[geeks] Re: [rescue] Paintball

[N. Miller]

--On Friday, June 27, 2003 2:37 PM -0700 Francisco Javier Mesa-Martinez 
<lefa at ucsc.edu> wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, N. Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> Trying to move to geeks...
>
> I had to actually subscribe to geeks to reply to this thread :)

Me, too. :-)

> So: Have you gone to a military academy? Have you been in active duty
> for over a year? Have you participated in real NATO exercises? Have you
> been deployed in a REAL operation, have you seen REAL combat? Have you
> been shot at with real fire?

I did not go to a military academy, but I was a member of the Corps of
Cadets at Texas A&M, which some people consider a cut above the military
academies in the US.  I was never on active duty, nor have I ever been
shot at.  I'd love to prove my worth as a platoon leader, but unfortunately,
I am now both two old, and lack the correct biological organs for any "old
soldiers" to believe that I am capable of doing so.  (Yes, that was
sarcasm.  We all know that the Canadian military barely qualifies, unless
you are speaking of the PPCLI or the Van Doo. ;-)

>> You trivialize the experience of a team that plays paintball together
>> every weekend for years by comparing the experience to playing Doom.
>> Clicking a mouse paintball is not.  Nor is paintball simply a 'shoot-em
>> up' as you so blithely put it.
>
> Yes I did, and I still do, and I will trivialize the "paintball
> experience" as long as any paintballer tries to trivialize the real
> military experience by trying to claim that somehow paintball gives the
> participant the same level of skills of a real infrantry.
>
> The problem that we are having here is that we may be butting heads when
> it comes to the transitive properties of paintball, i.e. the fact that
> fake ammunition can be use for military training does not imply that
> anyone else playing around with fake amunition gets to have the same
> skills period.

I think we are butting heads over the fact that you are attributing comments
to me that I never made.  I did not say that paintball should replace other
military training, nor did I say that it was better than other military
training.  I said that it is being used as part of military training, and
the fact is, it *is*, regardless of what you think about it.

> OK, lets make a few points clear. On why I believe paintball and army
> skills are not compatible. And why paintabll will not be used as an army
> training technique any time soon:

Well, aside from the fact that you're factually wrong, since it is already
being used as *an* army training technique... ('an' as opposed to 'the')

> If you take an army unit and put them in one of your 24-hour scenario X
> games. They will be slaughtered by you guys. Does that make that you are
> better trained than the army? No by a long shot, get real guns and get a
> real scenario and you last all of 5 minutes against the same guys. Why?
>
> One of the main things is that flanking in paintball and real action are
> completelly different. During paintball you tend to flank quickly and to
> the point, in real military situations once you find cover you wait as
> long as you can because a) you want your enemy to move first to give away
> its location and b)therefore you are trained to be patient -which is a bad
> thing when you are playing paintball.

Once again, you are making assumptions about paintball.  Since it's not OK
for me to make assumptions about the military, why are you allowed to make
assumptions about paintball from your (and your friends') limited
experiences?

In *tournament* paintball, yes, you are working against the clock, so it
doesn't (generally--there are always exceptions) pay to play the patience
game.  All elements of the field are known to both teams, so waiting just
gives your opponents time to develop their offense.

But scenario games, and other types of games are not necessarily like
this.  I will cite the 16 yo that crawled within 10 yards of the enemy
HQ in a scenario game I played, and waited until the general came out
of the HQ building, and sniped him.  The first time the wait was about
2 hours.  The second time, it took less.  Needless to say, that general
lost.

> Real army people have a
> general mistrust of "modern" training methods and to some point I agree,
> the only good training is the one devised by veterans. Any other "ideas"
> or "additions" by non-veterans or people who have not seen combat are
> dangerous. Period...

What can be said to this?  It's not an argument for or against the efficacy
of anything, it's *merely* the opinion of "old soldiers".  Not that it's
necessarily wrong.  But it's kind of difficult to measure the efficacy of
training techniques if you don't have a shooting war to collect statistics
in, isn't it?

> Well I could taka a SC2000 (just to be somewhat on topic here) and bring
> it with me to train. Heck is far more complex than my HK... so what? Am I
> gonna fight wit it? No, am I gonna fight with the paintball gun? No,
> therefore any "fighting" training time that I do w/o my weapon is a waste
> of time.

As I stated later, there are plenty of paintball markers used for military
training (and mil-sim recreational folks) that, aside from the gunpowder
part, operate just like "real guns".  My point about the "complication"
factor is that paintball guns jam, just like real firearms, have to be
cleaned, just like real firearms, and aren't just connected to an
endless supply of paint as you seemed to be suggesting by your sarcastic
comments.

The way you talk, a soldier is going to learn how to use his HK, and god
forbid it get damaged in such a way that he'd have to improvise and use
a different type of firearm.  I should hope that the training theory of
the modern military has a bit broader vision that this.

> I guess we will have to agree to disagree, as an ex-green beret (GOE-I!!
> "Con nosotros quien quiera, contra nosotros quien pueda") I will continue
> dealing with paintball exactly as what it is: a sport. Other sort
> of ramifications that you want to make out of it are ludicrous IMHO. Wanna
> get the same skills as an advanced infantry man? Go ahead and join a real
> unit.

I never claimed to have the skills of an advanced infantry soldier.  I
stated that I believed that my understanding of tactics and my marksmanship
had improved.  I know the latter, because I can see the difference.  The
rest is speculation, as no army will take me.

> LOL, so I guess we are in the opposite end of the spectrum :) I am a
> socialist, and a pacifist to boot. But variety is the spice of life, so we
> will just have to tolerate each other :). I put up and I served my country
> which is far more than most armchair "militarist" can say, but I will to
> combat in a heartbeat once the person who makes the decision to send the
> young to die comes with me in the first wave. Until then I will stay at
> home, much like the old men who send the young ones to die do.

As I said, pacificism is all well and good so long as the people trying
to oppress you are civilized.  However, as a libertarian (note the small
'el'), pacificists have, by definition, little effect on me, so hey,
do as you please.

> So? It still is "just a game"... again, I think it is cool that you like
> it and what not. I just disagree with making it more than what it really
> is. I got through one of the toughest trainings in western military so I
> get a bit touchy when someone tries to "trivialize" or maybe I just
> misread your language. There are somethings that hit close to home
> sometimes and maybe my response may be a bit too harsh. If that is the
> case I apologize.

It was never my intent to trivialize your experience.  As I said, I know
lots of folks in the military, and have a great deal of respect for people
who make the sacrifice to be in the military and those who take advanced
training.  (One of the greatest travesties in the US is how poorly US
military people are paid, particular enlisted folks.)  One of my closest
friends is a Lt. Col. in the USAF, and he is incredibly intelligent and
ambitious and could have easily have be 5x or 10x as well off in the
private sector--it takes dedication to personal principles to stay the
military.  I would have happily done so myself if my ROTC officers had
not been so studiously unconcerned about sexual discrimination in the
Corps.  Even a little Chamberlain-like mollification would have gone a
long way towards keeping me from breaking my scholarship contract.

Paintball *is* being used as a training technique despite your and others'
opinion of it.

My point in mentioning the popularity of paintball is that sooner or later
the military will co-opt it as a recruiting device, just as they have co-
opted video games as a recruiting device.  <http://www.americasarmy.com/>
Including tournaments (GDFest), and big PR (Lollapalooza).  I am suddenly
reminded of _Ender's Game_.

=Nadine=