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.
_________________
|