China creates video game simulating combat against US troops

[Ziggurat]

I don't consider the Chinese to be adversaries, and support engagement policies that likewise view them as trading partners and potential friends.

I don't really care about the video game. I don't think it matters. But it does coincide with a very real, VERY common opinion in China, which is that they will eventually go to war with the United States. And it's not just random peasants who think that, it's a very common opinion within the military as well. And I don't just mean thinking that we're a possible adversary, or an adversary they need to be prepared to fight, I mean thinking that war is inevitable. That doesn't mean it is, that doesn't mean that they want war either. And I don't think that this video game will make any significant difference to those opinions. But it is yet one more indicator (but far from the only or most significant one) of an opinion among the Chinese that signals danger. And we should be very aware of that danger.

 

[McHrozni]

I don't consider the Chinese to be adversaries, and support engagement policies that likewise view them as trading partners and potential friends.

Too bad the Chinese disagree, then.

This is much more aggressive than any gaming simulation.

It's an entirely different topic.

Now how about answering my questions:
"... has it been confidently confirmed that the oppnent is the "US military"or is it merely implied?

I'm not buying a crappy fps to find out and am assuming it is for the sake of the debate. If it's just US equipment it is (significantly) less controvertial.

How about you answer my question. Do you consider the army recruiting slogan "join the army, be a hero, kill evil Americans" acceptable or not?

McHrozni

 

[Sceptic-PK]

I know, but you brought up Wolfenstein3D, which had a comparable enemy. If you're going to create a fictional storyline in which the Chinese fight whomever, you might as well use an enemy that used to exist but doesn't any more, use a different history and you're there. Would immersion suffer to a meningful degree? At all?

This comment is beyond stupid. Of course the immersion would suffer- you're not building a game for fun, you're building it as a training simulator, and as such, you want the best realism you can afford. The Chinese aren't going to benefit much by simulating, say, a conflict against WW2 era Germany.

The US is the most obviously choice for this kind of simulation.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Too bad the Chinese disagree, then.

And what do you say to the US using a version of Arma 2 for training purposes, where they shoot Russians?

 

[McHrozni]

And what do you say to the US using a version of Arma 2 for training purposes, where they shoot Russians?

If the game was sponsored by the US government or a direct agent thereof (e.g. military), I oppose it as well. If it was developed privately, and bought for such purposes, then I don't see the problem with it either.

This comment is beyond stupid. Of course the immersion would suffer- you're not building a game for fun, you're building it as a training simulator, and as such, you want the best realism you can afford. The Chinese aren't going to benefit much by simulating, say, a conflict against WW2 era Germany.

The US is the most obviously choice for this kind of simulation.

When did I propose they used WW2 Germany as the opponent, mr. Straw man? I didn't bring up Wolfenstein3D. Learn how to read.

McHrozni

 

[Sceptic-PK]

If the game was sponsored by the US government or a direct agent thereof (e.g. military), I oppose it as well. If it was developed privately, and bought for such purposes, then I don't see the problem with it either.

Right, so it's ok to pretend to shoot Russians just as long as the US didn't pay anyone to design the Russians they're shooting?

When did I propose they used WW2 Germany as the opponent, mr. Straw man? I didn't bring up Wolfenstein3D. Learn how to read.

I suggest it is you who should learn how to read. I wasn't claiming that you suggested to use WW2 Germany, that was my example (since we were already talking about Wolf) to counter this utter nonsense:

you might as well use an enemy that used to exist but doesn't any more, use a different history and you're there

It is a simulator, not a fantasy-based video game. The US and its allies are the perfect "enemies" for a military simulator for China.

It is also far less "offensive" than, say, using Taiwan as the enemy.

 

[McHrozni]

Right, so it's ok to pretend to shoot Russians just as long as the US didn't pay anyone to design the Russians they're shooting?

If you need to ask this, you need to read the arguments above.

I suggest it is you who should learn how to read. I wasn't claiming that you suggested to use WW2 Germany, that was my example (since we were already talking about Wolf) to counter this utter nonsense:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument

It is also far less "offensive" than, say, using Taiwan as the enemy.

China has been threatning to invade Taiwan should it declare indenpendance for quite a long time now, but using them as the enemy in a computer game is just too offensive to contemplate?

You might want to seek professional help.

McHrozni

 

[Trakar]

I don't really care about the video game. I don't think it matters. But it does coincide with a very real, VERY common opinion in China, which is that they will eventually go to war with the United States. And it's not just random peasants who think that, it's a very common opinion within the military as well. And I don't just mean thinking that we're a possible adversary, or an adversary they need to be prepared to fight, I mean thinking that war is inevitable. That doesn't mean it is, that doesn't mean that they want war either. And I don't think that this video game will make any significant difference to those opinions. But it is yet one more indicator (but far from the only or most significant one) of an opinion among the Chinese that signals danger. And we should be very aware of that danger.

Most importantly (and to the point of my other questions to McHrozni), the Chinese don't think they are going to eventually go to war with the US, because they want to challenge the US, they think they are eventually going to go to war with the US because they rightfully fear a US invasion and attack of their nation. "Rightfully" because we have a nation full of citizens and politicians who keep threatening everyone on this planet with attack and invasion, and they see how quickly the US can mobilize on a whim and attack and invade nations on the opposite side of the planet with little or no pretext. If we stop employing rogue, loose-cannon geopolitics, and start engaging other nations in more meaningful trade, cooperation and joint-effort treaties, using diplomacy instead of gunboats, we might actually accomplish something on this mudball.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

If we stop employing rogue, loose-cannon geopolitics, and start engaging other nations in more meaningful trade, cooperation and joint-effort treaties, using diplomacy instead of gunboats, we might actually accomplish something on this mudball.

Yes, but then the Republicans would run out of talking points.

 

[Trakar]

Yes, but then the Republicans would run out of talking points.

Possibly, but the current captain of the gunboat is a democrat and while he talks a slightly different talk, the walk seems much the same.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Possibly, but the current captain of the gunboat is a democrat and while he talks a slightly different talk, the walk seems much the same.

Fair enough, that is.

 

[Ziggurat]

Most importantly (and to the point of my other questions to McHrozni), the Chinese don't think they are going to eventually go to war with the US, because they want to challenge the US, they think they are eventually going to go to war with the US because they rightfully fear a US invasion and attack of their nation. "Rightfully" because we have a nation full of citizens and politicians who keep threatening everyone on this planet with attack and invasion, and they see how quickly the US can mobilize on a whim and attack and invade nations on the opposite side of the planet with little or no pretext. If we stop employing rogue, loose-cannon geopolitics, and start engaging other nations in more meaningful trade, cooperation and joint-effort treaties, using diplomacy instead of gunboats, we might actually accomplish something on this mudball.

Oh please. First off, China is no exemplar when it comes to "engaging other nations in more meaningful trade, cooperation and joint-effort treaties". And secondly, anyone paying attention will notice that we've never attacked another nuclear power. In fact, no country has ever launched a direct military attack against a nuclear power. And the only countries we've invaded since WW2 have all been 3rd rate losers. China is out on both counts. The Chinese military isn't actually worried about a US invasion. They're worried about what happens to Taiwan. And they're not exactly "using diplomacy instead of gunboats" to deal with Taiwan either.

Really, that was such a pathetically reflexive and cliched attack against the US that I have to wonder if you even put any effort into it.

 

[Trakar]

Oh please. First off, China is no exemplar when it comes to "engaging other nations in more meaningful trade, cooperation and joint-effort treaties".

reference/examples?

And secondly, anyone paying attention will notice that we've never attacked another nuclear power.

Didn't we just conduct a armed military excursion into the heart of a nuclear power, execute a compound full of people in that country and then leave with at least one of the bodies? Haven't we been launching missiles into that same nuclear power for most of the last decade? And this doesn't even get into proxy fights, nor is the lack of having confronted a major nuclear power in the last 50 years, compellingly indicative that there is any sort of guarantee that we would not in the next 50 years.

In fact, no country has ever launched a direct military attack against a nuclear power.

China and India, India and Pakistan, Sino-Soviet conflicts

And the only countries we've invaded since WW2 have all been 3rd rate losers.

Arguing that we only attack nations we perceive as being weak and unable to adequately defend themselves, does not further your overall argument.

China is out on both counts. The Chinese military isn't actually worried about a US invasion.

despite what they say and the actions they take, evidently. So, where do you derive this understanding from?

They're worried about what happens to Taiwan.

Taiwan is soveriegn Chinese territory.

And they're not exactly "using diplomacy instead of gunboats" to deal with Taiwan either.

actually, they are, for the most part, but you don't help people to understand that military aggression is an unacceptable methodology by subjecting them to military aggression in an attempt to educate them. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Really, that was such a pathetically reflexive and cliched attack against the US that I have to wonder if you even put any effort into it.

probably because you mistook my attack of some of the misguided and wrongheaded policies of some American administrations with an attack on the U.S. and its stated ideals and principles. Ironically, it is my promotion of those very American Ideals and Precepts which you confused with an attack on America?!

Strange times indeed.

 

[McHrozni]

Most importantly (and to the point of my other questions to McHrozni), the Chinese don't think they are going to eventually go to war with the US, because they want to challenge the US, they think they are eventually going to go to war with the US because they rightfully fear a US invasion and attack of their nation. "Rightfully" because we have a nation full of citizens and politicians who keep threatening everyone on this planet with attack and invasion, and they see how quickly the US can mobilize on a whim and attack and invade nations on the opposite side of the planet with little or no pretext. If we stop employing rogue, loose-cannon geopolitics, and start engaging other nations in more meaningful trade, cooperation and joint-effort treaties, using diplomacy instead of gunboats, we might actually accomplish something on this mudball.

Stundie material

McHrozni

 

[Ziggurat]

Didn't we just conduct a armed military excursion into the heart of a nuclear power, execute a compound full of people in that country and then leave with at least one of the bodies?

Yes. You think that constitutes an attack against Pakistan? Yeah, not so much. Pakistan doesn't think so either.

And this doesn't even get into proxy fights

That's rather the point: you DIDN'T get into the sort of conflicts that are far more likely. You went straight to the unthinking cliche.

nor is the lack of having confronted a major nuclear power in the last 50 years, compellingly indicative that there is any sort of guarantee that we would not in the next 50 years.

True. But again, that's rather my point: your previous argument was based wholly on a crude caricature of past events. You never made the argument which COULD be made about the future.

Since this may not be obvious to you, I never said that China was wrong to consider military conflict as inevitable. But your justification for why you think that viewpoint is right is, well, just plain silly. It reads like the kind of diatribe that idealistic college freshman parrot after learning from those really smart guys from the student communist party who just enlightened them about how uncool their parents really are. If China's fears are justified (and again, I'm not claiming that they aren't), they're justified for different reasons than you previously presented. Reasons that deal specifically which China's interests and our relationship, which your previous post tellingly didn't even mention.

 

[McHrozni]

Didn't we just conduct a armed military excursion into the heart of a nuclear power, execute a compound full of people in that country and then leave with at least one of the bodies? Haven't we been launching missiles into that same nuclear power for most of the last decade?

Hint: context helps. The above was done with the said powers' approval.
Please explain, did you eliminate the context deliberately and hope everyone is too ignorant to notice, or are you that ignorant yourself and don't know that USA and Pakistan have been cooperating for a very long time? I really don't see any other options - either you're terribly dishonest or even more terribly ignorant.

McHrozni

 

[Trakar]

...Since this may not be obvious to you, I never said that China was wrong to consider military conflict as inevitable. But your justification for why you think that viewpoint is right is, well, just plain silly. It reads like the kind of diatribe that idealistic college freshman parrot after learning from those really smart guys from the student communist party who just enlightened them about how uncool their parents really are. If China's fears are justified (and again, I'm not claiming that they aren't), they're justified for different reasons than you previously presented. Reasons that deal specifically which China's interests and our relationship, which your previous post tellingly didn't even mention.

And you presume to lecture me on knee-jerk sophistry and yet produce this level of juvenile caricature as an analogy,...seriously?!

Turn down the backlighting you are seemingly arguing against your own understandings and processes, while conveniently ignoring what I am actually saying.

 

[Trakar]

Hint: context helps. The above was done with the said powers' approval.
Please explain, did you eliminate the context deliberately and hope everyone is too ignorant to notice, or are you that ignorant yourself and don't know that USA and Pakistan have been cooperating for a very long time? I really don't see any other options - either you're terribly dishonest or even more terribly ignorant.

McHrozni

If this is the case then why are Pakistan's parlement and chief of intelligence condemning the raid, and protesting all the drone missile strikes?

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/15/world/la-fg-pakistan-bin-laden-20110515

And how does this refute the other instances noted of attacks against nuclear powers?

 

[Ziggurat]

And you presume to lecture me on knee-jerk sophistry and yet produce this level of juvenile caricature as an analogy,...seriously?!

Turn down the backlighting you are seemingly arguing against your own understandings and processes, while conveniently ignoring what I am actually saying.

What you actually said the first time around had no real substance. It WAS a caricature, and nothing more. Which is perhaps why you adopted quite different arguments in your following response.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

If you need to ask this, you need to read the arguments above.

I read your arguments, they were nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument

Obviously your reading comprehension hasn't improved since my last post

China has been threatning to invade Taiwan should it declare indenpendance for quite a long time now, but using them as the enemy in a computer game is just too offensive to contemplate?

Lol, man I love Americans. So one-eyed and myopic all at the same time. Yeah sure, it’s just wrong and apparently thread-worthy if China designs a game depicting the US as the “bad guys”, but a-ok if they use Taiwan, a nation they’re far more likely to be embroiled in a conflict with. USA USA USA!

You might want to seek professional help.

Yeah, maybe I could get advice on how to become a nationalist idiot.