therawfeed.com — Strategy Page columnist James Dunnigan says that "CROWS," which are big guns manned by remote control using a joystick and video system, are highly successful in Iraq because the soldiers operating them grew up playing video games. It's first-person shooter for real.
Mar 21, 2006 View in Crawl 4
snoooMar 22, 2006
Uh, that game is so damn boring. I mean, you get killed after the first shot. And where are the med paks? I can't be expected to work in these conditions....
mrfollicleMar 22, 2006
kinda cool that we don't have to risk our soldiers' livesbut war should never become a video gamewhat...?someone already said that?oho wellG4M3R2 K1CK 4ZZ!!1!1!
Closed AccountMar 22, 2006
So, why not just play FPS games INSTEAD of actual killing?It doesn't ruin/end people's lives AND it's fun.
tonageMar 22, 2006
And another thing. Just because we do not use this available technology means nothing as to who ends up with it. If we don't develop it and use it, someone else will. Then we are really in a mess.
daenythMar 22, 2006
the scariest thing about this is that this desensitises (sp?) the soldiers to killing even more.
spxiiiMar 23, 2006
@tonageI'm not sure why you feel the need to insult me when you have the opportunity to easily just give my post a negative and ignore it, but I can assure you I'm more of an American than Bush's self-serving entourage or any of the criminals "serving" our country in Iraq by either committing crimes against humanity or turning a blind eye to the acts.As I said, I do not condone the development and use of any warfare technology if it is not being used as a purely defensive measure, and the only way to say whether or not it is offensive or defensive is to know the context of the war. Thus you have the reason for my "political bias" coming into this. Now let's look into your ideal of warfare: robot vs. robot, fight to the death. All this proves is that whoever has the most money wins, and in reality it's not going to be robot vs. robot, it's going to be wealthy, powerful U.S. with the robots and poor little country that has nothing but oil with the foot soldiers. This comes right back to my point again: If the poor little oil country is trying to start something with the powerful U.S., have fun at the slaughter. But when our robots are released on their land to take out "insurgents" and nobody really knows why other than some idealistic crusade line, then we have a problem that is only going to result in the U.S. saying, "we're bigger, stronger, and smarter, so you're wrong."
spxiiiMar 24, 2006
@tonageFirst of all, the "thread hijacking" or my misuse of this forum to spread my political bias is just completely wrong. This topic is already old, you and I being the only people still commenting since Wednesday. I really doubt anyone is reading the attached article anymore, much less our discussion buried near the bottom of a pile of 200 posts. I'm not a preacher or a politician, so I really don't care if I have the attention of an audience. But I'm confused why you refuse to comment. You accused me of not seeing the good in the war, and I agreed and asked that you show it to me. You also cannot understand why I can't see the necessity of these actions to prevent future deadly events, but you will not even try to show me your view, using the excuse that it would be a waste of your time and that I wouldn't be capable of listening objectively. How am I supposed to understand opposing views if every single person I ask cannot explain them to me? Your lack of articulation does nothing but strengthen my stance and force me to believe that you have no basis at all for your comments. Hopefully you can either prove me wrong or be sensible enough to be concerned if you cannot prove me wrong.
tonageMar 26, 2006
@spxiiiWe are not that far apart after all. But I do think the subject of this thread is a weapon that will save our soldiers lives in all wars. Even ones you support. And not developing something like this would cause the loss of soldiers' lives. This is about them, not Bush. He will be gone in a couple years. Wars will continue to happen long after that. Unfortunately.
nargilamonsterApr 16, 2006
"defanitely"Doesn't anyone know how to spell anymore?