angersock on the topic of the draft.

I would love to live in an enlightened world where we can all talk out our issues, without ever resorting to violence. I do believe that people, on an individual level, can be reasonable.

The problem is the masses. If a leader comes out with a compelling argument casting group X (country, terrorist cell, religious belief, etc) as a direct threat to the social group YOU belong to, you probably won't want to be the one who stands up and says "maybe that guys full of it?". You look weak and you look like you don't want to be part of the group. And the leader will tell you as much and try to push you out of the group.

Now, spin that story where there's a universal draft. All of a sudden, you and everyone else in the social group have to weigh the consequences of you or someone you love dying somewhere far away. When someone pipes up and tells the leader he/she's full of it, they don't sound like such a nay sayer.

In regards to just 'laying down and letting the terrorists kill you', I don't believe angersock meant that at all (correct me if I'm wrong) - we should avoid all this security theater BS. Do you really think that body scanners at airports are stopping terrorists? Any time I've flown into the states it seems like there's as many TSA agents as there are passengers.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#169

Post by angrycoder »

run4yourlives wrote: post #88
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.

Actually I don't think so, and I'm also a veteran. The winner is most often the person more inclined to inflict damage on the other combatant. The idea that you are worried about hitting and being hit means you are still operating in some sort of a rules-based sphere. This is why martial-arts isn't really taught to soldiers beyond a few "look how you can do this" training sessions. The ultimate combatant is the perso…

You are assuming an awful lot about me based on a few words and also have a very limited view of the martial arts. Some martial arts are for show, some are for fitness, some are for sport, and some are for inflicting the most damage in as little time as possible. What you end up learning has more to do with the philosophy of the instructor and studio than the style you chose to study. My instructor is also a combat veteran. I study american kenpo under him. The system is one of the more violent martial arts. TDK has the reputation of being the McDonalds of the martial arts, belt factories where you just show up once a week, pay your dues, and walk out with a black belt after a year and a half. Even still, I am sure there the some hardcore TDK studios out there.

As for martial arts not being taught to soldiers, what do you call Krav?

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#170

Post by PakG1 »

Shivetya wrote: post #115
Cushman wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I bought and read SEAL Team Six: Memoirs of an Elite Navy SEAL Sniper. In it, the author says that all snipers need to have a really strong faith, philosophy, or something like that to guide them so that they don't lose control of themselves and get intoxicated by the power. When you have someone in your scope, you really can feel like God, the decision to kill or let live is yours. He says that's why it was so easy for someone like the Washington sniper to get carried away and go on a killing spree. If you don't have something strong in you to guide you and keep you under control, you'll go wild, in his opinion.
Post reply on HN