Scary

This is just plain scary:

oh no. i taught terminator was a cool movie.

the scary part isnt really the machine itself. i’m more worried that the grave act of killing is now automated. its like playing a game.


whose more evil?

I remember seeing a movie. In which they created this game, a war game, you were some tank, airplane, etc.

Well they held a tournament with all the best players in the world attending.

However turns out these kids weren’t controlling a virtual robot but an actual tank, and the people they were killing were located thousand of miles away. It was some action thriller were the hero has to stop this from happening. Cant remember the name but thats all I really remember about it. It was an older movie 1980’s ish

think you’re talking about “ender’s game” never saw the movie or read the book, but the my friend told me about it in high school and it stuck…I was thinking that and Terminator as well, I mean how f’ed up is this? seriously…

the patrol aspect is automated but with everything in the milatary “wepons free” is a order an it can only be given my a human and excuted by a human. Is it more dispassionate than a bomber or arty, not realy both are stand off weapons where the person “pulling the trigger” never sees the target.

did they make a movie of “Ender’s Game”?..

THIS is scarier…

I think it goes to show that Al-Qaeda can nickel and dime us to bankruptcy. Now we’ll just keep sending $500k machines in to blown up for decades instead of, oh, maybe making friends with the vast peace-loving parts of humanity.

Isn’t everyone talking about War Games? No one was being killed, but the kids did almost start WWIII with the Soviets. A true classic. Check the 8" floppies and modem that you hook your handset in. Sweet!

As long as it’s not these guys controlling them:

http://www.geeman-headquarters.com/US_Marines_Shoot_Wounded_Iraqi.wmv

But at least these guys got caught. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070805/ap_on_re_us/army_rape_slaying
When protectors act like this it’s no wonder it never stops.
Who knows, maybe the first person shooter games are kept out there to help recruit and train our new generation of military. I’m sure more people would join if they could do it like they were playing games their entire childhood. We’re heading down a very scary path.

thought so, but looks like it is still in the works - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0400403/

Conflict is scary and its something that us humans do very often but some groups in the name of religion seem to relish it, why I evern remember some guys killing 2500 people by crashing airplanes into a commerical building. Every time i sit dow for a croissant I am reminded how close we came to being coverts of the sword.

“While some claim that it was invented in Poland to celebrate the defeat of a Muslim invasion at the decisive Battle of Tours by the Franks in 732, it is more likely that it, like the bagel, was invented in Vienna in 1683 to celebrate the defeat of the Turkish siege of the city in the Battle of Vienna. Bakers working at night heard the undermining tunneling operation of the Turks and gave the alarm;”

Extremists of any stripe are scary, and religious one are down right terrifiying as they not only will die for their god but want you to as well all in then name of saving your soul. How do you reason with religious zelots, you cant, been tried for thousands of years and it just don’t work that way.

One last though, from the beginging of orginized warfare and for us in north america our revolutionary, civil, ww1 and ww2 a huge % of the troops had daily contact with death, killing and slaughter. Did this in depth association cause them to be more blood thirsty or less? According to most of the reseach it was no difference. The first person shooter likey will de sensethize many but in “doom” there is no recording of your patroll, no legal repersussion (via the recorded evidence of that patrol) of mis conduct.

interseting points zippy.

Yo, i like you because your spelling is just a smidge better than mine :laughing: I should spell check, but we designers (engineers too) just seem to have a hell of a time with it and are more relaxed about it. Many message boards have thier resident spelling/gramar nazi’s but so far none here.

My creativity does not stop at spelling :wink:

Your points make a lot of sense and got me thinking a bit differently. Is this any difference than a camera on a SMART bomb, was that much different than a Cruise or TOW missile? From the knife, to the arrow, to the gun, to this… each step removes the combatant further from the actual event. Which you think would desensitize society and make war more common, but if you look across history, the opposite is evident. It was not uncommon for groups of people to be at war for centuries. The Greeks and Romans were almost constantly at war. Could you imagine a war the length of the Crusades, or the 100 Year War? The more removed we are, the fewer people actually die, the more human life is valued, the more shocking it is when civilians and even combatants do loose their life in a conflict.

A good point however there are many who are just happy as hell to make you dead and it a few extra along the way get wacked too…oh well too bad so sad your not one of “us”. To me what is always intresting is the knee jerk reaction to such items with out proper consideriation to history, human nature or even common sense. I wonder if the author of the piece even reads the comments ( I did e mail him mine) on his pieces or just skips along getting back slaps from his following?

I think that may be one of the issues. Fighting tends to be longer when the skills and technology are even. If one side has a technological advantage which puts the fight in their favor, and they get to become more removed from the fight so they have less lives at risk, then the wars are definitely shorter because the side with the advantage can easily slaughter their opponent with little resistance.

If 2 people fight with fists, it will be a long fight to the death. If one of them gets to have a gun then the fighting will definitely be less but under those circumstances, can you really call that a fight or is it extermination? Does that then mean the one with the best weapons are always right because they easily beat lesser opponents.

I think if both parties have a lot at stake, people are more apt to find diplomatic solutions. Look at the cold war. Both sides can get really hurt, so lets talk. N.Korea has new nukes…lets talk. China has civil issues…hmmm, they have a really big military…lets talk. Straggly guys running around in the desert in caves with swap-meet weapons…hmmm, I think we can take them, lets go fight.

The more removed a side is (like someone holding a gun), the less people on that side get hurt. I doubt the side on the other end of the barrel who only have sticks to fight with would say the same. They just get exterminated easily with little hope to survive except to try more extreme measures to attempt to even the odds.

Both sides think they’re right so does it just boil down to survival of the fittest and the winner gets to write the history books?

Thats the way to bet, however 500 guys with sticks convinced that they are bound for “heven” will take down 2 guys with machine guns numbers count. In the current situation nobody was threatening their lives (well except for their realtives, and neighbors) untill they drew first blood. First blood was drawn over a percived (by a very few) religious violation a very important point. Negoiation only works when both sides have something that they want that the other can give, in the cases of religious war it never works because the other guys want you converted or dead with the former generaly a compleate distruction of that culture. Your “fist fight” analogy is kida lame, the more nomal outcome is one or the other is beaten to submission, and historicaly then put into slavery. Slavery was quite offen the lot of the vanquished histoicaly.

wasn’t the movie called “Cloak&Dagger”??

Your points make a lot of sense and got me thinking a bit differently. Is this any difference than a camera on a SMART bomb, was that much different than a Cruise or TOW missile? From the knife, to the arrow, to the gun, to this… each step removes the combatant further from the actual event. Which you think would desensitize society and make war more common, but if you look across history, the opposite is evident. It was not uncommon for groups of people to be at war for centuries. The Greeks and Romans were almost constantly at war. Could you imagine a war the length of the Crusades, or the 100 Year War? The more removed we are, the fewer people actually die, the more human life is valued, the more shocking it is when civilians and even combatants do loose their life in a conflict.

it is just a “natural” progression, is there anyone that is surprised by this? that did not think that an automated soldier of some sort was inevitable? isn’t that really what the military(s) want? and we are very much desensitized, especially here in the west; that is how we got into this war. war does not have the same relevance, carry the same weight that it once did imo…there is precious little connection (unless you figure in the debt we are accumulating to fight it) to the war we fight and the people it is being fought for…

I think that may be one of the issues. Fighting tends to be longer when the skills and technology are even. If one side has a technological advantage which puts the fight in their favor, and they get to become more removed from the fight so they have less lives at risk, then the wars are definitely shorter because the side with the advantage can easily slaughter their opponent with little resistance.

i see what you are saying and in certain situations that is the case; while it may have been true at one time, it certainly is becoming less certain in these times that technological advantage equals easy victory…

If 2 people fight with fists, it will be a long fight to the death. If one of them gets to have a gun then the fighting will definitely be less but under those circumstances, can you really call that a fight or is it extermination? Does that then mean the one with the best weapons are always right because they easily beat lesser opponents.

i have seen many short fist fights…and in a situation where opponents are unevenly matched, the fight may be won easily but it does not necessarily mean the war is over…

Negoiation only works when both sides have something that they want that the other can give, in the cases of religious war it never works because the other guys want you converted or dead with the former generaly a compleate distruction of that culture.

that is exactly what people on the “this is an ideological/religious war” side of the debate want everyone to think, it just happens to be the case, in that part of the world, that politics and religion are intertwined, but their aims are very much political (from the top) not religious (not to justify or explain the irrational-ness of their acts). so negotiation & diplomacy are possible it just requires difficult decisions…