Serious Business: Red Cross offended by videogame War Crimes.

[Treblaine]

Some war crimes (war laws?) are pretty dumb, like the ban on use of expanding ammunition.

Now if you are shot by the police of your own country I can guarantee they will use expanding bullets as it is less likely to ricochet, is less likely to over-penetrate and is more likely to stop you quicker (the purpose) and it has repeatedly been tested in the court of civil criminal law to be justified to use when lethal force is needed. It is in fact ILLEGAL to hunt animal without using expanding ammunition as FMJ rounds (that Hague Convention demands) are considered MORE LIKELY TO WOUND than the expanding bullet.

See the Hague Convention was proposed by the Germans just at the time they adopted the Spitzer cartridge that along with having slightly better range would fragment on impact without needing the nose cut open like the British Dum Dum type bullets. So it was purely a political move that our soldiers are paying for to this day as they shoot at terrorists, insurgents and dictator's forces and they just do not go down reliably. In Somalia this DID cost lives of US servicemen who trained to take aimed shots depending on one shot being a kill, the FMJ round slips straight through and they take a magazine of hipfire.

Yeah, you can shoot insurgents with a .50BMG incendiary round but you can't shoot them with a 9mm expanding bullet. Way to go inflexible obsolete international laws!

But I can think of a shortlist of illegal weapons of war frequently seen in games:
-Claymore (that is not command detonated) = that's banned by the anti-landmine treaty though america is not a signatory, Britain is
-Nova gas grenade = chemical weapon
-Stopping Power = this is clearly the use of expanding bullets
-Cluster bombs = banned under various anti-landmine treaties because some might no explode so they are considered landmines
-Tactical Nuke = anti-nuclear weapons proliferation treaties
-Second chance = execution of wounded soldiers - even if they are packing a pistol
-Napalm, flame-throwers = 1980 CCW Protocol III, ban all incendiary weapons. Not every country has signed this
-TF2 humiliation round end = even though "cartoony" its still executing surrendering prisoners

Here's a good question, why would it be a bad thing for the Red Cross to do this?

Because they are going to look stupid.

Especially when they realise that millions people of people virtually violate war crimes every day (claymores as landmines) and consider it all fair play. Red Cross wagging their finger at (civilians playing) soldiers being soldiers doing their job, that is something that will become a lot harder to quash from pugnacious CoD crowd. You tell them that using WP grenades is a war-crime and this is not a crowd that will be cowed into silence by the good work Red Cross does to help civilians, they will say:

"No. A soldier's job is to kill the enemy. WP grenades kill the enemy. Stop limiting a soldier's repertoire. And how about instead of a blanket ban on anti-personnel mines, why can't you just ban indiscriminate use?"

Someone already beat the Red Cross to this story 2 years ago;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8373794.stm

Ah the Swiss, diligent as ever

"allowed protected objects such as churches and mosques to be attacked"

Why should a temple be protected if the enemy is using it to kill your comrades and try to be victorious over you? Should your gun just refuse you fire if it is aimed in the direction of a church?

"few games it studied reflected the fact that those who violate international humanitarian law end up as war criminals, not as winners"

What the hell do they think the firebombing of Dresden was? Or the execution of nazi spies in WWII? Or particularly all the war crimes the Russians committed in WWII and they won likes sons of bitches and didn't stand any war crime tribunals. In fact of the millions of German soldiers they captured as POWs only a couple thousand were ever returned home. Germany didn't lose BECAUSE they committed war crimes, but because they weren't as good at winning a war as the USSR! Or all the War crimes North Vietnam committed, or *insert country that ever won a war*.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

....

Not to be rude, but that's one of the silliest comparisons I've ever seen. A gun to an untrained person can kill them and others. Having people comply with the rules of warfare in a war game? That's not going to change much. Besides, gun safety is simple.


All guns are always loaded.
Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
Be sure of your target and what is beyond it

My 13 year old brother can memorize that.

The Geneva Convention? Not so much.

Yeah, I thought it was bad too, but I kinda remembered from my lurking days on here that you were knowledgeable on gun safety (I was right apparently) and thought the comparrison would work well because it involved something you were familiar with (It didn't work, damn). Yes I could have come up with a better comparison, but that's not the point. The point is that people knowing more about the rules of war will educate them on very important issues. Also, I never said that the characters would have to follow the rules, just that the rules would exist within the game.

Here's the sticking issue for me:
Can you, in the same amount of words I used for gun safety (40, though I'll let you have up to 50), describe the rules of warfare? Likely no. Keep in mind that obeying the rules may be fun for Lawful Good types, such as myself, but others... not so much.

No I cannot describe them is such a manner, which is why it is all the more important for people to be exposed to them in their natural environment, the battlefield. Even a virtual battlefield will do. Seeing these laws at work allows us to learn what they are, how they work, and why we have them. They can also show the consequences of breaking them, maybe even allowing the player to experience these consequences.

In the end, we will end up with a more realistic representation of modern warfare that can actually make some real points about war, unlike say, Modern Warfare, which breaks apart the moment you realize that the controversial scene of MW2 would never have happened. A real agent would never endanger the lives of citizens of a first world country, especially if there was any chance of his country getting attached to it. The repercussions would be huge, and that is just one of multiple instances of ignorance within that series's plot.

And how does that actually help anything? Keep in mind, remember that gun safety example? Most video games aren't bound by those rules either. And those are really, really simple rules. The rules of warfare? War and Peace next to Hop on Pop

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

*snip*

But shouldn't they at least be acknowledged in some games? Shouldn't they exist in one game or another? And also, expanding rounds were banned because they can make quite the mess of one's innards. Police officers use them because they create shallower wounds that are therefore less likely to kill, though I might be remembering that wrong.
Edit: I remembered my history wrong, damn you History Channel!

 

[Rude as HECK]

-TF2 humiliation round end = even though "cartoony" its still executing surrendering prisoners

Wasn't there an achievement called War Crime and Punishment for the soldier for killing x number of people in humiliation?

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

And how does that actually help anything? Keep in mind, remember that gun safety example? Most video games aren't bound by those rules either. And those are really, really simple rules. The rules of warfare? War and Peace next to Hop on Pop

Armies have to follow them all the time. A game developer could create a game where they are followed or at least mentioned. People could possibly learn about them from there and it would definitely be more realistic.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

And how does that actually help anything? Keep in mind, remember that gun safety example? Most video games aren't bound by those rules either. And those are really, really simple rules. The rules of warfare? War and Peace next to Hop on Pop

Armies have to follow them all the time. A game developer could create a game where they are followed or at least mentioned. People could possibly learn about them from there and it would definitely be more realistic.

And if there's anything today's shooters need, it's more realism.

Joking aside, I don't see any real benefit to justify this

 

[thomas2]

I guess it would be sensible if when making games where you are supposed to be a soldier of a respectable army and not doing top secret operations that will be denied to have happened the developer considers the rules of war and avoids breaking them in cut-scenes or game mechanics- or draws attention to them if they are broken (I believe in some games unarmed enemies can rearm so you have to shoot them for example of gameplay mechanics). But not even that should be legally required, and anything further than that is just not sensible, especially as it only applies to video games but not films and books.

 

[Burning Bard]

Don't you hate when people just can't understand what a victimless crime is?

Daw well.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

And how does that actually help anything? Keep in mind, remember that gun safety example? Most video games aren't bound by those rules either. And those are really, really simple rules. The rules of warfare? War and Peace next to Hop on Pop

Armies have to follow them all the time. A game developer could create a game where they are followed or at least mentioned. People could possibly learn about them from there and it would definitely be more realistic.

And if there's anything today's shooters need, it's more realism.

Joking aside, I don't see any real benefit to justify this

Meh, I guess I like the idea of accurate portrayals of war and politics. I guess you don't and that is totally cool with me. I'd just like it if there were a couple games out there that were like that. The stories could wind up being pretty good.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

And how does that actually help anything? Keep in mind, remember that gun safety example? Most video games aren't bound by those rules either. And those are really, really simple rules. The rules of warfare? War and Peace next to Hop on Pop

Armies have to follow them all the time. A game developer could create a game where they are followed or at least mentioned. People could possibly learn about them from there and it would definitely be more realistic.

And if there's anything today's shooters need, it's more realism.

Joking aside, I don't see any real benefit to justify this

Meh, I guess I like the idea of accurate portrayals of war and politics. I guess you don't and that is totally cool with me. I'd just like it if there were a couple games out there that were like that. The stories could wind up being pretty good.

I actually do. That's the kicker. I just don't think this is a good use of time to talk about for any organization. Plus, one of my friends did talk about a "Super realistic" shooter that one bullet could easily kill or knock you down it. It was so realistic, that no one liked it. Cant' remember the name, though.

And again, some of the rules of warfare would be an bother to the majority of players who wish to damn the rules.

 

[sinterklaas]

What the fuck did I just read. Seriously, 'virtual war victims'?

I grabbed my monitor and yelled IT'S A GAME at it.

How far would they want to extend this? Only to 'realistic' shooters? To RTS's as well? Mario? I committed genocide on turtles and walking mushrooms by killing them in brutal ways. I wonder if shooting fire out of your hands counts as an illegal weapon. Well guess future FPS's should delete themselves if the player dies since that's what happens in real life!

 

[Whispering Cynic]

The whole notion of "human rights" in wars and conflicts always seemed a little ridiculous to me, I mean people are trying to kill each other during those, in a situation like that anything goes. But whatever, those rules exist (for now) and most people obey them.

BUT, applying the same rules to games (or any other form of virtual media) is silly, since there are no actual humans being killed. NPCs aren't people, dear meatbags of Red Cross, look it up. And while a game can include these rules for one reason or another, there is no relevant justification for forcing the inlusion.

 

[NLS]

Here's a good question, why would it be a bad thing for the Red Cross to do this? Most of the article makes it sound like their course of action is going to be to advise developers on how they could incorporate international law into their games. It would mean that many games would become more realistic. I can't believe that everybody is bickering and moaning because these guys think games should incorporate the rules by which war is waged. I think that more games following these rules could be pretty cool.

Edit: Enforcing games to follow this through law would be bad and that is not what I am advocating and it is not necessarily what the Red Cross is advocating.

I think you're the only one that actually read the article from start to finish without just going "ZOMG THEY WANNA BAN VIOLENT GAMEZ!!!"

This isn't the Red Cross saying "oooh, we got offended by violence"
This isn't the Red Cross saying "violent videogames should be banned naow!"
This is the Red Cross encouraging game developers to consider making their games with a better focus on IHL and why it is important, instead of just throwing all that away and say "fuck that, it's a video game so it's not real anyways".
Get a grip, guys.

 

[Treblaine]

*snip*

But shouldn't they at least be acknowledged in some games? Shouldn't they exist in one game or another? And also, expanding rounds were banned because they can make quite the mess of one's innards. WW1 was a very messy war because we still had those around at the time and we are better off without them. Police officers use them because they create shallower wounds that are therefore less likely to kill, though I might be remembering that wrong. I really don't believe the Germans won any political maneuvers right after WW1 as they were pretty fucked over by the treaties that resolved it. You will have to give me quite a bit of evidence, preferably from a non-British source as they would be the ones most likely to have a bias on the matter.

expanding rounds were banned because they can make quite the mess of one's innards.

Buddy, ALL bullets do that. That is how bullets kill. What... do you think the "shock" of a bullet kills and the whole ragged bleeding exit wound and suffocation are avoidable side-effects?

Expanding bullets simply means it does that to a larger extent and more reliably. What?! Do you SERIOUSLY think that being shot by a bullet - as long as it is an FMJ bullet - you will have a clean painless movie death? NO! it is considered CRUEL to shoot animals with FMJ rounds because of their propensity to MERELY WOUND! Yet this is precisely the justification for banning expanding bullets.

WW1 was a very messy war because we still had those around at the time

Bullshit detected. The Hague Convention of 1899 banned the use of expanding/flattening bullets a full 15 years before WW1 and just after Germany introduced the pointed Spitzer cartridge (that yaws and fragments, but unreliably) and the British had just adopted the DumDum bullet. It's pure 19th century politics, the repercussions we are living with today. This is well before submachine guns or light rifles were envisaged that benefit so much from expanding bullets.

Yes WW1 was very messy EVEN WITHOUT expanding bullets! And isn't the whole PURPOSE of shooting the enemy to maximise the amount of damage you deal to the enemy?

Police officers use them because they create shallower wounds that are therefore less likely to kill

More bullshit.

Expanding bullets are tested on ballistics-gelatin (simulated flesh) and pigs carcasses, and any bullet that penetrates less than 10 inches is automatically failed and is banned from police issue, the target penetration is 12 inches at least. Do you call ONE FOOT a shallow wound that you are likely to survive? Glaser safety slugs are a cursed name because of their shallow wounds NO ONE uses them except to hunt rats and other tiny animals.

I really don't believe the Germans won any political maneuvers right after WW1

1899. That's only 2 decades before the First World War finally ended.

You will have to give me quite a bit of evidence

MFW I read that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907
http://greent.com/40Page/general/fbitest.htm

 

[Racecarlock]

Maybe one game franchise. But no fucking laws. Remember the last time they tried these laws? They got shot down in the supreme court. For fucks sake people, these are pixels, not people. They may look a lot like people, but they aren't. They're clouds of ones and zeros that are there for me to shoot and kick and disembowel either with my hands or a katana.

If the red cross must get involved, then maybe they should try getting all the racist bully douchebags off of various online games and gaming services. That, I think, is a noble cause. Not saving the lives of computer things that have no lives.

 

[dickywebster]

So now the various rules of modern warfare and the like must be applied to fiction as well as reality?
Well i can probably find a very long list of books, not all of them fictional btw, that the red cross would just love.
Oh and once we have got past that silliness, arent the red cross meant to be helping real people? Not ones from video games? Or has AI just advanced that much...

 

[Fishyash]

While the idea is interesting (not really wanting to say whether it's good or bad) and maybe someone might want to use it, advising is the furthest they should go. I have my doubts that regulating it by law will even work.

Besides, it is more irresponsible and morally wrong to purposely throw something over your garden fence into your neighbor's garden than pressing a button that starts a virtual sequence on a TV screen.

 

[Batou667]

For a few seconds there, I *almost* saw the Red Cross' point - you could say that the proposed changes would present gamers with a more accurate portrayal of modern-day war, and would also prevent desensitisation toward banned weapons such as landmines. Surely that's in everyone's best interests? Imagine if in FIFA 13 you could pick up the ball, headbutt other players without penalty, and so on. Not only would football fans be getting an inaccurate representation of their favourite team game, but there would exist a slim possibility that people would let this flawed version of football sway them next time they were watching - or worse, playing - an actual game of football.

But then I realised what a crock of shit that is. It's illegal for me to shoot Russians in real life, why does it matter a damn what type of ammunition I use? If I play MW3 it's not because I want to practice an everyday skill, I'm playing for the express purpose of escapism and being able to enact scenarios that would normally be dangerous, illegal or the stuff of pure warped fantasy. This isn't the kind of scenario where putting restrictions in place to make things "more realistic" will be of any use whatsoever.

Red Cross: you very nearly just did a PETA. Don't let it happen again.

 

[Treblaine]

The whole notion of "human rights" in wars and conflicts always seemed a little ridiculous to me, I mean people are trying to kill each other during those, in a situation like that anything goes. But whatever, those rules exist (for now) and most people obey them.

BUT, applying the same rules to games (or any other form of virtual media) is silly, since there are no actual humans being killed. NPCs aren't people, dear meatbags of Red Cross, look it up. And while a game can include these rules for one reason or another, there is no relevant justification for forcing the inlusion.

My problem with "human rights" is how many people forget that technically even Hitler was a human. What rights should extend even to the likes of him!

There was some Human rights legislation that said everyone should have a right to vote, forgetting to realise that even convicted murderers and serial rapists incarcerated in prison are technically humans, so they should by this insane logic have the same right to vote as everyone else.

Civil rights, much more a fan of. If you are bad enough you can lose them, but only by an individual judicial and in accordance with laws and due process. It's a matter of inclusion in society and right to have a chance there, not merely having human DNA.

Except not every country is that keen on decent civil rights. And civil rights are inherently limited by statehood so you can't just expand them from one country, so how do these NGO organisations try to coerce these bad states to fall in line with the good states? By the lowest common denominator, that we are all human beings. Well isn't that great. The thing is, if there is a human right to life, doesn't that mean that Obama cannot order the CIA to fire a rocket at a fleeing terrorist?

I think human rights undermine the whole concept of statehood and jurisdiction. Civil right and Civil laws are the Responsibility of a particular Authority to Enforce them.

Who is the Authority Responsible for Enforcing laws and rights of all humanity?

I think far better is to encourage every state to come up with robust and generous CIVIL rights that that state is responsible for.

And for those states that refuse to be reasonable, then more reasonable neighbours should force their authority on them by civil rights, as America and Britain did in their various territorial and colonial expansions.

 

[Double A]

They better start making this apply to movies, board games, and books too, because fiction is just a bunch of malarkey.

Oh, and ESA? I love you.