Game Politics ([info]gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-02-02 05:00:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:allard, congress, defense, frost, isaacs, military, missile defense agency, north korea

Scary Recap of Pentagon Nuclear War Game

Buh-bye, Alaska.

The 49th state suffered a nuke strike in a recent Pentagon computer simulation in which members of the press role-played the president, secretary of defense and various key military officials. The exercise is reported in chilling detail by reporter Sam Bishop of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.

Of course, you can't buy this strategic war game in any store. The simulation is clearly being used by the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency to build support - and funding - for its program. Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) is a key backer of the agency and its simulation, which uses video-game technology to promote the missile defense system.

Retired Admiral David Frost, now a consultant, told Bishop, "Our objective here is simply to increase the understanding of how the system operates... we're on the verge of making some degree of operational readiness of new capabilities, really powerful new capabilities, and that's why we're doing this now."

The war game presentation centered on the additional strategic options presented by a missile defense program.

"Congress spent a lot of money on missile defense so far, and part of its value, maybe even the largest part of its value, is its deterrence value," Frost said. "We hope to make it clear to other countries that it's sort of pointless to attack us."

Not everyone is convinced.

"Any president that relied on this missile defense system for national security decisions is relying on a chimera, on a mirage," John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World told Bishop. "Any simulation like this is based on fantasy as opposed to reality... The exercise is a phony exercise, no better than a computer game."

GP: Whaaaa? We like computer games...

In the game, Midland, a fictitious nation clearly representing North Korea launches a nuclear attack. Role-players sat at cubicles decorated in accordance with their character in the game. A Patriot missile bunker in South Korea, for example, was draped in camoulage netting. Each player was equipped with a large-screen computer monitor displaying a scalable world map as well as a set of headphones linking them to other players. As the game began, red flickers representing North Korean missiles appeared onscreen, headed for impact zones in South Korea and Japan. All but one were intercepted by Patriot batteries.

A second attack wave launched long-range missiles at Los Angeles, Hawaii, Alaska, and several U.S. military targets. A shortage of interceptor missiles and some strategic mis-communication resulted in one of the Korean nukes detonating at Shemya Island in the Aleutians.

Funding for the missile defense system is likely to provoke sharp debate in upcoming budget hearings.

GP: Not a video game story, per se, but the use of game technology for a such a high-level military and political purpose is fascinating. By the way, John Isaacs, the outspoken critic, mentioned that a few years ago the Missile Defense Agency distributed a coloring book to promote its program. Missile Defense coloring books? We'll be looking for those on Ebay.




(36 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]silver_derstin
2006-02-02 01:45 pm UTC (link)
Missile Command revisited, but with 3D effects.

I want that game NOW.

"The exercise is a phony exercise, no better than a computer game"

People, make up your mind. Are video games training us to kill by being ultra-realistic or completely phony? I need to make sure...

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]anticron
2006-02-02 01:52 pm UTC (link)
More importantly, as all "excercises" are "phony", why rely on them for other such scenarios which are not limited to, but include: training, outbreak analysis, and other such useful real-world crisis situations in which we don't actually want to imperil anyone.

It's just more rhetoric from people that don't understand.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

This game sounds awesome!
[info]jerico6
2006-02-02 01:52 pm UTC (link)
Why can't I play it!?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: This game sounds awesome!
[info]eternallegenduk
2006-02-02 04:52 pm UTC (link)
You could always wait for Introversion's Defcon, ETA some time in April.

Mmm, Introversion.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Because no one said it yet.
[info]kharne83
2006-02-02 02:08 pm UTC (link)
SHAL. WE. PLAY. A. GAME?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Because no one said it yet.
[info]tollwutig
2006-02-02 02:18 pm UTC (link)
i was thinking the same thing...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Because no one said it yet.
[info]squirrelofwrath
2006-02-02 02:21 pm UTC (link)
Zeeky boogy doo

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Because no one said it yet.
[info]kharne83
2006-02-02 02:35 pm UTC (link)
Hehehehe Thanks. Your the first one to comment on that icon.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Because no one said it yet.
[info]squirrelofwrath
2006-02-02 03:17 pm UTC (link)
Its strangely appropriate for this story though.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Owls! OT
[info]jabrwock
2006-02-02 03:53 pm UTC (link)
http://crap.jinwicked.com/?comic=277

:P

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Because no one said it yet.
[info]semperar
2006-02-02 08:43 pm UTC (link)
thank you sir! we needed that ;)

zeekyboogydoog

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Happens all the time
[info]mnementh2230
2006-02-02 03:49 pm UTC (link)
I love it when people who don't understand the concept of a simulation make comments on things like this.

Simulations are meant to resemble, as closely as possible, real world events. Sure, the cubicles were campy, but the computer tech was real, and the results clearly show that that multiple elements need to be in place, including the right people.

I'd love to see Jack Thompson comment on this one, saying that the game was training people to be missile defense experts.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Happens all the time
[info]jabrwock
2006-02-02 04:46 pm UTC (link)
Simulations are meant to resemble, as closely as possible, real world events.

Unfortunately, in this case, it might as well have been a videogame, because the real-world tests don't match what the simulations show... The theory is all well and good, but the actual technology is far from achieving the kind of results presented in that demonstration.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Happens all the time
[info]silver_derstin
2006-02-02 04:58 pm UTC (link)
Well, they need support for this glorified toy, so this simulation was the best idea there was...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Happens all the time
[info]thelandofsmeg
2006-02-02 04:58 pm UTC (link)
"Unfortunately, in this case, it might as well have been a videogame, because the real-world tests don't match what the simulations show... The theory is all well and good, but the actual technology is far from achieving the kind of results presented in that demonstration."
Why don't we just actually nuke Alaska instead?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Happens all the time
[info]jabrwock
2006-02-02 05:03 pm UTC (link)
Why don't we just actually nuke Alaska instead?

Um. No. But how about we fire a "dud" missile, and see if we can actually hit it. Because so far the real-world tests have failed to hit on a regular basis...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Happens all the time
[info]thelandofsmeg
2006-02-02 05:07 pm UTC (link)
"how about we fire a "dud" missile"
Or not.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Happens all the time
[info]jabrwock
2006-02-02 05:08 pm UTC (link)
Or not.

So how do you propose to actually test the system? Simulations depend on mimiking real-world abilities, but if you have no idea whether an interceptor is capable of shooting down a missile, how do you accurately simulate it's performance?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Happens all the time
[info]thelandofsmeg
2006-02-02 05:19 pm UTC (link)
You're assuming that simulations are not realiable. You have presented no evidence about that. As far as I'm concerned, simulators are the best way.

This simulator that is based on computer game technology is not the only simulator, obviously, but there are practical tests and mathematical simulations performed before the equipment is even deployed.

This computer game technology based simulator only simulates the reaction if missiles were to hit, not if they are in fact going to be intercepted or not.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Happens all the time
[info]jabrwock
2006-02-02 05:39 pm UTC (link)
You're assuming that simulations are not realiable. You have presented no evidence about that.

I got my info from http://www.cdi.org/ which keeps track of defense spending and test results. Their data on missile defense shows that while Patriot Mk. IIIs are quite good at intercepting SCUD-type missiles, anything developed to intercept ICBMs can barely get off the ground, let alone intercept anything.

This computer game technology based simulator only simulates the reaction if missiles were to hit, not if they are in fact going to be intercepted or not.

I guess you didn't read the article. The simulation was of how well the interceptors worked. It was supposed to simulate how missile defense would work once they had the system developed. They simulated two waves of missiles, and simulated how well they were shot down, and only mis-communication and a shortage of missiles allowed some through.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

meh
[info]gnomicide
2006-02-03 01:35 am UTC (link)
Failed tests don't necessarily mean the system won't perform.

Especially when it is prohibitively expensive to run a test.

The "hard" part of the system, as I understand, is the interceptor part. And I believe that's been tested successfully.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: meh
[info]jabrwock
2006-02-03 02:37 pm UTC (link)
Failed tests don't necessarily mean the system won't perform.

I'm not saying it won't, just that basing a simulation on data you don't have means it's a demonstration, not a simulation.

The "hard" part of the system, as I understand, is the interceptor part. And I believe that's been tested successfully.

I haven't found much data, but I've heard even the Pentagon has been quoted as rating them as 20% effective. Hardly the effectiveness they demonstrated during the simulation, which was 90% or higher.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Happens all the time
[info]odc100
2006-02-02 04:48 pm UTC (link)
Anyone who thinks simulations are useless has clearly never done any research or training using one. Simulations save a huge amount of money and time.

Methinks that person would also rather everyone got a proper job rather than thinking about it for 3 years at a college/university :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Happens all the time
[info]jabrwock
2006-02-02 05:11 pm UTC (link)
I don't debate the value of a simulation. I just think that simulations should accurately simulate the real-world performance of the system they are simulating if they are to be of any use. And seeing as how real-world tests of ICBM interceptors have not produced the kind of results the simulation showed, wouldn't that mean that the simulation was inaccurate?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Happens all the time
[info]odc100
2006-02-02 09:44 pm UTC (link)
All simulations are inaccurate by nature, it's just a question of how accurate your needs are. Sometimes simulations are enhanced to sacrifice realism for fun and then I guess you are heading into game and demonstration territory.

I think we can expect a fairly non-realistic simulation if there has to be an audience of people who don't understand the concept that well.

Yy above post was meant in regards to the quotation in the original news article btw :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Happens all the time
[info]jabrwock
2006-02-02 09:54 pm UTC (link)
I think we can expect a fairly non-realistic simulation if there has to be an audience of people who don't understand the concept that well.

I think the reason they were denouncing the simulation was not that it was too simplified, but rather that it was simulating unrealistic results, namely that the US had developed interceptors that could actually shoot down ICBMs.

It would be like asking someone to believe that shooting a tank with a pistol makes it explode into a huge fireball. Showing a simulation of a tank exploding when you shoot it with a pistol doesn't make it any more believable.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Happens all the time
[info]odc100
2006-02-03 12:25 pm UTC (link)
From the original article -

The simulation is clearly being used by the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency to build support - and funding - for its program.

Agreed, they are trying to drum up support and funding for this potential system and this sim was a part of it. I would say that currently it does err more on the side of hypothetical game than true simulation.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Computer Game: Fantasy. Simulation: Reality.
[info]thelandofsmeg
2006-02-02 05:00 pm UTC (link)
A computer game is based on fantasy. A simulation is based on reality.

Get the difference? No of course not, because depending on who you ask, computer games are simulators... right?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Computer Game: Fantasy. Simulation: Reality.
[info]nightwng2000
2006-02-02 05:11 pm UTC (link)
I don't care if it's a game or simulation, I want a super up-to-date version of Life and Death with thousands of different surgeries I can perform on my computer. And I don't mean those crap ER games by Legacy Interactive either.

nightwng2000

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Computer Game: Fantasy. Simulation: Reality.
[info]mrbrightcoco
2006-02-02 07:52 pm UTC (link)
Ah yes, Life and Death, the game that showed me I could never be a doctor. However, if you're interested in that sort of game, can I recommend Trauma Center: Under the Knife for the DS?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Computer Game: Fantasy. Simulation: Reality.
[info]nightwng2000
2006-02-03 12:35 am UTC (link)
It's looks better than the ER games from Legacy. But being nearsighted, I can't play the small handhelds very well.

Besides, I want something really, really good. Heck, if I had the money, I'd buy some of those actual training devices that college students can buy to simulate some of the incision work. But they are expensive and can only be used a few times.

Shame L&D 2 was so bugged and never got a patch. Heh heh, just had a funky thought. Brain surgery simulator. Easter egg: do something and you have Stubbs the Zombie as a brain surgeon. :)

I'd love to be able to find a good company that would be interested in making a medical simulator. I have some interesting ideas for special peripherals to go along with the simulation.

nightwng2000

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]howdoyouplead
2006-02-02 05:55 pm UTC (link)
I'm from Alaska and that sucks, but why did the "Midlanders" fire a nuke on a small chain island? Is it a strategic air base? I've never heard of it. If they can hit LA you'd think they'd go for Anchorage as well.

I just made myself sad.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]gamepolitics
2006-02-02 06:02 pm UTC (link)
I was wondering that also. Buried deep in the article is a mention that there are early warning radars on Sheyma, so maybe it was targeted for its strategic value.

Evil Midlanders!!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Sheyma radar station
[info]jabrwock
2006-02-02 06:14 pm UTC (link)
COBRA DANE is a national technical Intelligence sensor, located on the island of
Sheyma, Alaska, at Eareckson AF Station... The primary mission is to track and collect data on foreign intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM) test launches to the Kamchatka impact area and the broad ocean impact areas in the Pacific Ocean.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Misleading Assumptions
[info]barfo
2006-02-02 06:06 pm UTC (link)
The point that the critic is making is not that simultions are always bad or that they are always mere fantasy, he is specifically alleging that this one is. The fact is that a simulation is only as good as how well its designers successfully capture the crucial elements, and that in this case he's specifically alleging that the whole system is set up with intent to mislead. Since theres no actual missile defense system right now, and no working things to model off of, the crucial elements of this simulation which would be the performance specs of actual interceptor missiles are just made up. Since the bulk of the criticism over missile defense is not over the idea that if we had a working system it wouldn't be needed to avert a disaster such as this, but rather such a working system is technologically unfeasible from the current project which is just a way of porking to the defense industry valuable dollars that could be spent elsewhere, the simulation effectively amounts to simulating a straw man.

If im a cancer researcher trying to get a government grant for my research into a therapy to try and stop cancer, I present the reasons that my current line of work is likely to give fruit, specific milestones and methodology for scientifically proving those. What I dont do is just make a simulation that assumes i have a therapy and shows the logistics of distributing it to all the cancer patients in order to fulfill their cancer and use that to say that my therapy is effective and thus you need to fund it so i can close the performance gap.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Misleading Assumptions
[info]marbledog
2006-02-02 06:18 pm UTC (link)
I think the fact that the simulation was presented to press-corps agents (rather than people who might actually use, fund, command, design, or maintain these potential systems) is pretty telling. It was a PR event, plain and simple.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(36 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…