The militarisation of youth.

StriderX

StriderX

StriderX

Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,846
Perhaps its just a side effect and in likelihood not particularly useful information, however i wondered recently about an interesting phenomenon brought on by "realistic" FPS games.

I have a certain bias towards military hardware so i don't think i can really include myself in this, however i am sure without video games i would likely not be as interested, nor have as much ability to identify equipment.

I wonder if you asked a 13 year old if he/she could recognise a SVD sniper rifle or an HK MP5?

Mind you perhaps those two items are quite overused in films, so maybe its duff question and needs a wider realm of media in general, which still makes it relevant i suppose.

A small experiment could have a group of people write down what weapon they enjoy/relate to in video games (like a P90 in CoD etc), have a bench with an array of weapons and see if they go immediately for it, a further test you could have a similar array of weapons but not include the weapon they most relate to (Perhaps using a different set of people).

The first experiment would be a test of identification and correlation, the second would seek to see if the person has a mental image of the weapon. I suppose you could do this in even simpler ways with just pictures, but you cant beat the real thing.

I suppose my question to people here is... Did i just waste my time :p or is this a relevant demographic?
 
Last edited:
The US military defineately does it on purpose. In fact they developed a FPS game themselves for recruiting purposes, cant remember what it was called, but it was quite popular though.

The recruiters get paid on comission for every person they recruit and they have these ridiculous pimped out humvees with big speakers and everything, and park them at malls and stuff where kids hang out. They have Xboxes set up with call of duty and the like. It's quite creepy... like something from Starship Troopers :D

Here you go:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/01/09/us-usa-army-recruiting-idUSTRE50819H20090109
 
Monkeynut said:
It's hardly the militarisation of youth, I mean, not exactly national service is it?
Click to expand...

Militarisation is a strong term, but its no less relevant in its meaning.

Familiarisation is probably a more suitable item, but i did not want my title to bigger than the Conservatives failed policy list. ;)
 
In the west our armed forces still operate on a volunteer basis, many millions of people play games/watch movies but many are not interested in pursuing a career in the armed forces where they will have to use theese weapons, but they will recognise them. Shooting is a hobby of mine, mainly shotguns for competition clay shooting. But im familiar with other weapons such as pistols, rifles. Various types that are used by both civilians and the military. For me they are a sporting tool, much the same as a golfer with the latest driver/iron.
 
StriderX said:
A small experiment could have a group of people write down what weapon they enjoy/relate to in video games (like a P90 in CoD etc), have a bench with an array of weapons and see if they go immediately for it, a further test you could have a similar array of weapons but not include the weapon they most relate to (Perhaps using a different set of people).
Click to expand...

would the BFG be on the bench?
 
setter said:
In the west our armed forces still operate on a volunteer basis, many millions of people play games/watch movies but many are not interested in pursuing a career in the armed forces where they will have to use theese weapons, but they will recognise them. Shooting is a hobby of mine, mainly shotguns for competition clay shooting. But im familiar with other weapons such as pistols, rifles. Various types that are used by both civilians and the military. For me they are a sporting tool, much the same as a golfer with the latest driver/iron.
Click to expand...

Lets add a scenario, lets just say that for whatever reason there is a large west/east conflict that required people in the military (unlikely, but still), would a population that is familiar with such things as weaponry, protocol, ethos, command structure and such...be more useful than population that is not?

Hell in the next 50 years a greater part of the population will have some basic knowledge of such things (compared to the population distribution at the moment).
 
Shooting a gun is easy, shooting a gun while under fire is utterly different. No, a generation of COD players would not make a better army, probably worse, they are probably under the impression that bullet wounds rarely if ever kill, and that if shot they can just crouch and recover.

Command structure, protocol, these aren't unique to the military, and are things taught that take pretty much minutes to learn and you have drilled into you for months before you get anywhere near combat. A HUGE part of the army is the, not sure how to word it, breaking down of personal freedoms and instilling the discipline to follow a commanders orders to run into enemy fire when required and kill people. A bunch of kids who think they know better or are rambo because of games isn't going to help at all.

Being able to name a bunch of guns on a table in a training camp, and being able to break it down, clean it, maintain it, and use it to kill people aren't even remotely close to the same thing.

A population that was hard working and spent their time doing hard labour would make a more hardened population for recruitment from. Imagine a bunch of 18-25 year olds who spent their youth playing video games surviving an icy winter in Europe in freezing temperatures holding the line vs a army made up of people that have been doing hard labour in fields from a young age... no contest.

Anyway, war breeds technology, technology interests people, guns are technology, and being interested in military hardware doesn't make someone better prepared or in any way more likely to be "better" at being a soldier, like anything else in life, its just an interest, nothing more or less. Guns are pretty fun to shoot, I've never come close to shooting at anything living and likely never will, being a good clay pigeon shooter won't make me in any way more prepared for war, unless you know, clay becomes sentient, learns to fly and arm themselves ;)
 
Last edited:
StriderX said:
Lets add a scenario, lets just say that for whatever reason there is a large west/east conflict that required people in the military (unlikely, but still), would a population that is familiar with such things as weaponry, protocol, ethos, command structure and such...be more useful than population that is not?

Hell in the next 50 years a greater part of the population will have some basic knowledge of such things (compared to the population distribution at the moment).
Click to expand...

In a zombie apocalypse scenario it would be useful. Future wars will be fought by drones so you'd need a really good eye to take them down. Or a mavity gun. :D
 
As a generalisation a large proportion of these people might tell i.e. an AK47 from an mp5 but probably couldn't tell an mp5 from a ump let alone what type of ammo they used and so on. Movies and games barely cover the basics of weaponry drill, discipline and so on.

EDIT drunkenmaster put it better.
 
I can confirm I was recruited into the SAS because of my kill to death ratio on Counter Strike Source.

But seriously war films have been around for years so it makes sense that now people play computer games that there are going to be war games, they might interest a lot of people but I doubt it makes much difference to the numbers of those joining the military, for one they aren't very realistic.

Also there are anti war films so it works both ways, maybe we will see anti war games at some point.
 
Last edited:
drunkenmaster said:
Shooting a gun is easy, shooting a gun while under fire is utterly different. No, a generation of COD players would not make a better army, probably worse, they are probably under the impression that bullet wounds rarely if ever kill, and that if shot they can just crouch and recover.

Command structure, protocol, these aren't unique to the military, and are things taught that take pretty much minutes to learn and you have drilled into you for months before you get anywhere near combat. A HUGE part of the army is the, not sure how to word it, breaking down of personal freedoms and instilling the discipline to follow a commanders orders to run into enemy fire when required and kill people. A bunch of kids who think they know better or are rambo because of games isn't going to help at all.

Being able to name a bunch of guns on a table in a training camp, and being able to break it down, clean it, maintain it, and use it to kill people aren't even remotely close to the same thing.

A population that was hard working and spent their time doing hard labour would make a more hardened population for recruitment from. Imagine a bunch of 18-25 year olds who spent their youth playing video games surviving an icy winter in Europe in freezing temperatures holding the line vs a army made up of people that have been doing hard labour in fields from a young age... no contest.

Anyway, war breeds technology, technology interests people, guns are technology, and being interested in military hardware doesn't make someone better prepared or in any way more likely to be "better" at being a soldier, like anything else in life, its just an interest, nothing more or less. Guns are pretty fun to shoot, I've never come close to shooting at anything living and likely never will, being a good clay pigeon shooter won't make me in any way more prepared for war, unless you know, clay becomes sentient, learns to fly and arm themselves ;)
Click to expand...

All true, however if you truly wanted a soldier, you could also go Vietnam in your training methods then again by most opinions the US lost that little conflict, so perhaps that was rather a pointless statement.
 
StriderX said:
Lets add a scenario, lets just say that for whatever reason there is a large west/east conflict that required people in the military (unlikely, but still), would a population that is familiar with such things as weaponry, protocol, ethos, command structure and such...be more useful than population that is not?
Click to expand...

Nope. Doesn't matter what you think you know from playing FPS's or the like, it does nothing to prepare you for real life in the Army. There are things you can see that no amount of gaming or films, no matter how 'realistic' they are can prepare you for.
 
I don't see the benefit of an obese gamer nerd being able to identify which gun just shot his fat sorry ass :p
 
drunkenmaster said:
Shooting a gun is easy, shooting a gun while under fire is utterly different. No, a generation of COD players would not make a better army, probably worse, they are probably under the impression that bullet wounds rarely if ever kill, and that if shot they can just crouch and recover.

Command structure, protocol, these aren't unique to the military, and are things taught that take pretty much minutes to learn and you have drilled into you for months before you get anywhere near combat. A HUGE part of the army is the, not sure how to word it, breaking down of personal freedoms and instilling the discipline to follow a commanders orders to run into enemy fire when required and kill people. A bunch of kids who think they know better or are rambo because of games isn't going to help at all.

Being able to name a bunch of guns on a table in a training camp, and being able to break it down, clean it, maintain it, and use it to kill people aren't even remotely close to the same thing.

A population that was hard working and spent their time doing hard labour would make a more hardened population for recruitment from. Imagine a bunch of 18-25 year olds who spent their youth playing video games surviving an icy winter in Europe in freezing temperatures holding the line vs a army made up of people that have been doing hard labour in fields from a young age... no contest.

Anyway, war breeds technology, technology interests people, guns are technology, and being interested in military hardware doesn't make someone better prepared or in any way more likely to be "better" at being a soldier, like anything else in life, its just an interest, nothing more or less. Guns are pretty fun to shoot, I've never come close to shooting at anything living and likely never will, being a good clay pigeon shooter won't make me in any way more prepared for war, unless you know, clay becomes sentient, learns to fly and arm themselves ;)
Click to expand...

Nail on head. A bunch of whiny, fat, spotty nerds vs a bunch of hardened, labouring, weathered men.

StriderX, you're a fantasist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom