http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingrevie ... tiers_1105

Really good article, if you can get past the initial kneejerk reaction you might have to the subject matter. There are a lot of other dynamics to the psychology of suicidal warfare (especially religious and cultural considerations, because IRL you don't respawn...and we're biologically programmed against self annihilation except under specific circumstances...such as saving a child, etc.) but it's not the worst analogy.

_________________

This article made me understand the mindset that could enable someone to commit themselves to this type of act. The idea had completely eluded me until this article. It makes me realize even more how lucky I am to live where I live. The military thinks in terms of "acceptable losses." The idea that someone could convince themselves that their sacrifice could bring about a significantly greater loss for their enemy is what makes a soldier a "hero" in some eyes. Most of the soldiers who landed on Normandy knew they were walking to their own death, but wanted to be sure to take as many of the enemy with them as they died. The key is the awareness that these suidice bombers believe they are at war. The only way to slow this is to back off our policy of intervention....

Damn I think I finally get this.

Ron Paul = win btw...

_________________

No. Let me be super clear on something...the mindset of people who put their lives at risk is completely different from someone who knowingly goes to die. HUGE difference.

There's something interesting from WWII in that respect. There were a high number of losses among pilots for bombing missions. So some eggheads crunched some numbers. And they found a way to substantially reduce losses. You see, they had to run larger numbers of missions due to failures (missions where planes were lost and pilots died, and the bombing was unsucessful, as well as missions where the bombing missed due to pilots avoiding being shot at).

So they calculated a way to have high 90% mission success rate which would reduce pilot losses by...a lot. Let's say it was 50% because I don't recall what it was, but it was pretty damn substantial. Instead the missions would be a suicide run. The plane would only have enough gas to complete the mission making it lighter and they could fly in another pattern since their only concern would be the success of their run.

Anyhoo the long and short of it was they would have the pilots draw straws to go, and you'd die if you got picked but you'd have a MUCH better chance at overall survival this way. And it was rejected by the pilots completely and totally. The number crunching people were shocked, didn't they understand, SO much fewer would die, this was so much better?

But it wasn't. Whether storming that beach, or on that almost sure to die mission, a chance at life makes all the difference. It's the difference between rushing out against odds you can't hope to win against, and walking to the executioner.


Suicide troops are completely different. And we have a better understanding today of the kamakazis. They were heavily drugged, kept in isolation, and lived in a culture which valued the group more than the individual. Even with all that...they were heavily drugged. I'm sure some really bought into it and didn't need or refused the drugs needed to numb the screaming in their skull...but we have survivor accounts today that we can see how such programs were run. They even put people in submarine missles to guide them, that's some serious shit.

Suicide bombers in the jihad (muslim bombers) use some similar tactics. The people who do it are usually young, very zealous, and don't believe in their own mortality. They're not respawning in a game, but they believe they'll be in heaven and rewarded for what they did. Unlike the Halo player who sucks, they do have other options. And they're not blowing themselves up against an enemy that's actively shooting at them (usually) instead they're walking into a marketplace and killing civilians in most cases.

So there's other dynamics to it. But the analogy IS dead on in resource allotment. What do you do against an enemy that is better equipped, better trained, blah blah blah. You either surrender, or move the fighting to better ground where you can win. The Halo player who sucks has done the latter. He cannot win their fight, so he's willing to make sacrifices they don't want to make. It may be a tactical advantage in a war where soldiers represent a higher investment, to injure 1 at the cost of 10 of yours. Because 1 of theirs is worth 50 of yours, it's a clear win. Additionally seeing brother soldiers blown up fucks up morale. Seeing sons/brothers coming home with severe injuries or dead hurts morale at home. Plus they have the home field advantage, which should never be underestimated.

But like I said, really good analogy, but it's not a perfect one. But I think it's a really good jump point from which to start to 'get it' and then go from there. The question though is once you do understand why they do it, how do you counter it? Especially when you cannot give them their demands. I think the 'easiest' solution there is you simply try to make their lives better. It's much easier to die when you don't believe there's a future for you, but if you have something to live for...it's harder.

_________________

Agreed, these people do need something to live for.

I never thought I would see those words come from Rokhan. I would argue they are a little more spot on than Tarot's response, but I see your point. While I agree it is different to walk straight up to the executioner and go into a very risky situation, I would say that the similarity is very important here - they are both essentially WILLING to make the ultimate sacrifice for what they see as the greater good. Think of it as 100 percent chance compared to 80 or 90 percent chance. That 10-20 percent makes a pretty huge difference to someone's morale, sure, but in essence both tactics employ the will to sacrifice oneself to cause more damage to the enemy. Personally, I would very much be willing to sacrifice myself for my family - think about it in those terms. I would not need to be drugged up to do that. In a war scenario, people in the army can definitely get very attached to their unit and fellow soldiers, and often see them as brothers and sisters. And when you're fighting for your country, you believe the cause is pure, and you see no other way to cause any significant damage without sacrificing yourself it's easy to see why someone would do that. Japan had some incredibly brave soldiers and pilots... and drugged or not(honestly, I have some doubts about how many of them were drugged after reading some of the stories about the kamakaze pilots and their stories of deep-seeded determination against us), they knew they were going up against a superior enemy and had to employ any viable tactic that would cause damage.

Suicide bombers today... yea, there's a large portion of them that bomb civilian targets. Naturally it's very disgusting, but many of these people are also at the end of their ropes and like you said have little to live for. Other options for them to cause damage to their enemies? I'd imagine few of them see it that way. The odds are always stacked against them, and their only option to do anything that will have an impact is to go for softer targets. In all honesty, what grabs our attention the most these days? I'm sure there are some fantastic peaceful Arab writers and protestors, but they can only do so much to garner our attention - how many people here read blogs from peaceful Arabs trying to bring about a peaceful change in the region? Now, a different show of hands, how many hear about bombings in the news every day? That's what I thought. As abhorrent as suicide bombing civilians is, this is their way of getting the message out "Something fucked up is going on here, and needs more attention paid to it, not less". Doesn't justify it by any means, but I believe the average person's "options" to bring about any real change in that region are either very limited, or they are simply human and do not always see every available option to them. And again, no justification, but they view this essentially as damage against the enemy - shooting back at them or not. Their belief may well be that the enemy has already fired upon them, and that civilian consumers by proxy support the government that is working against them.

Jihad Jeeps in Battlefield 2 were cheap.

But fucking fun.

Problem is jihadists reject what we consider a better life calling it corrupt and sinful. With them being brainwashed early in their lives to be overly zealous and to not truly follow the teachings of the Koran and instead a version given to them by religous leaders with an agenda against the west and our ideals.

uhhh... not really. They don't reject being able to eat on a regular basis, having a home to live in, or having a job. They don't reject being able to eat on a regular basis, and not having to worry about where your next meal is going to come from.

For them, I would suspect it isn't a question of having nothing to live for. It is convincing them that they have nothing to DIE for. And that is a much, much different beast. They have an entire culture based around the glorification of such acts. They don't view it the same way that we do.

I mean, really. Look at the silly things religious fundies do here in the name of their religion. You can't correct that by giving them a better house, more food, and a better job. They'll just do their crazy whack ass shit in a better house/job while fatter. There is a fundamental cultural change that needs to happen for them and even then it is going to be a generational thing.

_________________

I would be curious about Hillary's reaction to this article.

_________________