CIA Drones Could Lead To A "PlayStation Mentality" About Killing

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
An investigator for the United Nations says that the use of CIA remote controlled drones could lead to a “PlayStation Mentality” towards killing people. Umm, okay.

"Because operators are based thousands of miles away from the battlefield, and undertake operations entirely through computer screens and remote audio-feed, there is a risk of developing a 'Playstation' mentality to killing," he said, referring to the popular Sony video game console.
Click to expand...
 
See, the CIA has violent video games as well, except people really die in there :( guess there is a difference after all huh?
 
God forbid the people that you are training to kill people are not traumatized by killing exactly who you are wanting killed.
 
I can't wait for the first terrorist killing bot to be created for the Predator Drones.
 
why will they get "playstation mentality"?

they will start to feel like they are better then everyone else? That when they kill someone they're using the best looking technology ever? Or will they just feel like they are better because they paid twice as much as the other drone operators? Or is it because their dones can play blu-ray too?
 
No matter what "mentality" comes from using these devices, it's far better than actual lives being risked.
 
BlueStorm said:
I don't think you understand. They're not concerned about that.. they're concerned about it lowering the threshold to have situations like we have had in Iraq where soldiers kind of go crazy and kill innocents.
Click to expand...

BTW it's a legitimate concern if you weigh the red button to drop a nuke vs. having to interact with your weapon of choice, and viscerally use it face to face. They're two completely different experiences.
 
It's a different kind of warfare, where a pilot can kill from 9-5 then be back home to have dinner with the family. They fight with setups that could be mistaken for a flight-sim enthusiast's. I think the question they're asking is how aware the pilot is of the damage he or she is actually doing with each missile.

As a disclaimer, I'm a big supporter of anything that helps our soldiers fight safely.
 
It is hard to believe there is someone stupid enough to be opposed to this, but I guess there always has to be someone opposed to everything, everyone can't just agree.

If you asked a mother of a son going to war;

Would you have your son behind a computer screen to fight against the terror?

Or

Would you rather have your son on the front line with a 100% higher chance of dieing (not saying he will die but in comparison...) and still a chance of mental insanity?

I would hope every mother would pick the computer screen... but I'm not a mother so what do I know. :rolleyes:
 
NKDietrich said:
No matter what "mentality" comes from using these devices, it's far better than actual lives being risked.
Click to expand...

As a guy who makes that kind of technology (my job includes frequent references to "The Warfighter" as part of describing how what I do is used, and who is using it), you are not only wrong, you are VERY wrong. Take men (and women) out of the loop and you take the brakes off politicians using military force for solely self serving political ends. You have the effect (perceived, perhaps, more readily than real, but real none-the-less) of having a drone drop bombs on a "munitions factory" of an insurgent group (killing real human beings) to take political heat of some politician caught with his pants around his ankles.

Minimize risk to the warfighter, yes. Remove all risk? Not only no, but hell no. I want, and all of the folks, including military at my command, every warfighter to come home... but if they have to come home in a body bag, then that's the price the pols need to be willing to accept for their decisions. If you don't put one of our men or women in the line of fire, if you don't have the possible specter of facing their next of kin who are asking "Why did my son or daughter have to die? Did this serve our country?", then the pols are just going to push that button too often. And pretty soon, some folks who don't particularly like us are going to have buttons like that too.
 
BlueStorm said:
I don't think you understand. They're not concerned about that.. they're concerned about it lowering the threshold to have situations like we have had in Iraq where soldiers kind of go crazy and kill innocents.
Click to expand...

They didn't have video games back in the days that the soilders in Viet Nam were growing up and they "went crazy and killed whole villages" then. It's not a matter of video games causing it. It's a matter of human nature.
 
sd11 said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6152118.stm

There is just one, there are more. It does happen. I wouldn't blame video games though. There are cultural reasons on our part that lead to this combined with stress.
Click to expand...

Thanks; I just read some of the attached material. You're right, it would be rather difficult to blame clinically diagnosed sociopathy on video games.

Not that it's your responsibility to educate me on the subject, but I still would like to see something about soldiers "going crazy" and or straight up murdering innocents. Particularly where the soldiers in question don't have a screw loose to begin with.
 
Seems logical to me. In some ways the technology is a good thing, but it also brings the danger of devaluing human life.
 
Or they could be like my little girl playing GTA on the PSP. Killing and running over anyone because daddy tells her they are zombies. I can see where the "playstation mentality" comes from. You no longer see the enemy as a person but an icon on the screen to get rid of.
 
The combat simulators at the end of Enders Game/Shadow gave the military/dod the idea. Make it a game, disassociate the player from the reality of the situation.
 
RGMBill said:
As a guy who makes that kind of technology (my job includes frequent references to "The Warfighter" as part of describing how what I do is used, and who is using it), you are not only wrong, you are VERY wrong. Take men (and women) out of the loop and you take the brakes off politicians using military force for solely self serving political ends. You have the effect (perceived, perhaps, more readily than real, but real none-the-less) of having a drone drop bombs on a "munitions factory" of an insurgent group (killing real human beings) to take political heat of some politician caught with his pants around his ankles.

Minimize risk to the warfighter, yes. Remove all risk? Not only no, but hell no. I want, and all of the folks, including military at my command, every warfighter to come home... but if they have to come home in a body bag, then that's the price the pols need to be willing to accept for their decisions. If you don't put one of our men or women in the line of fire, if you don't have the possible specter of facing their next of kin who are asking "Why did my son or daughter have to die? Did this serve our country?", then the pols are just going to push that button too often. And pretty soon, some folks who don't particularly like us are going to have buttons like that too.
Click to expand...

could not have been better put, also If one cannot respect their enemy as a fellow human being, than they have already lost the battle.Seems like somebody wrote something like that down a while ago.. can't seem to place it;)
 
BlueStorm said:
BTW it's a legitimate concern if you weigh the red button to drop a nuke vs. having to interact with your weapon of choice, and viscerally use it face to face. They're two completely different experiences.
Click to expand...


agreed
 
This reminds me of when the internet was once described as a series tubes by which dumpster trucks carry your informashuns.
 
aren't the guys at the console being supervised and needing 100% confirmation before hitting 'the red button'? I mean you don't let a pilot (one who's actually in the air craft) arm his weapons without confirmation, why would a remote pilot have any extra privileges? if anything it just makes the remote pilot more reckless with their flight manuvers because they don't suffer any of the consequences from being shot down or crashing, they are still subject to the same consequences of firing on the wrong target or without confirmation, right?
 
I think this is a VERY good thing.

Soldiers of the Past (and Today) require a physically strong individual and a set of physical skills to be able to dominate a battlefield or win a firefight. America, as a whole, Is getting weaker physically, with a highly sedentary lifestyle and skyrocketing obesity rate among those 35 and younger, why typically fight wars.

Fast Forward to today's emerging remote controlled drone technology, and these weapons of war require a completely different skill-set. This skill-set is re-enforced in today's society to the extreme, as virtually all american males under the age of 35 routinely play video games, which are very similar to the interface for these drone devices.

to break it down,

In WWII, American Children grew up camping outside, hunting, shooting and playing aggressive team based games and sports. It gave those same individuals a huge edge on the battlefield.

Tomorrow's army will require lightning quick reflexes, hand eye co-ordination, spatial cognitive abilities and rapid identification of objects. The video games children play today are well preparing them for that future battlefield.
 
Um, as a soldier I can say that this kind of shit happens everywhere, in every war.

War is stresful, its makes people do stupid things. Sure, there will be times when soldiers do things they shouldnt, but thats a part of war. Now if we had an all drone force those things would never happen, but thats a differant discussion.

As for this, I say hell ya, use remotes. Use drones. You people are comparing this to "pushing a button". I'll say this, every kill in the military that isn't a soldier shooting his gun is just "pushing a button". Artillery? Just a button. Pilots? Just pushing some buttons. Sub Commanders? Should we get rid of every facet of our military except the infantry just because they can't see what they are shooting at? Fuck no. Did people complain when we did bomb drops from WW2 to now? No. They couldnt see their targets, they just pushed a button. What about shock and awe, with all the rain we brought, that was all just pushing buttons. Did people complain then? No. Did those commanders not realize what they were doing? Fuck no.

Its all just a game for the pols, they will always attack the military, the same military that dies for them.

There is only 2 ways any battle is fought now. Hell, its been like that since the WW's.

1. Blindly rush in with infantry, have huge casualties, have lots of men and women come home in body bags.

2. Shell the site, bomb the site, drone the site, or other "buttton pushing" scenarios. Then send in the troops, and have minimal casualties.

It seems like some of you are too soft. Or maybe your too hardcore. Do we need the personal touch in every situation? Should we ground the drones that are hunting down terrorists and instead load our guys on 747's and crash them into terrorist's houses? Is that personal enough for you? Should we say to hell with technology, to hell with the fact that every other modern nation in the world would do the same thing, fuck that, we need infantry to come home in bags.

Some of yall are really fucking out there. Drones are just one more way to keep my boys safe. Would I hesitate to call in drones or air support or indirect fire if I thought it could save my guys' lives? Fuck no. Would the Fire Support teams not "push the button" to save their brothers? Fuck no. Would the Apache pilot not fly close support? Fuck no.

And to the guy above me that says that we need boys coming home in body bags, watch your step...
I suggest you give up your nice cushy gov't paid job, enlist, be a ground pounder in some of the squads ive been with, and once you come back you tell me your team mates needed to die. Should I have to die just to please you? I wouldnt let any of my soldiers die for you, but I wouldnt hesitate to have someone of your mentality with me in the field, you make a great sniper finder I think.

You think having drones will remove all consequence from fighting wars? Then tell me why the hell you here so many people bitching about them still. People will bitch, people will still be held acountable. Then there's the fucked up kind of people that need bodies in bags to feel acountable, and I wouldnt ever lose any of my guys for you.
 
All offensive battles should start by a multi-hour thermobaric and bunker busting bomb rain, then once we are sure almost everything is dead do we send in people.
 
Just to fill in the blanks, I'm at Fort Dix right now training for another deployment. Would I say fuck the drones, I need to kill bitches with my bare hands, and maybe lose half my squad at the same time? Fuck no
 
Vaulter98c said:
Um, as a soldier I can say that this kind of shit happens everywhere, in every war.

War is stresful, its makes people do stupid things. Sure, there will be times when soldiers do things they shouldnt, but thats a part of war. Now if we had an all drone force those things would never happen, but thats a differant discussion.

As for this, I say hell ya, use remotes. Use drones. You people are comparing this to "pushing a button". I'll say this, every kill in the military that isn't a soldier shooting his gun is just "pushing a button". Artillery? Just a button. Pilots? Just pushing some buttons. Sub Commanders? Should we get rid of every facet of our military except the infantry just because they can't see what they are shooting at? Fuck no. Did people complain when we did bomb drops from WW2 to now? No. They couldnt see their targets, they just pushed a button. What about shock and awe, with all the rain we brought, that was all just pushing buttons. Did people complain then? No. Did those commanders not realize what they were doing? Fuck no.

Its all just a game for the pols, they will always attack the military, the same military that dies for them.

There is only 2 ways any battle is fought now. Hell, its been like that since the WW's.

1. Blindly rush in with infantry, have huge casualties, have lots of men and women come home in body bags.

2. Shell the site, bomb the site, drone the site, or other "buttton pushing" scenarios. Then send in the troops, and have minimal casualties.

It seems like some of you are too soft. Or maybe your too hardcore. Do we need the personal touch in every situation? Should we ground the drones that are hunting down terrorists and instead load our guys on 747's and crash them into terrorist's houses? Is that personal enough for you? Should we say to hell with technology, to hell with the fact that every other modern nation in the world would do the same thing, fuck that, we need infantry to come home in bags.

Some of yall are really fucking out there. Drones are just one more way to keep my boys safe. Would I hesitate to call in drones or air support or indirect fire if I thought it could save my guys' lives? Fuck no. Would the Fire Support teams not "push the button" to save their brothers? Fuck no. Would the Apache pilot not fly close support? Fuck no.

And to the guy above me that says that we need boys coming home in body bags, watch your step...
I suggest you give up your nice cushy gov't paid job, enlist, be a ground pounder in some of the squads ive been with, and once you come back you tell me your team mates needed to die. Should I have to die just to please you? I wouldnt let any of my soldiers die for you, but I wouldnt hesitate to have someone of your mentality with me in the field, you make a great sniper finder I think.

You think having drones will remove all consequence from fighting wars? Then tell me why the hell you here so many people bitching about them still. People will bitch, people will still be held acountable. Then there's the fucked up kind of people that need bodies in bags to feel acountable, and I wouldnt ever lose any of my guys for you.
Click to expand...

Post of the Thread right there.
 
War sucks, shit happens, we try our best to not let innocents die. If people are doing something wrong, hold them accountable. I highly doubt the CIA or CO's in the military are encouraging senseless bloodthirsty behaiviour. Strike that, I KNOW they aren't.

Let those that do their jobs well continue to do so. Those that don't wont last long.
 
Yeah, we've heard something like that, but the other way around for years too.....
"Playing playsation (war games) could lead to war / killing mentality."

Maybe Jack Thompson can join the UN & jump on this bandwagon.

We should ask people from WWII if shooting people's from way up in a gunners nest on the beaches of Normandy lead them to a "gamers mentality"... shooting the little ants running across the beach.

In war, you kill people thats what happens. Maybe one day in fantasy land there will be peace on earth, until then you need people that can pull the trigger when commanded to, or when needed.

Pansy tree hugging hippies need not apply for military positions.

And that's my "You can't handle the truth." Jack Nicholson speech. :)
 
Sit down at a station, push a button and strangers die halfway around the world on your monitor. Get done with your "shift", go home, grab a beer and watch your television. Yes, those are real people you just killed, and yes you should feel something but you don't, because the whole thing feels like a video game to you.

That's fucked up.
 
jiminator said:
Morons in the UN are worse than useless.
Click to expand...

The problem with the UN is that the driving sentiment is overly humanitarian; don't get me wrong, humanitarian efforts are helping people in need all over the world, which should be applauded. But at the same time, you do need to have a mix of leaders in with the humanitarians who can make hard descisions. Sometimes there will be war, strife, death whether we like it or not.
 
RGMBill said:
As a guy who makes that kind of technology (my job includes frequent references to "The Warfighter" as part of describing how what I do is used, and who is using it), you are not only wrong, you are VERY wrong. Take men (and women) out of the loop and you take the brakes off politicians using military force for solely self serving political ends. You have the effect (perceived, perhaps, more readily than real, but real none-the-less) of having a drone drop bombs on a "munitions factory" of an insurgent group (killing real human beings) to take political heat of some politician caught with his pants around his ankles.

Minimize risk to the warfighter, yes. Remove all risk? Not only no, but hell no. I want, and all of the folks, including military at my command, every warfighter to come home... but if they have to come home in a body bag, then that's the price the pols need to be willing to accept for their decisions. If you don't put one of our men or women in the line of fire, if you don't have the possible specter of facing their next of kin who are asking "Why did my son or daughter have to die? Did this serve our country?", then the pols are just going to push that button too often. And pretty soon, some folks who don't particularly like us are going to have buttons like that too.
Click to expand...

Biggest load of shit I've ever read on this forum, even a port-a-john at a prune festival can't compare to the load this guy is harboring.

Funny that he found someone to immediately agree with him, but that's the reality of the internet and people in general. The thread was over anyways with the soldier's post above.
 
bucket said:
Sit down at a station, push a button and strangers die halfway around the world on your monitor. Get done with your "shift", go home, grab a beer and watch your television. Yes, those are real people you just killed, and yes you should feel something but you don't, because the whole thing feels like a video game to you.

That's fucked up.
Click to expand...

You're speaking hypothetically. What makes you think these people feel nothing? Feeling remorse about taking a life surely affects people, yet if their actions saved lives they should be able to live with their actions.
 
They better keep Philip Alston, U.N. special rapporteur away from me because that guy is one cold blooded individual who can't distinguish video games from real life.
 
It's nothing but them trying to restrict our abilities because they're still throwing rocks at each other, and don't want us to be to dominating.
 
RumpleForeSkin said:
could not have been better put, also If one cannot respect their enemy as a fellow human being, than they have already lost the battle.Seems like somebody wrote something like that down a while ago.. can't seem to place it;)
Click to expand...

Was it Jesus? Yknow, the Jesus before Christians killed hundreds of millions of humans over the next thousand and a half years or so?
 
Not unlike what we see in this thread, these drones lead to desensitized people, lack of empathy for other human beings, and an overall lower threshold for human life.

You are supposed to be traumatized when you take a life. This is healthy behavior that should be enforced, not eliminated. Unless you want people just shrugging off every life they take, like it's a measly internet thread.

Also, these measures just lead terrorists and others to deeper formsof desperation. Meaning, you will not avoid losing a life by committing your forces with drones. What you'll be doing instead is trading American soldier lives for "whoever is against us at the moment" lives, and American civilian lives. We've already seen this in 9/11 and yet we continue to pressure these kinds of people back into a corner.

It's really, really stupid to think you can have war without losing lives. Let's not forget every war where these are currently being used is a war America started.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top