Live data from Hacker News

A violently true depiction of what war really is

mediumdifficulty.com

191–200 of 264 posts

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#191
post #67
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they want to make a video game depict war... Have a bad guy escape through some civilians, you shoot after him. Then after coming closer find a parent/child dead with another child screaming over his/her family's body. That would be a scene that makes people remember what war really is. But war games are not about war. They are about shooting things and feeling justified about it.

I'd be very interested to know if it's even possible to create a game where you genuinly feel remorse for killing an innocent person while chasing "the bad guy". Many games have innocent bystanders, and there is a spectrum of consequence, from none (GTA), to inconvenience (Oblivion), to an instant game-over (Ghost Recon). In any case, I've never felt bad, since it's just a game. Can a game elevate the characters to a…

"Can a game elevate the characters to a point where you feel, even for a moment, real loss? I don't think it's very easy, if even possible."

I've read reports of gamers crying when they had to kill the companion cube in Portal.

Gamers can and do form quite intense attachments to game characters, and I think they can and do feel genuine loss upon some of these characters' deaths.

However, the problem with many video games (and movies, and much other media) is that "the enemy" is usually just a faceless, almost less than human cardboard cutout that you're often either manipulated to feel glad to get rid of or indifferent over having killed.

It need not be that way, but it often if not almost always is.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#192
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." --Wittgenstein

That's my reaction to most of these 182 comments. I grew up with a combat veteran, and between listening to his stories and reading those of many other vets, including the OP, the only thing that's clear to me is that there are as many ways of coping with combat as there are combat veterans. Instead of arguing about whether or not people are sociopaths, go listen to few veterans sometime.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#193

"the vast majority of us are straight up sociopaths" Society can't function without socially acceptable outlets for this and other anti-social behaviors. That is the best justification I have found for a long list of things that don't seem to make sense in an enlightened society. What would the world be like if we didn't have the Army and NFL? A lot of people would find new, more chaotic outlets for their aggression.

There are much cheaper, better ways to let out anti-social behavior and violent action between consenting fucked-up people. 4chan, fight clubs, boxing, BDSM, etc.

Shit, we could fund the entire country going crazy on $3,000,000,000,000 or so.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#194
post #159
post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an outsider, in the last decade it's been really weird to watch the US public demand war while at the same time demanding that soldiers don't die. It just reinforces how distant people are from the idea of war. Hell, the entire Vietnam War had less US dead than there were Allied dead in one day of the bloodiest battle in WWI. And after a decade of fighting, the US efforts in Iraq have less than 10% of the US death…

How soft and spoiled are the commentators who think war should involve no sacrifice It's horrible to waste soldiers for nothing , which is what's been going on over there for quite some time. The problem is, it is a total sacrifice - people losing their lives for nothing .

Sad that so many people get so worked up over the loss of 5k soldiers, and not the unnecessary destruction of a state, involving hundreds of thousands of deaths of foreigners.

If it really is 'waste' that people are worried about, why not that?

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any type of game where you shoot another human being is F*d up. The hypothetical scenario where you can accidentally kill innocents does not justify the game.

So, paintball? Because I don't know of any video game where you shoot another human being. I do know of plenty of games where you "shoot" blocks of pixels. And I assure that I'm perfectly capable of distinguish them, both at a rational and emotional level.

"I don't know of any video game where you shoot another human being. ... I do know of plenty of games where you "shoot" blocks of pixels."

This reminds me of a story in Stanislaw Lem's Cyberiad (which is a fantastic book -- highly recommended).

From this[1] description of the story:

  In the story "How Trurl's Own Perfection Led to No Good," Lem describes
  how Trurl consoles a deposed dictator named Excelsius by building him a
  simulated kingdom -- a small-scale mechanical model controlled by
  computer programs -- so that his client can play at being a tyrant
  without actually harming anyone. But Klapaucius objects that, because
  Trurl's model is so perfect, Trurl has actually created a host of
  conscious beings who are suffering under Excelsius' misrule...

    "If an imperfect imitator, wishing to inflict pain, were to build
    himself a crude idol of wood or wax, and further give it some
    makeshift semblance of a sentient being, his torture of the thing
    would be a paltry mockery indeed! But consider a succession of
    improvements on this practice! Consider the next sculptor, who builds
    a doll with a recording in its belly, that it may groan beneath his
    blows; consider a doll which, when beaten, begs for mercy, no longer a
    crude idol, but a homeostat; consider a doll that sheds tears, a doll
    that bleeds, a doll that fears death, though it also longs for the
    peace that only death can bring!

    . . .

    You say there's no way of knowing whether Excelsius' subjects groan,
    when beaten, purely because of the electrons hopping about inside --
    like wheels grinding out the mimicry of a voice -- or whether they
    really groan, that is, because they honestly experience pain? A pretty
    distinction, this! No, Trurl, a sufferer is not one who hands you his
    suffering, that you may touch it, weigh it, bite it like a coin; a
    sufferer is one who behaves like a sufferer!"
[1] - http://www.inform.umd.edu/EdRes/Colleges/ARHU/Depts/History/...

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#196
I am an experienced soldier with combat experience in several corners of the world. I have a distinguished service record. The only units I've ever known are Special Forces units. I've operated in several tiers of the community. I was medically discharged following injuries sustained in combat operations. You deserve a better account than M provides. Please understand some detail must be left out.

I am not an academic any more than M or his psychologist. It's important to include the psychologist that asserts violent personality disorder outside of the DSM.

There are a lot of guys like M floating around special operations (the community) but perhaps many of you do not understand the community. The special operations umbrella is pretty large depending on how you classify. To simplify, there are several degrees (tiers) divided by purpose and specialization. The degrees might look like a pyramid if you represented them by the number of soldiers in each. M would be near the bottom of a special operations pyramid, meaning he's a highly proficient infantryman, probably supporting a higher unit. A good guess for M would be Ranger Battalion. He mentions Special Forces (Green Beret), which is at least branch consistent.

M wouldn't make it at a higher level of the community. The community would correct the matter if he did. In special operations, psych evaluations are routine. There are evaluations for aptitude and there are evaluations for disposition. If you are a sociopath by clinical standards, you will not climb the pyramid. You will be told that this is why you were denied ascension. At lower levels of the pyramid, a clever man can influence the evaluation but not considerably so. At higher levels, the evaluations are much harder to 'game' because they are conducted over time in a range of dynamic scenarios. The higher tiers need a pool of exceptional candidates to use as a baseline. In a class of elite SOF operators, the higher tiers are looking for standouts. Those standouts are further evaluated. M never made it that far, which is why he thinks there are no heroes. I'll only discuss the lower tier to address M's depiction. It differs considerably at higher tiers.

One of the many problems with M's depiction is the misrepresentation of the community. An FNG is much more common in a line unit than in a proper special operations element (furthering my suspicion that M came from a support element). There are no FNGs in the community. Each SOF operator, regardless the branch, spent 18-24 months in a pipeline training specifically for special operations costing the government more than $1 million per candidate. If they complete the training, they go to a team a 'cherry'. They need real world experience as an operator and they need advanced training beyond their generalized training. This does not mean walking point in a mine field. This means developing the training plans for the rest of the team, coordinating cross training with the senior members, and accounting for equipment. The entire experience prepares the cherry for the demands of sustained operations far from the flag pole (built up bases) during a deployment. The cherry is one of maybe 15 men who are going to be fending for themselves throughout the deployment.

The sensation is nothing like sex but your first fire fight is a lot like losing your virginity. You'll always remember. The adrenaline dumps. Your senses heighten and you become acutely aware of your 'anchors'. Cheek, pad of your trigger finger, your shoulder pocket (where your long gun is firmly tucked) or maybe your elbows. Whatever your problem points were during exercises. Between engagements are lulls, mag changes. You move. You communicate. You decisively engage yet you hardly think. Hours go by before the engagement is over. You feel exhilaration. Consider the state you are in emotionally, chemically. And at this moment you have your first coherent thought in hours. What do you think about? Does it suggest anything about you?

I wish I felt something for the people we expired in my first fire fight. I didn't. This isn't sociopathy. This is pragmatism. We are all going to die. In that moment, the person most likely to die is my adversary. My training is superior. My firepower is superior. I have the strategic advantage. In order to achieve success in the objective that brought me to the patch of earth I meet my adversary, I must first know that one of use will expire- the one that is least present. You accept mortality so that you can control your emotions during the engagement. Why fear death when you can elude it? At the conclusion of the fire fight, you don't have time to think. The end of the fire fight is not the end of the day. Are there any casualties? Do you have all of your equipment? You have to establish communications with command. They may have guidance for follow on actions. They may have intel of a quick reactionary force descending upon your location. The avenues of approach and egress from your location may have been rigged to blow while you were engaged. Command mind know a better route for exfil. There remains a tremendous amount of work before you'll be in a position to reflect. It could be hours. You'll probably sleep first. When you wake up, the feeling is gone. You remember the exhilaration. You remember the triumph. In my first deployment, this was the routine every other day for three weeks before we were pulled from the area to decompress. My thoughts were, "keep calm" My emotions would only ever cloud my judgment and performance. It was crystal clear to me that they were useless in a war zone, including malice.

The situations that I have encountered have been horrific. I would not propose that we expose the youth to these horrors. Help us all if we ever go down such a road. We should focus on effective management of a crisis. For me it is perspective. For others it might be something else. Nothing could have prepared me for my first fire fight. That, like losing your virginity, is something you must experience to ever really understand. The rest of the horrors of war are handled through live tissue training. If you understand basic medicine and tissue trauma, you'll be able to stomach what you'll see along the way. To suggest that video games should more realistically depict war is to suggest that we should practice applying a condom to a dildo rather than a cucumber. It doesn't prepare anyone to lose their virginity but it does increase the comfort with going down that road. Teach children stronger critical thinking skills and you'll prepare them to avert more conflict in the first place. Failing that, you'll prepare them to handle the horrors of the conflict.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#197
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If you don't have something strong in you to guide you and keep you under control, you'll go wild, in his opinion.

ethics and empathy is enough. no need to have religion.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#198

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…

Great post. I too noticed that the author's "combat experiences" seemed to be more about relating the experiences of his friends than his own personal thoughts and feelings. The best analysis I've seen about the combatant are the works of LCol. Grossman. On Combat and On Killing are outstanding pieces of work that say pretty much the exact opposite of W here.

The best example of this is his story about his buddy never seeing the dead bodies of a family, and trying to hold this up as some moral issue. It was really more an issue of his brain simply filtering out everything that wasn't a direct threat to his immediate existence.

Adrenaline may make you super strong, but it also makes you blind, deaf, and destroys fine motor skills like marksmanship and bladder control.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#199
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Mongols may not have had cities (besides Karakorum, the capital). However, by the time Genghis Khan's conquests were under way they had a written alphabet, a very highly organized military structure, a complex legal code, freedom of religion, and a postal system that was unrivaled until the Pony Express was established in the US. They were generally far more sophisticated than you give them credit for and their s…

I truly believe that a civilised society does not fall apart after the death of one man. The Mongolian Empire was an incredible military achievement, but it was only an Empire in terms of conquest - it wasn't an Empire in terms of sustained society (like the Roman, Byzantine, or British Empires). The guy at the top dies, and the whole thing falls apart? That's not really a 'civilised society'.

So I guess Alexander's Greece wasn't a civilized society either.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#200
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I could tell from my time in the service, your view of your situation is highly dependent upon who you are serving with. I'm willing to bet it is highly likely that the group this supposed sociopath served with had no such compulsions. Without proper oversight, I could easily see a group mindset of this kind developing. As such, I'm willing to bet he thinks all soldiers are like him, when the reality is tha…

There's data about a lot of gang members entering the service these days and receiving a lot of military training, but then taking that training back to the gang (as well as smuggling some weapons). If it's reliable data, I wonder if the number of sociopaths in the military could be growing, if it's also possible that gang members have a higher probability of being sociopaths. A lot of conditionals there, I know.

Sorry, what data are you talking about? I haven't seen it. I'm sure there's a journalist who wrote something like a) a the number of gang members who wouldn't normally join the military are b) allowed into the military because of the dire need for same and then c) all kinds of hijinks ensue. But I don't think it happens very often, and I really doubt the transfer of mad military skilz is going back into the gangs.
Post reply on HN