Jimquisition: Let's End the FPS Sausage-fest

[Treblaine]

[[SNIP]]

A bit of my rough draft must have escaped. Sorry about that.

T2: Judgement Day was tailor made for the young adolescent male audience that sat down to watch it all the way back in 1991. A generation of young men who had grown up at a time where the nuclear family was expected norm, but was rapidly disintegrating into history as the foundation stone of western culture. A terribly dated caricature of Bart Simpson is adopted by Arnold Schwarzenegger at the height of his popularity and in him finds the father he has always wanted. As an added bonus he finds out that his mom in fact isn't crazy and was right all along.

True Lies is a remake of an earlier French film and the subtext is remarkably simple. Very simple, and very French. Your wife will be tempted to cheat, and presumably eventually leave you, should you stonewall her out of the most interesting parts of your life. And learning to dance really, really, well will never hurt either.

Getting back to Aliens, although it is demonstrably true that with the exception of Hicks all of the marines are ultimately in the movie to die in it there are quite clearly two varieties of marines.

The first group are comprised of those who die or are captured alive during the initial foray into the alien hive. Private Frost (Male), Private Drake (Male), Private Crowe (Male) , Corporal Dietrich(Female), Private Wierzbowski (Male) and lastly but certainly not least, Sergeant Apone (Male). But lets not forget to include the two dropship pilots, Corporal Colette Ferro (Female) and Private Spunkmeyer (Male).

The racial backgrounds of this first group can be broken down to 3 Anglo-Saxons, 1 Pole, 1 German, 1 African-American, 1 Italian and one guy named after a cookie franchise. There is a possibility that the last one is meant to be Jewish but it is probably meant to just be a joke. The gender ratio is 6 to 2 in favour of testicles.

This brings us to the last four marines, Private Hudson (Male), Lieutenant Gorman (Male), Private Vasquez (Female) and Corporal Hicks(Male). This group is much less diverse, breaking down to three guys that can trace their roots back to the British Isles and a Latin-American chick. The gender ratio holds at 3 to 1.

At this stage in the proceedings both Gorman and Hudson are dead men walking, the former for being incompetent, the later for losing his shit. In both horror and war movies nothing moves you up the list of people next to die than incompetence of command and flipping your shit. This sort of cuts us down to two characters, Hicks and Vasquez.

For a movie informed by the political fallout of the Vietnam War, released a mere ten years after the conflict had ended and had been written by James Cameron alongside initial drafts of Rambo II, Vasquez edges out Hicks on the film's own sliding scale of morality.

One of the central themes running throughout the film is when and when isn't the use of force justifiable, and boy does the film come down on it's cast of characters with all the subtleties of a Jesus-lion allegory whenever they mess up and do things for the wrong reasons. You claim that the marines are there to protect the colonists but you're wrong. The marines certainly believe that they're there to help protect the colonists, but the fact is they're really there due to the machinations of Weyland-Yutani executive Burke. When they enter the alien hive for the first time, get their asses kicked they lack the purity of motivation to succeed. In comparison when Ripley returns alone and unaided, selflessly facing down what you would think to be an almost certain death in order to try and rescue Newt, the film gives her a free pass.

"A terribly dated caricature of Bart Simpson is adopted by Arnold Schwarzenegger (in Terminator 2)"

Oh goodness! 1/10 for getting me to respond but you aren't fooling anyone. I know what you are trying

That's not deep, that is you making crazy links. Please, do tell me the deep socioeconomic subtext of Beevis And Butthead?

Your description of True Lies doesn't show depth of subtext, it's a back-of-the-box blurb of an action comedy.

OK, you make something of a case that both Vasquez and Hicks had a chance to "deserve to live" people HAVE to die (to raise the stakes and so on) and you can't have the competent characters killed off and leave the movie in the unsure hands of Hudson.

"One of the central themes running throughout the film is when and when isn't the use of force justifiable,"

Lol WUUUUT!!!!

Oh when is it right to shoot those poor misunderstood killing machines? Bullshot!

Buke may have an ulterior motive, but the Marines do NOT! The Colonial marines only went there on the pretext of saving colonists and Burk had to conduct his sample-taking mission in secret with not a single confederate.

"get their asses kicked they lack the purity of motivation to succeed."

Nope. They got their asses kicked because they were unprepared for such an ambush and the thematic reason in the film is the first encounter can't be a cakewalk with no danger and no characters being lost as it doesn't set what kind of huge threat that these Aliens are. I mean the Marines bragged about how deadly they are ("we got nerve gas, we got nukes, etc") and this knocks them down a peg for dramatic tension of making a good sci-fi war movie.

Ripley survives going back as she goes in prepared and much more stealthily, getting in and out ASAP. It seems that most of the aliens had left and are tearing apart the communications centre still and left the Queen relatively unprotected.

 

[Treblaine]

I'm sorry I didn't realize defusing a bomb, conducting Civil Affairs Ops, or Physiological Warfare were the same jobs as a Delta Force Operator, or an SBS Crew Member or a KSK Entry Specialist. I'll inform all of those groups (who are often very undermanned, KSK being the worst) they in fact have 1000's of more possible soldiers and sailors (male and female) fully capable to do their jobs for them with no additional training or operational experience. I'm sure the boys in SEAL Team 3 will be especially happy after recent incidences relating to inexperienced, rushed members compromising teams. If you honestly think a 37F does the same job to any degree as what's depicted in the context of a Special Operations Member, as shown in modern setting FPS's you need to take a long day of studying. Being a member of SOCOM does not make you an Operator. Operator, that term, means something, it originally distinguished between "Operational" and "Non-Operational" in the regard to 2nd Detachment (Not 1st Detachment as is commonly believed, Delta can claim alot, but they are not the original "Operators") having member who were "Operational" in combat, the "true" Special Operations Soldier (kicking down doors as the classic catch all term), and Non-Operational members, being those who support said actions indirectly, be it COM specialists back at base, training personnel, or even just command staff. Video games depict Operators, and Operators are not female.

In no way am I minimizing their service, believe me as an MP I am *ALL* too familiar with people minimizing service based on job description (and it's all the more hurtful when it's the soldier's you're trying to protect doing the minimizing), but I would no sooner compare a 37F to an SAS trooper kicking down doors than I would compare myself to one. I was not Special Operations and yet I did in house training of foreign soldiers as well as training in country (as part of the PTT program), went to advance weapons training (so to allow me to function as an SRT member and later a firearms instructor), all things done by specifically SF, and yet I am in no way comparable to them as for all that similarity, they are miles ahead of me with all the additional training and duties. A Bomb Disposal team while doing something unbelievably complex and more dangerous than perhaps any other job in the Army is still not a Special Forces Entry Team Member and would not do that job. I can not take a random, male or female for that matter, out of the 38B MOS and teleport them in to Kosovo and expect them to properly function in a KSK unit up in the mountains. I could do that with an SBS member, or a SEAL, but a Civil Affairs Specialist would be a little out of his domain.

If you honestly cannot see that, then you're deluded, and then there's no point in even discussing this anymore.

All irrelevant as you do not ONLY see Special Operations forces in Modern video games but CoD has set the standard of alternating between a Special Forces unit and a then a more basic Infantry unit, even looking at gunship fire controller, plenty of opportunities for women to be depicted but it's being seen less and less.

 

[RC1138]

I think friendly fire is a problem not as a matter of sustainability but as a matter of morale and public confidence in the war.

The Public feels greatly for the loss of every single soldier, they can somewhat more easily come to terms when it is by enemy action, but it is much harder to accept when it is by a careless accident.

How can you say that friendly fire just "doesn't enter your brain"?!? I have heard from British soldiers on American soldiers their great concern about the lack of consideration they give to friendly fire.

I'm not saying suicides is not a concern or trivial in comparison, in fact I never even mentioned it. I think you are tvilialising the senesless death of american servicemen by saying, I quote:

But on to this straw man argument of women in video games:

Give me an example of one, just one woman meeting the criteria, and I mean ALL the criteria for entrance into a true first rate Special Operations Troops

That's not the issue. These war FPS games do NOT exclusively look at Special Forces. Modern Warfare 1 and 2 followed in their side plot some "grunt" infantry. In all of them you at the very least SEE basic infantry either on your own side or in the enemy force. Battlefield 3, Bad Company series and so on.

I'm, fed up of your hypocritical reasoning, allowing unrealistic things that make the game fun but totally unrealistic, but against any girls in your boys only club. Mechanics and story you can't separate, especially with your lame excuses for the insane plot elements. When did any high ranking officer in the past 30 years who committed such a treasonous acto of mass murder to start a war. Are you a 9/11 conspiracy theorist?!?! They tried is not the same as they did.

"And to be fair, motion sensors have existed since the 50's."

No they haven't. They were total fantasy even in the mid 1980's where they first appeared in Aliens set in the far future of interstellar travel.

Soldiers don't have metal hulls. And there is the issue of how many landmine treaties and conventions mean enemy detonated mines would not be so widely used even by special forces. The problem is they can tell who are friendly but they can't tell the enemy from a civilian, even a child, which is why the US military doesn't use any land lines except anti-tank land mines on the North-South Korean border.

Lets get this one out of the way first:

Nonmilitary Uses

As the war wound down, Samuel Bagno used his knowledge of radar to develop the first motion sensors in the mid-1940s. He called his invention an ultrasonic alarm. The device sent ultrasonic waves throughout a room. When something disrupted the waves, a return echo triggered the alarm. This first success of a nonmilitary application of radar created a commercial demand for more ways to harness radar technology.

Read more: The History of Motion Sensors | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6463821_history-motion-sensors.html#ixzz21wFpZ6qj

Once again you prove you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Now to going through games and the roles, fine, I'll play that game, let's go through the roles of each and every *player* character (not NPC) in the MW series (I'll be using this http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Templatelayable_Characters I suppose spoiler warnings if you haven't played these but I will try to be as vague as possible as far as spoilers would be concerned):

COD4 Playable Characters and Role:
"Soap" MacTavish: SAS Trooper and Designated Marksman- Occupation *Not* Open To Females (Role takes on the majority of the game's story and play time)
President Al-Fulani: President of the Middle Eastern Country where most of the First Act takes place- Occupation Interestingly *Not* open to females, as this nation is supposed to be an Islamic state bordering on the stereotypical "fanatical" a woman would not be allowed, simply by society, to rise to such a rank (He's barely a player character but I won't be a hypocrite and skip even the most minor of roles)
Paul Jackson: SGT 1st Marine Force Reconnaissance, likely fire team leader- Occupation *Not* Open to Females (Females do serve in Force Recon but not as fire team leaders and entry specialists, the role that Jackson assumes)
John Price: SAS Field Commander and Team Leader, although at time of playability is an LT acting as a sniper and assassin team- Occupation *Not* Open to females in this capacity, that is, a field Team Leader or sniper, lest we forget women hold no Operational roles within the SAS
Thermal Imaging TV Operator: A USAF, likely 1st LT as this would commonly be a gunnery control officer- Occupation *Open* to females, this is possibly the only player character open to females in COD4, for one level, circling around at at about 1200 AGL
One-One Team Member: Playable for last "Spec Ops-like" Mission (is in all likelihood Soap himself although it is not explicitly said) SAS Team Member- Role *Not* Open to women

MW2 Playable Characters and Role:
J. Allen: U.S. Army Ranger serving as a Member of Squad, likely Grenadier position- Occupational Role *Not* Open to women, although women can be assigned to the 75 Ranger Regiment, they *would not* ever be assigned as a Squad Grenadier
J. Ramirez: Private, U.S. Army Rangers, member of Squad, likely Rifleman position- Occupational Role *Not* Open to women, same as Allen's, women do not get assigned as MoS as a Rifleman
"Roach" Sanderson: SAS Member functioning as an entry specialist of the fictional TF141- Role *Not* Open to women, while a fictional SF organization could theoretically allow women into it's Operational ranks, his specific role, as a member of British SAS, precludes a female character as SAS does *not* allow women into it's Operational Ranks
Soap MacTavish: Returning member of COD4, now a Captain- Role *Not* Open to females, he is an SAS Captain Operational Status, not a role filled by women
SAT1: American Astronaut- Role *Open* To women, playable for a roughly 2 minute section of game and is as limited playability as President Al-Fulani in the fist game

MW3 Playable Characters and Role:
Marcus Burns: Sgt SAS Close Support Specialist- Role *Not* Open to women (for same reasons all other SAS members)
Derek "Frost" Westbrook: SGT Delta Force, likely Close Support Specialist given weapons and role- role *not* open to women, women do not serve as Operational Members of 1st Detachment Special Forces
John Price- Former SAS Captain- Role *not* open to women for previously stated reasons, in theory at this point a woman could fill his role, as he is not affiliated with any group, but his *backstory* would not allow it
Yuri: Former Spetsnaz and member of Makarov's gang- Role *Not* Open to women, Spetsnaz has never allowed female soldiers in it's ranks of Operational members, they do maintain female members, but they are used in counter-espionage and organizational infiltration teams (that is to say, Spys)
Andrei Harkov: FSB Special Agent- Role *not* Open to women, Russian FSB does not allow female applicants in Special Agent Positions
AC-130 Gunner: Likely again, an USAF 1st LT- Role *Open* to women, for same reasons as in COD4
Mr. Davis: A civilian briefly played- role obviously open to women
Soap MacTavish: Briefly playable, former Captain SAS: Role *not* open to women, for same reasons as Price

So that's all three games, and the only roles that could switch out the male for female without DRASTIC changes to their backstories were roles that were not only extremely brief, but not keeping in the concept of "FPS" play, as NONE of those characters actually carry weapons and run around on the ground. None of them qualify as "basic infantry units."

Just so were clear, a "basic infantry unit" would be, for example, a rifle Platoon out of say, 10th Mountain. That is a basic light infantry Brigade, and has never been depicted in a modern setting FPS except once, in Delta Force Black Hawk Down, which would not have had women serving in any capacity as they did not during the Somalian Campaign.

And even today, in the roles shown in games (even as NPC's) if the 10th Mountain was in game, they would not have any roles open to women. They never show Civil Affairs specialists in COD or MOH. They don't even *show* EOD (they speak of them, but are never seens). What they do show are riflemen, grenadiers, automatic riflemen, squad leaders, team leaders. All positions which are *not* open to women.

I could go on to any and all other Modern Setting FPS but I won't. It's not needed, they are all roughly the same since MOST modern setting FPS's follow the all too well known common threads, especially in regard to units depicted: SAS, Rangers, Delta, SEALS, and Marine Force Recon; none of which allow women in Operational roles.

Now returning to fratricide, I hate just posting wiki pages but this should suffice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire#Iraq_War_from_2003
There were 10, ground troop on ground troop friendly fire incidences since 2001. All the others involved technological shortcomings (poor FF detection for missile systems, tank rounds ending up where they did not belong, ect)
Overall there's a little more than 14 incidences in 10 years of active combat, and, knowing from experience for every two reported one doesnt get reported, I'll bump that number up to 21. 21 times in 10 years. And these are including ALL Nato Nations, not just the U.S. Military.

By comparison there have been well over 500 suicides in the the U.S. Military alone over those 10 years, with 2009 being the worst (Over 25 in the period of January to March 2009, worst month since Vietnam). Statistically it even shows, FF incidences are just not that big of a concern. Now that isn't to say to any degree we don't pay attention to who or what we're shooting at, but friendly fire doesn't come to the forefront of our brains when we take AK fire from a building down the street. Now suicide prevention, in the past few years, HAS become a forefront. We pay attention for even the minutest of signs, among MP's all the more as we watch our own AND others.

*Civilians* might make friendly fire out to be a big deal, bully for them, they are, by their nature *not* in the military and views they hold are not indicative of what we think about or do. That is supreme arrogance to think that way, that someone that is making the conscious and clear decision to *not* be a member of the military is somehow still in tune with what we think about. You've clearly never been a soldier, by what rights do you know what we think about down range?

And as far as you hearing it from British soldiers, you don't get more straw man than anecdotal evidence. By comparison I've served with a great number of Iraq PD members, trained with both KSK and SF at Quan*t*ico, I spent a great deal of time, on my 1st Tour, doing route security with a wonderful British MP unit. Never heard one complain about FF. Does that mean I'm right and you're wrong simply because I heard something contrary from what you said? No. Because neither of us have spoken to the majority of soldiers in existence right now. What does make me right and you wrong (on this subject) is simple data and the existence of a conflicting issue. I'll bet you any number of dollars you walk up to a soldier serving in the U.S. Army right now, and ask him "Which is the greater concern to the U.S. Military: Suicides, or Friendly Fire?" He'll say suicide guaranteed. Hell I sat through a briefing once a month about suicide prevention.

In tying to the issue at hand, a bigger issue than both suicide and FF in the U.S. Military is rape. It's interesting, I didn't want to mention this as you don't get more straw man than this BUT, it's interesting none the less. Many seem sure I'm a sexist, when in reality, I was one of the bigger, more outspoken proponents of female soldiers rights in my Brigade while in the Army. One thing and one thing above all else I was a stickler for and that was rape and sexual harassment. I would not stand for it one bit. Even something construable as "flirtation" was 100% unacceptable to me as an invasion of one's personnel space and professional atmosphere. I also, as an MP, tended to catch flack as I am one of those oddballs that thinks 100%, no question or doubt, that when a woman is raped it is *NOT* *EVER* IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, her fault. As a warning I will not get into that argument here, but suffice to say I will never be dissuaded from that thinking. To every place blame on the victim, is sickening and far too common in the Army. Additionally I always thought it very unfair that full fledged and trained female MP's could not serve in the SRT. I always thought it unfair and had voiced it more than once, one time boarder insubordination over a particular incident.

All that aside, if you combined the number of suicide, friendly fire, and I'll through in hygiene briefings and seminars we get in the U.S. Military, it still would not equal the number of Rape prevention, response, and identification briefings and seminars we get. By comparison if you asked a soldier what the biggest issue we have is, Rape will be the answer 9/10 times. Of this I am certain. Regardless of the soldier's personal view on it, the sheer number of briefings spent on the subject demands that answer. I've had more (simply because I was an MP) more briefings about dealing with rape than I've had PCC's.

So to say that friendly fire is a major concern is a bit of a long shot. It *is* a concern, but hardly high on the list. I'd rate rape as the highest with suicide a close second, intoxication, hygiene and drug use close thirds, and the next most commonly held concern would probably be weapon maintenance and quality of equipment. Oh and hydration. You cannot go 10 minutes without some NCO yelling "Drink water!" (guilty as charged on that one).

 

[JWAN]

Great article.
How are you going to deal with the "Violence against women" bozos?

I always say, "equal rights equal fights" but that's coming from me. I dont produce big name games. anyone remember Hillary Clinton? The lady who single-handedly brought the war against gamers into its modern roots over purple blood in a NHL game? Shes not the only one and I'm not claiming that its only the democrats/republicans. With enough digging you find that both sides are equally responsible for the bullshit bestowed upon us (at least in the US).

 

[ElPatron]

Hey, i have an idea. How about in stead of FPS's we make some FPS's? First Person Stabbers?

*COUGH* Call of Duty MW2 Multiplayer *COUGH*

Battlefield, Call of Duty

In Aliens there is literally no excuse to not include women (because the movies did imply that there was hardly any segregation based on gender), but if BF and COD are inspired in modern military forces, women are not allowed in dedicated combat roles.

Don't get me wrong (a lot of people did in the past) but I have to agree with those restrictions. Call of Duty 4 had a female pilot. That's realistic. But let's not compare the life of a pilot and the life of a grunt. I am not criticizing either, but my father served in the Air Force and I know perfectly how the life of a pilot is. Being a woman would hardly get in the way of her job, and apparently they take G forces better than most men (if properly trained).

I think that women should serve and have the same physical requirements as men. Though, I don't think we will be able to make it possible for women to serve in dedicated combat roles in the next few years.

Yet I can think of a FPS that needs no female characters and that is Team Fortress 2, a game which still plenty of women play and has tons of yaoi for some reason. It would interesting to release a Team Fortress 2 esque FPS with only women in it and see how it goes.

I have seen female models for at least Scout and Pyro. I think it wouldn't be hard to make a user mod competition and officially release the best entries.

point out that the fact that the one female's sole purpose is to be rescued isn't all that much of a step forward.

Yes, let's not mention that in real life the death of females during combat takes enough a toll on the male psyche to make them carry out suicide rescue missions. (one of the reasons they are not allowed in dedicated infantry)

I could argue that the helicopter pilot did a lot more than being shot down and did kick ass during the whole level, but would it really change anything if it was a man surviving the crash? The whole point of the rescue

Spoiler: hurr durr spoiling a 2007 game

was to delay the extraction of the player and his comrades so that they would be caught in the nuclear blast.

Which renders every action useless despite the gender of the pilot. The point was to kill 30,000 members of the armed forces

That part of the story would happen, the gender of the surviving pilot would not change the outcome. Maybe they made the pilot a woman so that the player would feel that the human sacrifice was justified. The guys about to catch her were frigging conscripts from a nameless Middle Eastern country ruled by a mass murderer.

If the armed forces were receiving orders from a psycho there would be a big chance of them not recognize women as a fighting force and disregarded any conventions.

Anyway, I can't pretend I can read what Infinity Ward wanted. I just know that given the circumstances, there would also be a rescue if the pilot was male.

 

[Treblaine]

Nonmilitary Uses

As the war wound down, Samuel Bagno used his knowledge of radar to develop the first motion sensors in the mid-1940s. He called his invention an ultrasonic alarm. The device sent ultrasonic waves throughout a room. When something disrupted the waves, a return echo triggered the alarm. This first success of a nonmilitary application of radar created a commercial demand for more ways to harness radar technology.

Read more: The History of Motion Sensors | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6463821_history-motion-sensors.html#ixzz21wFpZ6qj

Once again you prove you simply don't know what you're talking about.

That has NOTHING to do with the motion sensors seen in the latest COD games.

That motion detector cannot detect anything on the other side of solid objects, the one in CoD can.

That design inherently cannot work while it is moving, the one in CoD is mounted on the side of a gun.

The one in CoD does far more than detect ANY motion in front but detect distance and discrete dots that the motion sensor you provides CANNOT do.

You are being so dishonest, the only link between the two technologies is their name "motion detector" not their actual function and you know it. You know what you are talking about but being wilfully disingenuous.

 

[RC1138]

That has NOTHING to do with the motion sensors seen in the latest COD games.

That motion detector cannot detect anything on the other side of solid objects, the one in CoD can.

That design inherently cannot work while it is moving, the one in CoD is mounted on the side of a gun.

The one in CoD does far more than detect ANY motion in front but detect distance and discrete dots that the motion sensor you provides CANNOT do.

You are being so dishonest, the only link between the two technologies is their name "motion detector" not their actual function and you know it. You know what you are talking about but being wilfully disingenuous.

It has everything to do with it and you know it. It is the earliest form of motion sensors. So we should only say something is "real" when it's in it's fully evolved form? By that rational the M16 wasn't "invented" until 2006 when the HK416 came out, being the first factory designed piston reliable Armalite type rifle.

And you're wrong in the grander sense ANYWAY. You said motion detector. You didn't give a game nor a source material (other than the ones present in Alien). The one's in COD are not motion detectors. They are called heartbeat sensors:

http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Heartbeat_Sensors

There are no motion sensors in any COD games. Just heartbeat. That technology doesn't exist *now.* (And likely never will as conceptually, it's stupid, both the human body in general, and the human brain produce higher electrical discharge than the heart, and breathing, moving, and speaking, obviously, are all louder and better for pinpointing location than the human heart. In reality a "brain" detector would make more sense as the electrical discharges given off are far more likely to be detectable than a heart, as would be a "breathing sensor" to pick up and set a location of a breathing body (as more useful as a brain giving off discharges could be a totally disarmed, harmless, incapacitated foe, seeing them on a sensor would make a group of 3 live capable soldiers look like 10 because 7 have been knocked out but alive; but no breathing is dead and thus not a threat worth considering). The one from Aliens is a motion sensor, that DOES exist now, and has exist, in a form similar to as depicted in that movie, since the late 50's. You're exact word was "fantasy," they were neither fantasy, nor fiction. They exist PRIOR to Alien being made. Did they improve on the existing technology for the sake of the film? To a degree yes, but that was not the point of what you said, you said fantasy, meaning fake, fantastical, not of our reality, and that is simply not true.

Are the computer's we're both using "fantasy" because in 100 years computers will likely be light years ahead in advancement. Does that mean computers are a fantasy because they will be improved? No. Same holds true for motion sensors. Yes the technology improved by the 80's, and has continued to improve into the next 30 years, but that doesn't mean they are a "fantasy" *your word* in the 1940's, much less 50's.

Get a grip. You. Don't. Know. What. You're. Talking. About. And what's more is you have the accumulated knowledge of mankind at your fingertips, so you have no excuse not to fact find before you open your month.

And dishonesty has nothing to do with that, once again you resort to responding in tone; I present a counterargument that explicitly refuted your central point that motion sensors did not exist until the 1980's. Dishonesty would be presenting something false as true while being fully aware of it's lack of fact. That's not what happened here. You said they were fantasy even into the 80's, I provided a source showing that Alarm systems working on the same technology and concept were developed as early as the 40's, and I can provide examples of military motion sensors akin to the types used in movies being developed and used in the 50's.

So once again, not only have you proved you don't know what you're talking about, but you've now proven you don't know what the word "dishonesty" means.

 

[Therumancer]

Hrmmm, sometimes I wonder if Jim lives on the same planet as the rest of us. I notice that in covering this he doesn't even bother to touch on previous issues like the reaction to violence being perpetuated against women in video games, something that has come up in connection to both Tomb Raider, and Hitman recently.

I personally believe that a lot of the desicians being made here, especially in games set in a more "real" enviroment than others (ie a game like Battlefield is trying to be more realistic comparitively than either Hitman or Tomb Raider to begin with) are based around disturbing people when they see women subjected to violence, or wind up being made to subject women to violence. Sneaking up behind some girl with a knife and taking her down in a Deathmach raises a lot of the same questions being covered in other video game discussions (not just the two "big" ones of the moment). I remember back in the day when "City Of Villains" (created by Cryptic, run by NC Soft) first launched, there were questions as to why the "Mastermind" could have male henchmen (thugs, soldiers) but no women, and the answer was that it opened itself up to too much potential abuse... and if you've ever seen what's gone on in MMOs that's saying a lot, and to be fair with the political correctness brigade out there, it probably wasn't the wrong desician.


When it comes to the issue of character models, I will point out that argueing that it can be done comparitively "on the cheap" without worrying about realistic size and all of that such isn't really a good reason to say it should be done everywhere either. The bottom line is that once you open that door in the mainstream, there are going to be increasing demands for more realistic, detailed, and differant female models that are more uniquely female, which opens up the issues mentioned about doubling the number of character models, hit box sizes, etc... since the demands leading to those problems would come, and as such those with a bit of foresight have probably not wanted to really address the issue there either.

Basically you do this, and you will open up more doors for people to cry about things, and create all manner of problems.

What's more there is also the issue of international sales. A lot of the arguements being made here only make sense from a first world perspective. Yes, the first world has made a lot of progress about bringing women into the military, and putting them into positions where they see combat. Overall though, the first world doesn't represent the majority of humanity, according to some things I've been reading (especially recently with all the discussions of feminism) women are oppressed, second class citizens throughout as much as 70% of the world, more or less based on certain estimates. While there ARE second and third world nations that are fairly "progressive" on this issue, far more are gleefully oppressive, or simply pay it lip service. China alone has tons of issues and represents like a third of the global population, and the rest of Asia varies but a big part of it is in a similar boat, then we have The Middle East, Africa, and even a lot of India, before even touching on Central and South America. The thing is that today video game companies want to sell video games in those places, and showing women running around as equals, toting guns, etc... can cause problems, and definatly impact the bottom line. The same basic mentality that leads to questions about first world "strong men" blowing the crap out of people in the second and third world (which is more accurate than the ethnic lines some people try and draw) raises other cultural questions as well. If your dealing with a society that proudly boasts it's not primitive and has "all of that technology you first worlders have" (at least in places), buys computer games and such to some extent, but where the women are expected to silently follow the men two steps behind and to the left, and effort is being taken to prevent a first world type feminist revolution (this is one of those "ideas" we spread that causes people to hate the US, oddly enough), well that can be a problem. Sometime look at the list of countries in a game registration (which for some titles can go on, and on, and on) and wonder how many of those nations share this ideal in practice.

This latter point is actually to me an arguement as to why we should do it actually, since I'm all for global reform through the spread of ideas, and forcing them through as much as we can (and even through piracy the ideas get through... which means the pirates themselves help break goverment blockades), BUT it's something that I'd imagine the fat cats doing the funding and publishing definatly do consider. The bit with "City Of Villains" sort of showed that the guys doing the planning discuss issues like this.

In short on the domestic front, we'll have a better chance of seeing it when the liberals grow up. Stop QQing about women and violence, especially women receiving violence at the hands of men, and maaaybe people might be a little more receptive to... you know... putting women into combat games. Globally speaking, this is where international business has kind of hurt things, and really I think a lot of it comes down to the guys running these businesses have to put doing the right thing ahead of their bottom line... but people have been saying that for years, in relation to a lot of things, and it never happens.

Consider that companies like Activision/Blizzard are so caught up in making money off of wierd nations that they will do anything to appease them. I remember hearing about how they removed the "Undead" from the chinese version of WoW due to Chinese law. Even within the first world we had Bethesda edit the content of "Fallout 3" to avoid annoying Australia and it's censorship standards (mostly over drug use). If they aren't going to push these issues there, I very much doubt they are going to want to say do a realistic militay shooter featuring female protaganists shooting their way through say Asia or The Middle East, or other hotbed locations, because a lot of people will either ban, or refuse to play that game globally, the guys already complaining about first world heroes will just be pushed too far.

I say "first world heroes" (to explain) because to be honest while the US is the most common, we do tend to see the UK involved via the SAS/Royal Marine Commandos and various intelligence agents (James Bond Inspired) with some frequency, which people tend to overlook. While Russia is still arguably not first world, it's on the high end of the "other" catagories and from many perspectives it probably seems like a first world country, and honestly Russian protaganists/Russian made FPS-type games, are becoming increasingly common on the international market as well.

 

[RC1138]

Very well said and down to earth. I don't quite agree with everything (namely distinctions between whose "first world" and not) but the general concept of being realistic to the world, game development, and how people behave, not how they think they behave, are paramount. Dealing with the world how it is, not how it ought to be seems to be the root of the issue present.

 

[Treblaine]

Now to going through games and the roles, fine, I'll play that game, let's go through the roles of each and every *player* character (not NPC) in the MW series (I'll be using this http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Templatelayable_Characters I suppose spoiler warnings if you haven't played these but I will try to be as vague as possible as far as spoilers would be concerned):

COD4 Playable Characters and Role:
"Soap" MacTavish: SAS Trooper and Designated Marksman- Occupation *Not* Open To Females (Role takes on the majority of the game's story and play time)
President Al-Fulani: President of the Middle Eastern Country where most of the First Act takes place- Occupation Interestingly *Not* open to females, as this nation is supposed to be an Islamic state bordering on the stereotypical "fanatical" a woman would not be allowed, simply by society, to rise to such a rank (He's barely a player character but I won't be a hypocrite and skip even the most minor of roles)
Paul Jackson: SGT 1st Marine Force Reconnaissance, likely fire team leader- Occupation *Not* Open to Females (Females do serve in Force Recon but not as fire team leaders and entry specialists, the role that Jackson assumes)
John Price: SAS Field Commander and Team Leader, although at time of playability is an LT acting as a sniper and assassin team- Occupation *Not* Open to females in this capacity, that is, a field Team Leader or sniper, lest we forget women hold no Operational roles within the SAS
Thermal Imaging TV Operator: A USAF, likely 1st LT as this would commonly be a gunnery control officer- Occupation *Open* to females, this is possibly the only player character open to females in COD4, for one level, circling around at at about 1200 AGL
One-One Team Member: Playable for last "Spec Ops-like" Mission (is in all likelihood Soap himself although it is not explicitly said) SAS Team Member- Role *Not* Open to women

MW2 Playable Characters and Role:
J. Allen: U.S. Army Ranger serving as a Member of Squad, likely Grenadier position- Occupational Role *Not* Open to women, although women can be assigned to the 75 Ranger Regiment, they *would not* ever be assigned as a Squad Grenadier
J. Ramirez: Private, U.S. Army Rangers, member of Squad, likely Rifleman position- Occupational Role *Not* Open to women, same as Allen's, women do not get assigned as MoS as a Rifleman
"Roach" Sanderson: SAS Member functioning as an entry specialist of the fictional TF141- Role *Not* Open to women, while a fictional SF organization could theoretically allow women into it's Operational ranks, his specific role, as a member of British SAS, precludes a female character as SAS does *not* allow women into it's Operational Ranks
Soap MacTavish: Returning member of COD4, now a Captain- Role *Not* Open to females, he is an SAS Captain Operational Status, not a role filled by women
SAT1: American Astronaut- Role *Open* To women, playable for a roughly 2 minute section of game and is as limited playability as President Al-Fulani in the fist game

MW3 Playable Characters and Role:
Marcus Burns: Sgt SAS Close Support Specialist- Role *Not* Open to women (for same reasons all other SAS members)
Derek "Frost" Westbrook: SGT Delta Force, likely Close Support Specialist given weapons and role- role *not* open to women, women do not serve as Operational Members of 1st Detachment Special Forces
John Price- Former SAS Captain- Role *not* open to women for previously stated reasons, in theory at this point a woman could fill his role, as he is not affiliated with any group, but his *backstory* would not allow it
Yuri: Former Spetsnaz and member of Makarov's gang- Role *Not* Open to women, Spetsnaz has never allowed female soldiers in it's ranks of Operational members, they do maintain female members, but they are used in counter-espionage and organizational infiltration teams (that is to say, Spys)
Andrei Harkov: FSB Special Agent- Role *not* Open to women, Russian FSB does not allow female applicants in Special Agent Positions
AC-130 Gunner: Likely again, an USAF 1st LT- Role *Open* to women, for same reasons as in COD4
Mr. Davis: A civilian briefly played- role obviously open to women
Soap MacTavish: Briefly playable, former Captain SAS: Role *not* open to women, for same reasons as Price

So that's all three games, and the only roles that could switch out the male for female without DRASTIC changes to their backstories were roles that were not only extremely brief, but not keeping in the concept of "FPS" play, as NONE of those characters actually carry weapons and run around on the ground. None of them qualify as "basic infantry units."

Just so were clear, a "basic infantry unit" would be, for example, a rifle Platoon out of say, 10th Mountain. That is a basic light infantry Brigade, and has never been depicted in a modern setting FPS except once, in Delta Force Black Hawk Down, which would not have had women serving in any capacity as they did not during the Somalian Campaign.

And even today, in the roles shown in games (even as NPC's) if the 10th Mountain was in game, they would not have any roles open to women. They never show Civil Affairs specialists in COD or MOH. They don't even *show* EOD (they speak of them, but are never seens). What they do show are riflemen, grenadiers, automatic riflemen, squad leaders, team leaders. All positions which are *not* open to women.

I could go on to any and all other Modern Setting FPS but I won't. It's not needed, they are all roughly the same since MOST modern setting FPS's follow the all too well known common threads, especially in regard to units depicted: SAS, Rangers, Delta, SEALS, and Marine Force Recon; none of which allow women in Operational roles.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/17/us-usa-women-rangers-idUSBRE84G00820120517

It's not so inconceivable, especially as MW2 is set almost 10 years in the future in part of a much larger conflict seeking maximum recruitment and volunteers.

 

[RC1138]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/17/us-usa-women-rangers-idUSBRE84G00820120517

It's not so inconceivable, especially as MW2 is set almost 10 years in the future in part of a much larger conflict seeking maximum recruitment and volunteers.

Okay now you crossed the line from "you don't know what' you're talking about," to you are a moron who REALLY doesn't know what they're talking about. You clearly just type in a phrase into google, get the first result you like, and post it without considering implications. What'd you do? Just type in "women in the Rangers" or "Women allowed in the Rangers?"

Ranger School does not equal the 75th Ranger Regiment. *I* went to Ranger school. Ranger school is a 61 day long leadership and light infantry course. The 75th Rangers is a light infantry Regiment part of SOCOM, a unit that *does not* employ, nor is looking to employ, women in Operation Roles.

http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/threads/scroll-vs-tab-the-difference-between-the-us-army-rangers.2868/

You can be a tabbed "Ranger" (like me as well as something on the order of 90% of Infantry officers and nearly 100% of Combat Arms (male) West Point Grads) and never set foot in a Ranger Regiment. LIKEWISE, you can be a Scrolled Ranger, as in a soldier serving in the 75th, and never gone to Ranger School (which is, in fact, the norm among enlisted men Serving in the 75th who are not Operational as in clerks operations staff ect)

Also speaking as a Ranger School grad, I have no objection to women going to Ranger school, it is a good leadership course and teaches things useful to general survival in the field, something female officers, even in non-combat related roles, still have to do (say an Engineer Officer, or Civil Affairs Specialist).

Oh and a tip to aspiring candidates, if peer review is a concern (which was for me as my personality is just soooo wonderful), volunteer to carry the 240Bravo, as NO ONE will vote you in the bottom two as no one wants to lug that thing through the swamps.

 

[Treblaine]

Now returning to fratricide, I hate just posting wiki pages but this should suffice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire#Iraq_War_from_2003
There were 10, ground troop on ground troop friendly fire incidences since 2001. All the others involved technological shortcomings (poor FF detection for missile systems, tank rounds ending up where they did not belong, ect)
Overall there's a little more than 14 incidences in 10 years of active combat, and, knowing from experience for every two reported one doesnt get reported, I'll bump that number up to 21. 21 times in 10 years. And these are including ALL Nato Nations, not just the U.S. Military.

By comparison there have been well over 500 suicides in the the U.S. Military alone over those 10 years, with 2009 being the worst (Over 25 in the period of January to March 2009, worst month since Vietnam). Statistically it even shows, FF incidences are just not that big of a concern. Now that isn't to say to any degree we don't pay attention to who or what we're shooting at, but friendly fire doesn't come to the forefront of our brains when we take AK fire from a building down the street. Now suicide prevention, in the past few years, HAS become a forefront. We pay attention for even the minutest of signs, among MP's all the more as we watch our own AND others.

*Civilians* might make friendly fire out to be a big deal, bully for them, they are, by their nature *not* in the military and views they hold are not indicative of what we think about or do. That is supreme arrogance to think that way, that someone that is making the conscious and clear decision to *not* be a member of the military is somehow still in tune with what we think about. You've clearly never been a soldier, by what rights do you know what we think about down range?

And as far as you hearing it from British soldiers, you don't get more straw man than anecdotal evidence. By comparison I've served with a great number of Iraq PD members, trained with both KSK and SF at Quan*t*ico, I spent a great deal of time, on my 1st Tour, doing route security with a wonderful British MP unit. Never heard one complain about FF. Does that mean I'm right and you're wrong simply because I heard something contrary from what you said? No. Because neither of us have spoken to the majority of soldiers in existence right now. What does make me right and you wrong (on this subject) is simple data and the existence of a conflicting issue. I'll bet you any number of dollars you walk up to a soldier serving in the U.S. Army right now, and ask him "Which is the greater concern to the U.S. Military: Suicides, or Friendly Fire?" He'll say suicide guaranteed. Hell I sat through a briefing once a month about suicide prevention.

In tying to the issue at hand, a bigger issue than both suicide and FF in the U.S. Military is rape. It's interesting, I didn't want to mention this as you don't get more straw man than this BUT, it's interesting none the less. Many seem sure I'm a sexist, when in reality, I was one of the bigger, more outspoken proponents of female soldiers rights in my Brigade while in the Army. One thing and one thing above all else I was a stickler for and that was rape and sexual harassment. I would not stand for it one bit. Even something construable as "flirtation" was 100% unacceptable to me as an invasion of one's personnel space and professional atmosphere. I also, as an MP, tended to catch flack as I am one of those oddballs that thinks 100%, no question or doubt, that when a woman is raped it is *NOT* *EVER* IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, her fault. As a warning I will not get into that argument here, but suffice to say I will never be dissuaded from that thinking. To every place blame on the victim, is sickening and far too common in the Army. Additionally I always thought it very unfair that full fledged and trained female MP's could not serve in the SRT. I always thought it unfair and had voiced it more than once, one time boarder insubordination over a particular incident.

All that aside, if you combined the number of suicide, friendly fire, and I'll through in hygiene briefings and seminars we get in the U.S. Military, it still would not equal the number of Rape prevention, response, and identification briefings and seminars we get. By comparison if you asked a soldier what the biggest issue we have is, Rape will be the answer 9/10 times. Of this I am certain. Regardless of the soldier's personal view on it, the sheer number of briefings spent on the subject demands that answer. I've had more (simply because I was an MP) more briefings about dealing with rape than I've had PCC's.

So to say that friendly fire is a major concern is a bit of a long shot. It *is* a concern, but hardly high on the list. I'd rate rape as the highest with suicide a close second, intoxication, hygiene and drug use close thirds, and the next most commonly held concern would probably be weapon maintenance and quality of equipment. Oh and hydration. You cannot go 10 minutes without some NCO yelling "Drink water!" (guilty as charged on that one).

Really? You criticise me for skimming wikipedia when you have taken a few example cases listed on wikipedia as if it is THE comprehensive list when it never claimed to be. For the Vietnam war column it cites that 8000 incidence were estimated but only lists only 12 examples.

I don't see how you can seriously say it is "supreme arrogance" to be concerned about Friendly Fire cases.

"you don't get more straw man than anecdotal evidence"

That's not how the straw man fallacy works. Anyway, maybe the British soldier was not trying to rock the boat raising a contentious issue that they might be more comfortable to raise out of such a situation.

I just don't see how suicide prevention relevant to the subject of women in the military 9or more importantly dealing with whatever causes people to want to commit suicide) even if it is tragic. What you seem to be doing is making a false dichotomy fallacy "which is more important, suicides or friendly fire" is a false dichotomy, why is Friendly Fire not relevant because of suicides?

It's interesting that you raise rape, another false dichotomy as that is an actual relevant issue when the army has such important security roles and the importance of "hearts and minds" the fear of the local population of being raped by the male invaders who have so much power, or otherwise sexually assaulted. Women HAVE been used in vital security roles for how they can search female (or those who at least dress as females) and enter female areas to fulfil security roles without the locals freaking out so much.

I think if women can work in non-combat workplaces without being systematically raped then they can work in combat roles together. Why would fighting together make rape more likely? I'll have you know that the kind of men who rape other men in prison do not consider themselves homosexuals. Really? Is it really such a problem with US Servicemen raping other women in uniform? More so than ANYWHERE ELSE in other professions where men and women work side by side.

 

[Treblaine]

That has NOTHING to do with the motion sensors seen in the latest COD games.

That motion detector cannot detect anything on the other side of solid objects, the one in CoD can.

That design inherently cannot work while it is moving, the one in CoD is mounted on the side of a gun.

The one in CoD does far more than detect ANY motion in front but detect distance and discrete dots that the motion sensor you provides CANNOT do.

You are being so dishonest, the only link between the two technologies is their name "motion detector" not their actual function and you know it. You know what you are talking about but being wilfully disingenuous.

It has everything to do with it and you know it. It is the earliest form of motion sensors. So we should only say something is "real" when it's in it's fully evolved form? By that rational the M16 wasn't "invented" until 2006 when the HK416 came out, being the first factory designed piston reliable Armalite type rifle.

And you're wrong in the grander sense ANYWAY. You said motion detector. You didn't give a game nor a source material (other than the ones present in Alien). The one's in COD are not motion detectors. They are called heartbeat sensors:

http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Heartbeat_Sensors

There are no motion sensors in any COD games. Just heartbeat. That technology doesn't exist *now.* (And likely never will as conceptually, it's stupid, both the human body in general, and the human brain produce higher electrical discharge than the heart, and breathing, moving, and speaking, obviously, are all louder and better for pinpointing location than the human heart. In reality a "brain" detector would make more sense as the electrical discharges given off are far more likely to be detectable than a heart, as would be a "breathing sensor" to pick up and set a location of a breathing body (as more useful as a brain giving off discharges could be a totally disarmed, harmless, incapacitated foe, seeing them on a sensor would make a group of 3 live capable soldiers look like 10 because 7 have been knocked out but alive; but no breathing is dead and thus not a threat worth considering). The one from Aliens is a motion sensor, that DOES exist now, and has exist, in a form similar to as depicted in that movie, since the late 50's. You're exact word was "fantasy," they were neither fantasy, nor fiction. They exist PRIOR to Alien being made. Did they improve on the existing technology for the sake of the film? To a degree yes, but that was not the point of what you said, you said fantasy, meaning fake, fantastical, not of our reality, and that is simply not true.

Are the computer's we're both using "fantasy" because in 100 years computers will likely be light years ahead in advancement. Does that mean computers are a fantasy because they will be improved? No. Same holds true for motion sensors. Yes the technology improved by the 80's, and has continued to improve into the next 30 years, but that doesn't mean they are a "fantasy" *your word* in the 1940's, much less 50's.

Get a grip. You. Don't. Know. What. You're. Talking. About. And what's more is you have the accumulated knowledge of mankind at your fingertips, so you have no excuse not to fact find before you open your month.

And dishonesty has nothing to do with that, once again you resort to responding in tone; I present a counterargument that explicitly refuted your central point that motion sensors did not exist until the 1980's. Dishonesty would be presenting something false as true while being fully aware of it's lack of fact. That's not what happened here. You said they were fantasy even into the 80's, I provided a source showing that Alarm systems working on the same technology and concept were developed as early as the 40's, and I can provide examples of military motion sensors akin to the types used in movies being developed and used in the 50's.

So once again, not only have you proved you don't know what you're talking about, but you've now proven you don't know what the word "dishonesty" means.

"By that rational the M16 wasn't "invented" until 2006 when the HK416 came out"

Well a rifle called the M16 was adopted in the 1960's.

"The one from Aliens is a motion sensor, that DOES exist now, and has exist, in a form similar to as depicted in that movie, since the late 50's"

No. It. Does. Not. The technology you cited CANNOT do what you see demonstrated in Aliens or CoD. Please. Show a video or some other sort of evidence showing a device which does as demonstrated in that film and those games for REAL, not a mock up. Even remotely similar. Jsut the aspect of being able to detect either motion of some specific part of a living being detected through a solid object like a steel bulkhead or brick wall. You have the accumulated knowledge of mankind at your fingertips, so you have no excuse not to fact find before you open your month.

You are the one making the claim, you prove it.


You KNOW what I meant by "motion detector" as not any device that could detect motion, but a motion detector like depicted in Aliens or CoD. It is NOT the same technology as it is NOT capable of

A computer in 1912 like I am using today WOULD be fantasy. Just because there was an electronic counting machine in 1912 (the bare basic principal of a computer) that doesn't mean you can have an AMD quad-core PC which can run Crysis exists in 1912.

 

[RC1138]

Straw man means, in essence, to avoid the argument and make an unrelated counterpoint. Citing anecdotal evidence is literally just that; "I heard this happened one time so I'm right."

And now you're proving you cannot read. I said in the hierarchy of needs, in what is most of concern amongst soldiers, what is stressed as a problem. Those same exist in the regular world.

For example, are you concerned about an asteroid coming down and striking you in the head. No, of course not. Can it happen? Absolutely. It is 100% possible to happen at any given moment. Do you concern yourself with that? No. Which would you rate as a higher concern, being struck by a drunk driver, or an errant meteor? Also, when walking down the street at 12:30 at night, which is likely to enter your brain as a genuine concern? So it is not a false dichotomy, it is 100% relevant. We don't actively concern ourselves with that, not because it's unimportant, or even unlikely, but because there are in fact *FAR* greater concerns at hand. It would be wasted mental potential to focus on that then say, whether or not they have mortars targeting your position, or if support fire will be necessary.

Also if you are going to gloss over or not bear in mind that soldiers rape each other with *absolutely FRIGHTENING consistency* you are REALLY out of touch with the real world. You need to come out of your shell and see the real world, not the world that's been painted for you.

There are more rapes in the U.S. Army alone per year than some states per year. Bear in mind, I'll repeat it again, I was an MP, it is my prerogative to be VERY aware of crime statistics and common criminal behaviors within the military, rape and sexual assault (and harassment) are, in my opinion, the most common crimes in the U.S. Army. Drug use isn't that common as the number of mandated drug screenings are numerous, violence against each other is part of the job (combat sparring and training) so it's tough decide when it's a "crime" or not but it's not that common nonetheless. Article 92's might be the only more common crime and that's only because of the catch-all application of Article 92 (can be used for damn near anything).

To even suggest that *friendly fire* is brought up as a concern more than *rape* in the U.S. Army just goes to show you know nothing about this subject.

 

[Treblaine]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/17/us-usa-women-rangers-idUSBRE84G00820120517

It's not so inconceivable, especially as MW2 is set almost 10 years in the future in part of a much larger conflict seeking maximum recruitment and volunteers.

Okay now you crossed the line from "you don't know what' you're talking about," to you are a moron who REALLY doesn't know what they're talking about. You clearly just type in a phrase into google, get the first result you like, and post it without considering implications. What'd you do? Just type in "women in the Rangers" or "Women allowed in the Rangers?"

Ranger School does not equal the 75th Ranger Regiment. *I* went to Ranger school. Ranger school is a 61 day long leadership and light infantry course. The 75th Rangers is a light infantry Regiment part of SOCOM, a unit that *does not* employ, nor is looking to employ, women in Operation Roles.

http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/threads/scroll-vs-tab-the-difference-between-the-us-army-rangers.2868/

You can be a tabbed "Ranger" (like me as well as something on the order of 90% of Infantry officers and nearly 100% of Combat Arms (male) West Point Grads) and never set foot in a Ranger Regiment. LIKEWISE, you can be a Scrolled Ranger, as in a soldier serving in the 75th, and never gone to Ranger School (which is, in fact, the norm among enlisted men Serving in the 75th who are not Operational as in clerks operations staff ect)

Also speaking as a Ranger School grad, I have no objection to women going to Ranger school, it is a good leadership course and teaches things useful to general survival in the field, something female officers, even in non-combat related roles, still have to do (say an Engineer Officer, or Civil Affairs Specialist).

Oh and a tip to aspiring candidates, if peer review is a concern (which was for me as my personality is just soooo wonderful), volunteer to carry the 240Bravo, as NO ONE will vote you in the bottom two as no one wants to lug that thing through the swamps.

Your weird, why do you TYPE the 240B as "240Bravo". You SAY "Two Forty Bravo" but that's because phonetically you pronounce B as "Bravo". What are you trying to prove? Show off that you know phonetic alphabet?

What's your real name, when did you serve, what unit, where can I confirm and corroborate this?

Anyway, the article talks all about females going into combat roles.

 

[RC1138]

You KNOW what I meant by "motion detector" as not any device that could detect motion, but a motion detector like depicted in Aliens or CoD. It is NOT the same technology as it is NOT capable of

A computer in 1912 like I am using today WOULD be fantasy. Just because there was an electronic counting machine in 1912 (the bare basic principal of a computer) that doesn't mean you can have an AMD quad-core PC which can run Crysis exists in 1912.

No I didn't. You said something very particular and I am holding you to that. Motion sensors do not, nor would, work even remotely similar to a theoretical heart beat sensor. One relies on transfers of kinetic energy, the other on detecting subtle sounds and/or electrical discharges.

I'm not going to do your research for you. A few posts ago I would have, but you've shown incapable of doing so on your own and as such I think it would be good practice to do so. I'll give you a head start, research, NOT GOOGLE, Tomographic Detector. It is a motion sensor technology that uses radiowaves, which can penetrate, and be read, through solid matter. They have been used in motion sensor technology, as prototypes, since the 1970's, and for military uses, while never fully acknowledged, (and presenting a definitive example would be illegal as a breach of OPSEC for users of it), have been both alluded too and line items shown in military spending budgets.

Also the HK416 is a direct derivative of the M16. The M16 also being invented in the 19*50's*, the prototype AR-15 being acquired by Armalite in 1959. The HK416 is the logical evolution of that weapon, moving from bare chamber gas impingement, to chrome plating, to assisted piston impingement, to full on gas piston in a factory made package. The current HK416 is lighyears ahead, yet strikingly similar to, the original AR-15. It is it's evolved form. To say that the M16 did not exist until now, simply because the HK416 is the evolved form, is lunacy. As the M16 went out of service in about 1970-ish (replaced by the M16A1 and later M16A2) to not acknowledge that technology evolves over time is to deny the basis of SCIENCE in general.

 

[Treblaine]

Straw man means, in essence, to avoid the argument and make an unrelated counterpoint. Citing anecdotal evidence is literally just that; "I heard this happened one time so I'm right."

And now you're proving you cannot read. I said in the hierarchy of needs, in what is most of concern amongst soldiers, what is stressed as a problem. Those same exist in the regular world.

For example, are you concerned about an asteroid coming down and striking you in the head. No, of course not. Can it happen? Absolutely. It is 100% possible to happen at any given moment. Do you concern yourself with that? No. Which would you rate as a higher concern, being struck by a drunk driver, or an errant meteor? Also, when walking down the street at 12:30 at night, which is likely to enter your brain as a genuine concern? So it is not a false dichotomy, it is 100% relevant. We don't actively concern ourselves with that, not because it's unimportant, or even unlikely, but because there are in fact *FAR* greater concerns at hand. It would be wasted mental potential to focus on that then say, whether or not they have mortars targeting your position, or if support fire will be necessary.

Also if you are going to gloss over or not bear in mind that soldiers rape each other with *absolutely FRIGHTENING consistency* you are REALLY out of touch with the real world. You need to come out of your shell and see the real world, not the world that's been painted for you.

There are more rapes in the U.S. Army alone per year than some states per year. Bear in mind, I'll repeat it again, I was an MP, it is my prerogative to be VERY aware of crime statistics and common criminal behaviors within the military, rape and sexual assault (and harassment) are, in my opinion, the most common crimes in the U.S. Army. Drug use isn't that common as the number of mandated drug screenings are numerous, violence against each other is part of the job (combat sparring and training) so it's tough decide when it's a "crime" or not but it's not that common nonetheless. Article 92's might be the only more common crime and that's only because of the catch-all application of Article 92 (can be used for damn near anything).

To even suggest that *friendly fire* is brought up as a concern more than *rape* in the U.S. Army just goes to show you know nothing about this subject.

No. Straw man means (and this is easy to look up) is to misrepresent your opponents argument as being something out as something easy to attack, i.e. make a straw man and beat that rather than the argument itself.

It's hyperbole to bring up asteroid impacts,

"It is 100% possible to happen at any given moment." Not very good maths, 100% possible means "certain" in "5% possible" is low possibility.

I consider it a pretty high probability that I might be killed if everyone is walking around with an "itchy trigger finger" that is an incentive to be the first person to shoot. When Pat Tillman died to friendly fire there was no enemy gunfire present, only US firearms. They somehow didn't distinguish from AK47 fire.

People know if they are going to kill themselves, they often do so because they decide to, it's not like their arm gets possessed. But people don't know if their ally is going to shoot them and unlike the enemy shooting at them, shooting back is not a solution.

It's like saying that Afghan infiltrators murdering the odd soldier in their base is not a major concern because only half a dozen have died while hundreds have committed suicide. You are ignoring the anguish anyone dying like that can cause.

The US army is more populous than many US states. But are you seriously saying that mothers should be more worried about their sons being deliberately raped by one of their own comrades than being accidentally injured when everyone is wandering around with automatic weapons and high explosives?

 

[RC1138]

I won't give my real name but, to repeat from other posts:

Final Rank (Cadet (West Point thing) but for all intents and purposes I served as a SSG in the U.S. Army, 18th MP Brigade, usually attached to the 10th Mountain. Was Stationed all over the world but spent the greatest amount of time in Sembach (Germany) and Ft. Drum (NY, USA). You could no sooner corroborate or confirm it as due to my job (MP) and my duties, most of what I did is classified, not that I saw anything interesting or did anything interesting, but I was in charge of gathering evidence in Criminal Cases as well as possibly guarding facilities or personal, identities which are top secret, any viewing of my U.S. Army file, without the authority of a Federal Judge, is a Federal Crime (something that crosses boards, I might add, as it could, in theory, compromise OPSEC).

And I said 240Bravo because that's what it's called. If you think there's a difference between writing 240Bravo and "Two Forty Bravo" for other than saving a few characters you're reaching. If you're reaching that far for things, well, like I said this is starting to pass from mildly annoying to full blown funny.

 

[Treblaine]

You KNOW what I meant by "motion detector" as not any device that could detect motion, but a motion detector like depicted in Aliens or CoD. It is NOT the same technology as it is NOT capable of

A computer in 1912 like I am using today WOULD be fantasy. Just because there was an electronic counting machine in 1912 (the bare basic principal of a computer) that doesn't mean you can have an AMD quad-core PC which can run Crysis exists in 1912.

No I didn't. You said something very particular and I am holding you to that. Motion sensors do not, nor would, work even remotely similar to a theoretical heart beat sensor. One relies on transfers of kinetic energy, the other on detecting subtle sounds and/or electrical discharges.

I'm not going to do your research for you. A few posts ago I would have, but you've shown incapable of doing so on your own and as such I think it would be good practice to do so. I'll give you a head start, research, NOT GOOGLE, Tomographic Detector. It is a motion sensor technology that uses radiowaves, which can penetrate, and be read, through solid matter. They have been used in motion sensor technology, as prototypes, since the 1970's, and for military uses, while never fully acknowledged, (and presenting a definitive example would be illegal as a breach of OPSEC for users of it), have been both alluded too and line items shown in military spending budgets.

Also the HK416 is a direct derivative of the M16. The M16 also being invented in the 19*50's*, the prototype AR-15 being acquired by Armalite in 1959. The HK416 is the logical evolution of that weapon, moving from bare chamber gas impingement, to chrome plating, to assisted piston impingement, to full on gas piston in a factory made package. The current HK416 is lighyears ahead, yet strikingly similar to, the original AR-15. It is it's evolved form. To say that the M16 did not exist until now, simply because the HK416 is the evolved form, is lunacy. As the M16 went out of service in about 1970-ish (replaced by the M16A1 and later M16A2) to not acknowledge that technology evolves over time is to deny the basis of SCIENCE in general.

You just said, in the SAME REPLYING QUOTE you were talking about SPECIFICALLY the heartbeat sensors in Modern Warfare 2.

Tomographic Detector is still not compatible with the Hearbeat Sensor of CoD or Motion Tracker of Aliens.

HK416 is hardly relevant, it is very similar in capability, slight change in reliability

"To say that the M16 did not exist until now, simply because the HK416 is the evolved form, is lunacy."

Which is not what I said.

Are you really going to be anal enough to say it's wrong to call an M16A2 or M16A4 as simply an "M16"?!?!? This is NOT denying that technology changes over time, this is you being pedantic.

 

[RC1138]

No. Straw man means (and this is easy to look up) is to misrepresent your opponents argument as being something out as something easy to attack, i.e. make a straw man and beat that rather than the argument itself.

It's hyperbole to bring up asteroid impacts,

"It is 100% possible to happen at any given moment." Not very good maths, 100% possible means "certain" in "5% possible" is low possibility.

I consider it a pretty high probability that I might be killed if everyone is walking around with an "itchy trigger finger" that is an incentive to be the first person to shoot. When Pat Tillman died to friendly fire there was no enemy gunfire present, only US firearms. They somehow didn't distinguish from AK47 fire.

People know if they are going to kill themselves, they often do so because they decide to, it's not like their arm gets possessed. But people don't know if their ally is going to shoot them and unlike the enemy shooting at them, shooting back is not a solution.

It's like saying that Afghan infiltrators murdering the odd soldier in their base is not a major concern because only half a dozen have died while hundreds have committed suicide. You are ignoring the anguish anyone dying like that can cause.

The US army is more populous than many US states. But are you seriously saying that mothers should be more worried about their sons being deliberately raped by one of their own comrades than being accidentally injured when everyone is wandering around with automatic weapons and high explosives?

You know arguing semantics is a sure sign a person knows their wrong. Straw Man. But I can play too, this is starting to be fun, 100% possible means it is a guarantee it is POSSIBLE. If I had said 100% going to happen, that means it's guaranteed TO happen, 5% going to happen, means 5% of the time it's going to happen. 100% possible means it's guaranteed possible to happen, but not guaranteed to happen. When dealing with "possible" something cannot be 5%, or 15% or anything other than 100% or 0%. It either CAN happen, or CAN'T happen. 1 or 0, yes or no.

Is English your first language? Because I'm starting to question that. Your profile says England (Great Britain rather) but that could mean anything about your language.

"The US army is more populous than many US states. But are you seriously saying that mothers should be more worried about their sons being deliberately raped by one of their own comrades than being accidentally injured when everyone is wandering around with automatic weapons and high explosives?"

Yes, they should. I would be. And that's from a soldier, something *you* are not. Because statistically rapes happen more often (INCLUDING MALE SOLDIERS) than friendly fire. It's not hyperbole, it's fact.