5 ms·

> Granted, the idea of someone playing video games to kill real people makes me angry and decision making around drone strikes is already questionable. For tha

> Granted, the idea of someone playing video games to kill real people makes me angry and decision making around drone strikes is already questionable. For that first part, though, what does that even mean? The military isn't gamifying things and giving folks freaking XBox achievements for racking up killstreaks or anything. It's just the same game people have been playing since putting an atlatl on a spear, a scope on a rifle, or a black powder cannon on a battlefield. How to attack the enemy without being at risk. Is it unethical for a general officer to be sitting in an operations center directing the fight by looking at real-time displays? Is that a "video game?" The drone strikes in the Global War on Terror were a direct product of political pressure to "do something, anything" to stop another September 11th attack while simultaneously freaking out about a so-called "quagmire" any time someone mentioned "boots on ground." Well, guess what? If you don't want SOF assaulters doing raids to capture people, if you don't want traditional military formations holding ground, and you don't want people trying to collect intelligence by actually going to these places, about the only option you have left is to fly a drone around and try to identify the terrorist and then go whack him when he goes out to take a leak. Or do nothing and hope you don't get hit again.

batch12 2y ago
>For that first part, though, what does that even mean? The military isn't gamifying things and giving folks freaking XBox achievements for racking up killstreaks or anything. It's just the same game people have been playing since putting an atlatl on a spear, a scope on a rifle, or a black powder cannon on a battlefield. How to attack the enemy without being at risk. Is it unethical for a general officer to be sitting in an operations center directing the fight by looking at real-time displays? Is that a "video game?" It's not the same thing. Not even close. Killing people is horrible enough. Sitting in a trailer, clicking a button and killing someone from behind a screen without any of the risk involved is cowardly and shitty. There is no justification you can provide that will change my mind. Before you disregard my ability to understand the situation, I say this as a combat veteran.
- pintxo 2y ago
  Would you say the same about a drone operator in ukraine, attacking russian troops on ukraine territory? I feel like there is still a distinction here. Between "traditional" warfare and those "anti-terror" operations.
  - batch12 2y ago
    I'm talking about long range UAV drone strikes. Short range consumer-grade drones strikes aren't something I have experience with. To me, the idea feels similar to the that of IEDs, mortars, claymore mines, etc which also suck, but not the same thing. Landmines are up there though.
  - datameta 2y ago
    FPV and scout drone operators in Ukraine are very much at personal risk, they operate within several km of the front line. This is in range of mortars, artillery, snipers, autocannon, tanks, etc.
- mustyoshi 2y ago
  > clicking a button and killing someone from behind a screen without any of the risk involved is cowardly and shitty It's actually strategic, and if you're fighting a peer adversary, they will be doing the same.
  - batch12 2y ago
    That's true and also doesn't conflict with my quoted comment.
- t-3 2y ago
  >> For that first part, though, what does that even mean? The military isn't gamifying things and giving folks freaking XBox achievements for racking up killstreaks or anything. It's just the same game people have been playing since putting an atlatl on a spear, a scope on a rifle, or a black powder cannon on a battlefield. How to attack the enemy without being at risk. Is it unethical for a general officer to be sitting in an operations center directing the fight by looking at real-time displays? Is that a "video game?" > It's not the same thing. Not even close. Killing people is horrible enough. Sitting in a trailer, clicking a button and killing someone from behind a screen without any of the risk involved is cowardly and shitty. There is no justification you can provide that will change my mind. Before you disregard my ability to understand the situation, I say this as a combat veteran. Respectfully, whether or not an action is cowardly is not a factor that should ever be considered when making military decisions (or any other serious decision). With that being said, my uncle was a military drone pilot in the 80s-90s and he said it's pretty much exactly like a video game, and doing well does give achievements in the form of commendations and promotions.
sangnoir 2y ago
> For that first part, though, what does that even mean? The military isn't gamifying things and giving folks freaking XBox achievements for racking up killstreaks or anything Fighter pilots have been adding decals keeping track of the number (amd type) of aircraft they have downed as far back as WWII.
- sophacles 2y ago
  And special terms for those who do well. "Ace" doesn't mean "good at it", it means "has shot down N enemy aircraft" (usually N is 5) - it implies good at it tho. Not to mention the long history of handing out achievements in the form of medals/ribbons/etc.
  - kilna 2y ago
    It's probably fairer to say that in-game achievements were inspired by medals/ribbons, than the other way around.
- psunavy03 2y ago
  Fighter pilots also know damn well what they are getting themselves into. That isn't the "gamification" I'm talking about. Ender's Game is fiction. I've seen drone strikes go down IRL, and no one involved mistook the gravity of the situation or the importance of getting it right. It's not what the other poster derides as a "video game."
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
yencabulator 2y ago
> If you don't want [...]. [...] about the only option you have left is to fly a drone around [...] Or do nothing and hope you don't get hit again. Meanwhile, just about the best increased defense against that attack happening again is that passengers will no longer tolerate it. Absolutely nothing to do with US military attacking a country/region/people.

batch12 2y ago

>For that first part, though, what does that even mean? The military isn't gamifying things and giving folks freaking XBox achievements for racking up killstreaks or anything. It's just the same game people have been playing since putting an atlatl on a spear, a scope on a rifle, or a black powder cannon on a battlefield. How to attack the enemy without being at risk. Is it unethical for a general officer to be sitting in an operations center directing the fight by looking at real-time displays? Is that a "video game?" It's not the same thing. Not even close. Killing people is horrible enough. Sitting in a trailer, clicking a button and killing someone from behind a screen without any of the risk involved is cowardly and shitty. There is no justification you can provide that will change my mind. Before you disregard my ability to understand the situation, I say this as a combat veteran.

pintxo 2y ago
Would you say the same about a drone operator in ukraine, attacking russian troops on ukraine territory? I feel like there is still a distinction here. Between "traditional" warfare and those "anti-terror" operations.
- batch12 2y ago
  I'm talking about long range UAV drone strikes. Short range consumer-grade drones strikes aren't something I have experience with. To me, the idea feels similar to the that of IEDs, mortars, claymore mines, etc which also suck, but not the same thing. Landmines are up there though.
- datameta 2y ago
  FPV and scout drone operators in Ukraine are very much at personal risk, they operate within several km of the front line. This is in range of mortars, artillery, snipers, autocannon, tanks, etc.
mustyoshi 2y ago
> clicking a button and killing someone from behind a screen without any of the risk involved is cowardly and shitty It's actually strategic, and if you're fighting a peer adversary, they will be doing the same.
- batch12 2y ago
  That's true and also doesn't conflict with my quoted comment.
t-3 2y ago
>> For that first part, though, what does that even mean? The military isn't gamifying things and giving folks freaking XBox achievements for racking up killstreaks or anything. It's just the same game people have been playing since putting an atlatl on a spear, a scope on a rifle, or a black powder cannon on a battlefield. How to attack the enemy without being at risk. Is it unethical for a general officer to be sitting in an operations center directing the fight by looking at real-time displays? Is that a "video game?" > It's not the same thing. Not even close. Killing people is horrible enough. Sitting in a trailer, clicking a button and killing someone from behind a screen without any of the risk involved is cowardly and shitty. There is no justification you can provide that will change my mind. Before you disregard my ability to understand the situation, I say this as a combat veteran. Respectfully, whether or not an action is cowardly is not a factor that should ever be considered when making military decisions (or any other serious decision). With that being said, my uncle was a military drone pilot in the 80s-90s and he said it's pretty much exactly like a video game, and doing well does give achievements in the form of commendations and promotions.

sangnoir 2y ago

> For that first part, though, what does that even mean? The military isn't gamifying things and giving folks freaking XBox achievements for racking up killstreaks or anything Fighter pilots have been adding decals keeping track of the number (amd type) of aircraft they have downed as far back as WWII.

sophacles 2y ago
And special terms for those who do well. "Ace" doesn't mean "good at it", it means "has shot down N enemy aircraft" (usually N is 5) - it implies good at it tho. Not to mention the long history of handing out achievements in the form of medals/ribbons/etc.
- kilna 2y ago
  It's probably fairer to say that in-game achievements were inspired by medals/ribbons, than the other way around.
psunavy03 2y ago
Fighter pilots also know damn well what they are getting themselves into. That isn't the "gamification" I'm talking about. Ender's Game is fiction. I've seen drone strikes go down IRL, and no one involved mistook the gravity of the situation or the importance of getting it right. It's not what the other poster derides as a "video game."
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

yencabulator 2y ago

> If you don't want [...]. [...] about the only option you have left is to fly a drone around [...] Or do nothing and hope you don't get hit again. Meanwhile, just about the best increased defense against that attack happening again is that passengers will no longer tolerate it. Absolutely nothing to do with US military attacking a country/region/people.