Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
@train_glunkr, on Apr 27 2007, 03:15 AM, said in Oh Man...:
I'm having a hard time deciding what exactly you're trying to say. Could you try to clarify it for me please?
It was a schema, how things can manipulate you. Put "game" and "killing" in it:
A thing, game, which is rewarding you for doing something, killing, makes it more positive.
This is very simplified, but I think that the basic statement is correct, even if you don't think that killing in real life is all fun afterwards, but mabye burtality seems to be a better tool to solve problems? But that's another theme.
I agree. But it's not enough to only think about how not to use nuclear weapons, we also need to think about how to use them. I'm not sure what you think about the nuclear bombs used on the Japanese in WWII, but I think that dropping them was the right decision, and I'm glad people thought it out beforehand. So in a sense, DEFCON can be a good exercise in how to protect your country in case of all-out nuclear war. Or, you can take home the bigger lesson: all-out nuclear war is not good for anyone.
There are probably many opinions about that. I think that there should be rules which shouldn't be crossed, even in war. The consequences of nuclear radiation are something noone should calculate with in a war. I'm sure the Japanese could have been beaten without mutilate so many people, maybe doing so would have meant more deaths on the side of the Americans, but, in my opinion, that would have been worth it instead of killing so many civilians.
I will be honest here and tell you that I don't know enough about Russia, Austria or the Balkans to comment on them. However, I do know that every empire in history eventually weakens and loses territory and influence. So even if an empire can effectively win a war, they cannot hold on to what they have forever. Again, I don't know the specifics of the conflict you mentioned, but I think it's possible to wage effective war and later lose the conquered territory. Also, I think "victory" is a subjective term. Brutal warfare was used with great success by the ancient Persians and Assyrians. They were able to conquer most of the known world. They would routinely besiege and conquer cities, kill and enslave peoples and take everything for themselves. To them, this was victory. And I would say that they were very effective at it. I'm not saying anyone ought to wage war like they did, I'm just saying it is an effective way. Modern warfare relies on complexity, and that was my point.
I wanted to say that brutal warfare maybe is able to conquer a territory fast, but that it's not able to hold it for a long time (because of the already mentioned resistance which is created by the brutality).
Just because everyone is doing something (in this case, not resisting) doesn't make it right. Also, many of the people in Germany tried to be ignorant of things that were happening. They did not want to know because it let them blindly continue along the path of self-preservation. Ignorance is not a good excuse to behave wrongly. I do agree that speaking up would have most likely gotten them killed, but that still does not justify inaction. You seem to think that the most "right" a person can do is save their own skin. The mob should not determine what is right and wrong. Nor should convenience.
The instinct of self preservation is one of the most distinctive ones we're heaving, and only a few people would give their life for a not too sure victory.
This seems to become a more private discussion which shouldn't be lead on this forum.
A couple of things:
1. You can always play the Christmas Mod You have to deliver gifts to the children of the world
2. The most interesting thing about DEFCON to me is that it is a great teaching tool; I was explaining the whole concept to my teenaged son who, due to events that took place shortly before he was born, will very, very likely NOT have to live in a world where such a thing is would ever happen.
He hasn't yet learned (he's a freshman in High School) about détente, the breaking thereof, the insane-but-ok-we-all-now-admit-it-was-brilliant strategy of the Reagan Administration that lead to the end of the Cold War,or the horrifying reality that many of us lived with that we could all die, tomorrow...everyone...everywhere.
The game would NOT be effective if it tried to portray fighting a "winnable, limited war"...that's the POINT. You cannot win a Total Global Thermonuclear War. There is no such thing.
It is a game, and even the most megalomaniacal players I've talked to feel a bit creepy when they see those numbers pop up.
A good thing.
I've made a Wargames/WOPR NORAD mod. You could always play that...in Wargames, nobody died. It was all a simulation
-K
@mr--kai, on Apr 27 2007, 09:47 PM, said in Oh Man...:
Does it come complete with Tic-Tac-Toe?
@mrxak, on Apr 28 2007, 02:29 AM, said in Oh Man...:
Use the white board, duh!
xander
@darwinian, on Apr 27 2007, 11:10 PM, said in Oh Man...:
Aha! I keep forgetting about that. I need to start tic-tac-toe games.
@mrxak, on Apr 27 2007, 11:27 PM, said in Oh Man...:
Heheh I can see it now...
"Learn...LEARN gdi!!"
IT'S A GAME, PEOPLE. HEY, I'D NEVER START A GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR WAR, AND I LOVE THE GAME. BUT IT'S BUT IT'S JUST A GAME.
@anaxagoras, on Apr 26 2007, 10:45 PM, said in Oh Man...:
You are ALL morons for debating the ethical ramifications of switching 1s and 0s.
As PiSketch pointed out and I will reinforce Just because an event is imaginary does not mean that said event cannot be a powerful impetus for exploring and discussing the ethical ramifications it brings to light. Would you rather we wait for a real nuclear war to occur before we explore the underlying ideas behind such actions? I doubt it. I do not see how you can possibly believe that a discussion of the questions raised by Defcon is somehow moronic.
@train_glunkr, on Apr 26 2007, 09:15 PM, said in Oh Man...:
I'm not sure what you think about the nuclear bombs used on the Japanese in WWII, but I think that dropping them was the right decision, and I'm glad people thought it out beforehand.
As you have stated, people did indeed think out the use of The Bomb towards the end of WWII. However, I would be very interested to hear what you believe the thought process was. In my opinion, the use of a nuclear weapon against the predominantly defenseless civilian targets of a nation that was quite likely on the verge of surrender served as a brutal and horrifically inhumane way to ensure American hegemony in the post war world.
- - - - - -
To MrXak:
@mrxak, on Apr 26 2007, 01:08 PM, said in Oh Man...:
To butcher a famous quote, you don't want to fight World War IV with sticks when the other guy still has tanks.
The famous quote you reference is one made by Albert Einstein. As you stated, you did indeed butcher the quote, so much, in fact, that you have changed its meaning entirely.
The correct quote is as follows: "I do not know what weapons World War III will be fought with, but I know World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
-Albert Enstein
As you can see, the point made here is that another World War would destroy civilization, not that we should destroy civilization so that we will have the upper hand when another war rolls around.
I feel at this point we have reached a bit of a fork in the road. In one direction, we have the premise of a game like Defcon and the issues it raises under the unrealistic pretense of an unavoidable, necessary, and justifiable total nuclear war.
In the other direction, we have reality. As I assumed might happen, the distinction between the two paths has begun to blur and I am having an increasingly difficult time differentiating what you believe to be the case in the game world, and what you hold as truth in reality. Or, perhaps, your views on Nuclear War do not change from an unrealistic scenario to reality.
Since your stated argument is based upon what you call International Relations and is founded in Cold War ideology, then I must assume you are making a case for the for the elimination of population centers in the event of a real nuclear war, not just in a game like Defcon.
Unfortunately, to make this claim, one must toss all sense of morality, decency, and value for human life out the window and formulate an argument based on nothing more than uninformed logic and heinously detached intelligence. An argument that supplants the notion of human life as the ultimate reality and the preservation of human life as the paragon of morality with the notion that one needs to wipe out all civilians and a nations industrial capacity under the ruse of self-preservation is complete lunacy and has no place in the world.
Your argument falls into a hole where supposed intelligence becomes dangerously separated from the basic rules of decency. I would hesitate to even call such a line of thinking intelligent, but even if we label it as such, that supposition would indeed crumble when we realize that logical thought that has been totally torn from any moral or ethical value is no longer logical, but instead pure insanity.
As Theodore Roosevelt once said:
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society.
You also refer to the doctrine of MAD, which served as a basis for the balance of terror during the Cold War. Nixon intentionally portrayed himself as a lunatic to keep the Soviets guessing and off balance. Such a tactic ended up working, but had we entered a nuclear exchange, no one would ever again claim that the threat of MAD was a logical or valid method of self preservation. MAD is a strategy that works up until it must be tested. Once a plan of MAD is put into action it undermines the very objectives it set out to uphold in the first place, namely the prevention of nuclear war. As for credibility, to make the argument that credibility can possibly be based on following through with threats of eradicating millions of civilians is flat out wrong. I agree with you that it is important to remain credible, but not in ways that undercut the basic premises of humanity.
You also do not mention that the other key component behind the cold war threat of MAD, which is that both sides stuck by a no-first strike commitment. No one wanted to fire the first shot. This once again reinforces the idea that MAD might be a permissible strategy until the missiles start flying at which point it becomes nothing more than a madman's twisted justification for cold murder.
@crescentedge, on Apr 29 2007, 11:03 PM, said in Oh Man...:
You misunderstand. You launch your nukes at their cities when they launch at you because that way you can fight with sticks and stones. Otherwise, you'll never get the chance. It's far better to fight another day than never be able to fight again.
@mrxak, on Apr 30 2007, 02:15 AM, said in Oh Man...:
If you truly believe that, I have nothing more I wish to say.
This post has been edited by CrescentEdge : 30 April 2007 - 10:37 AM
I truly believe that all states wish to survive, and the best way for a state to survive is to not fight tanks with sticks.
@mrxak, on Apr 30 2007, 07:40 PM, said in Oh Man...:
Well, I have certainly learned my lesson. Never argue with armchair theorists since you won't be talking about reality.
@crescentedge, on Apr 30 2007, 09:57 PM, said in Oh Man...:
As lots of other people have already said, Defcon's not reality ;).
@mrxak, on Apr 30 2007, 10:06 PM, said in Oh Man...:
You were certainly talking about reality though. (Cold war, MAD, etc.) But again, I see no point in talking about this further since we seemed to have reached an impass.
This post has been edited by CrescentEdge : 30 April 2007 - 09:26 PM
damn quick post in wrong topic... I do feel really stupid sometimes
IGNORE THIS POST!!!
This post has been edited by Lt._Anonymous : 11 May 2007 - 12:52 AM
@crescentedge, on Apr 30 2007, 10:12 PM, said in Oh Man...:
Cold War strategy was not reality. That's because it was cold. That entire half-century was nothing but international relations theory between two powers that did not understand each other much. If there was a real nuclear exchange, things would be so chaotic, people would be refusing orders to kill millions, targets would be wrong, who knows what would happen. Defcon is a purely theoretical exercise, just as every strategic nuclear plan is. The Football is filled with various wargaming plans, but they are based in speculation. Conventional war plans are just as unrealistic. The first casualty in any conflict is the plan.
Hello everyone. Not often inspired to reply. But in this case I was. Here are some thoughts, disconnected from one another. Take it or leave it.
Right or wrong, I was moved by this game in a similar way to others. Playing this game is eerie and spooky. I am horrofied and disgusted but at the same time captivated. I try to think of different strategies and scenarios to try to minimize the cost, but the end is always the same. I think a lot of that has to do with the knoweldge that I have previously, not from the game, about the effects of nuclear war. I think it is completely possible that many people of younger generations (not all) might not feel the same way because nuclear war hasn't been as much of a focus in their lives and they probably don't fully appreciate the potential impact on the planet or humanity. I certainly think the game designers tapped into these feelings with the music and sounds and sterile interface and I applaude them for being able to make that emotional connection with at least some players.
While I'm happy to continue to play the game, I think the ideas about adjusting the scoring system to differentiate between military and civilian targets are great. Aside from the moral implications, such a scoring system would add another type of game strategy that I feel would be very fun to play. It could very well be that IV designed the game without such a scoring system in place to force us to have the reaction that we do. If you were able to win at this game without killing as many civilians, you might be able to feel good about yourself. And maybe IV didn't want any grey area where you could make excuses for using nukes at all. And if that's the case, I can respect that. Either way, I'd like the opportunity to play the game sometimes with the alternate scoring system.
Morals... if an enemy attempts to attack your country with nuclear weapons and you are able to successfully neutralize that enemy and their nuclear capabilities... what do you do next? Do you now launch nuclear weapons at that enemy in revenge even though they are now harmless (at least for the time being)? Do you launch a conventional attack? Do you do nothing and let the opinion of the international community (whose reaction ought to be horror that someone would try to use nuclear weapons) serve as ample punishment? The world has changed and while some strategies developed in the Cold War may still apply, there are new scenarios that need to be considered. What if a terrorist organization detonates a nuclear bomb in London? Or New York? Who do you strike? Can you be sure they are guilty? What if you were able to stop the terrorist attempt to detonate the nuclear bomb? Do you strike back? Who? How? The answer to these questions might be clear to others (and I welcome their response) but they are not clear to me.
Someone else mentioned that times have changed. I agree. Earlier in human history conquest was probably easier. Kill everyone and dominate via brutality. I hope we have evolved. These days, warfare and the process of changing hearts and minds is much different and much more complex.
One last thing... I find it bizarre that some people are upset that this conversation is happening and saying "It's just a game! If you don't like it, don't play." I don't think anyone is saying they don't like the game. They wouldn't post here if they didn't care. People are just talking about how the game has affected them and what thoughts come to mind while playing the game. I guess an appropriate response would be, "It's just a conversation! If you don't like it, don't read."
bliksem
@freq245, on Apr 26 2007, 05:54 AM, said in Oh Man...:
I don't think that total brutality would lead to victory, especially not in countries like Iraq. Being brutal always lead to more resistance, eventually supported the enemies of the occupying force and sooner or later caused a defeat, that happened very often in the past. Was Russia able to hold its west? Or Austria the Balkans and the rest of its east, back in the 19th century, beginning of the 20th one?
Was the United States able to hold the Great Plains? Oh...
Brutality works great under the right conditions. Iraq, which is surrounded by influential neighbors and is being watched by the world, certainly isn't under this category, but history is littered with successful shows of pure force.
@veritus-dartarion, on May 11 2007, 04:46 AM, said in Oh Man...:
But the indians were entirely killed or they were ran away from their land, but I was talking about overtaking an civilisation, not destroying it. By nuking the Iraq you wouldn't have your problems, too.
@freq245, on May 11 2007, 08:46 AM, said in Oh Man...:
oh, okay. My mistake. I would agree, then, that it is pretty much impossible to make people who hate you like you by killing a bunch of them.