Military Games

With the breaking news of Osama Bin Laden’s death, military stories have peaked my interest. As you can see from my blog I have already uploaded a brief post on the military’s use of blogging. Another New York Times article has caught my eye being that it is also technology focused, which fits into the theme of my blog. This one is centered on the slow inclusion of virtual military training programs. There is a more specific reason for my interest in this subject: the death of such a prominent figure such as Bin Laden is likely to cause retaliation from his supporters and as a citizen of the country that killed him I am concerned about our preparedness for such an attack. The success of our military is directly dependent on adequate training programs. The implications of a successful program extends beyond the United States. As a country dedicated to world peace, our success will influence stability and peace across the globe.

Virtual military training programs involve the use of video games, alternate reality goggles, hand-held devices, and 3D projections to simulate battle conditions. While similar, it does not include commercial military strategy or simulation games such as the ever-popular Call of Duty franchise, which focuses on theatrical action and entertainment rather than realistic battlefield situations. Andrew Martin’s article in the Sunday edition reminds us that the use of such technology in military training occurred as far back as the mid 1990’s when marines altered the commercial game Doom to provide a more realistic fighting experience. Yet, Martin’s article is being published now because the conversation of virtual training is far from over. The fact that its roots date back to the 1990’s and its relatively small use is exactly the point: The military has been extremely slow in adopting this program – a program that can better prepare our army for the war we are currently fighting as well as future ones.

Martin explains that normal training involves 45 minute in-class powerpoint presentations detailing information on the targeted region. While what they are learning is important, such training styles are inadequate. Instead of boring lecturers that people often sleep through and find hard to absorb information from, a 3D projection or alternate reality goggles can directly immerse recruits into the environment of the battlefield - in the current case, Afghanistan. Even though this simulation does not replicate the actual climate of a region it can fool one's other senses into convincing oneself you are in a dusty desert.

When focusing on the use of hand-held devices such as the iPhone smartphone, Martin points out the benefits of having a mobile device that can sync any mission updates, locate enemies and communicate with comrades. He then points out the cost savings of such a training tool: While an app of the Army’s Blue Book - outlining  duties of an officer - was created in just three days for a small amount of money, the printed version of the same book that is used in normal training costs $750,000 and took 135 days to print. Eric Beidel’s National Defense Magazine article agrees with the improved functionality of smartphones, stating that these small devices will severely cut down on the weight soldiers would have to lug around. In his article detailing the need to focus less on the large equipment and more on the needs of the foot solider, he points out that cargo weight is a serious performance issue, which can cause fatigue in even the strongest soldiers after carrying an average 130 pounds throughout a day of duty. Additionally, Martin highlights the fact that the military needs to adopt teaching methods that fit the needs of the current recruits. Incoming soldiers have grown up with the internet and similar devices. Therefore, the army needs to fit their needs by teaching them with tools that they naturally understand and are used to. The use of such devices would also provide a side-benefit by attracting more recruits to join the army; these devices are consistent with the high tech theme of the army’s advertising campaigns.

The downside to the push for smartphones in training and consequently the battlefield is that, just as a paper map can be damaged by water, so can a smartphone. Moreover, unlike a paper map, smartphones can break when dropped, require charging and most importantly may be hacked into by the enemy. Not only may the enemy learn our training strategies but also our exact mission objectives. Advanced and costly encryption, which aren't necessarily guaranteed would be required as Martin points out.

As I previously mentioned, Martin’s article points out that virtual training has been implemented. The army began acquiring a simulation game, opened sourced and allowing for playback so that training sessions may be reviewed and improved upon (cited from Seth Robinson’s article on Stars and Stripes), by the name VBS 2 in 2001. Lieutenant Fish, currently in Afghanistan, verified the usefulness of such training in his day-to-day missions on the battlefield. Robinson elaborates on the military’s plan to spend $50M over the course of five years on virtual training starting in 2008. Yet, this implementation, as Beidel points out, is slow and is what continues this conversation. The true problem lies in the lack of support, namely in funding. This notion directly supports Martin’s point about the small research and development budget for virtual training hindering its proliferation throughout the military. Even though initiated programs proved successful; such programs were proven to also dramatically reduce post traumatic stress disorder by adequately prepared soldiers before traumatic events occurred (cited from a Sign On Sand Diego news article); and multiple highly seated officers such as the Lieutenant General Michael Vane from the Army’s training command and Directory of Training Readiness and Strategy Frank C. DiGiovanni from the Department of Defense support virtual training as Martin’s article highlights, this has not been enough to hype up the military’s action.

It appears that America is taking steps to improve our defenses and consequently the stability of the world, however, action is slow due to the conservative American military, who is not quick to deviate from its normal training. Hopefully with more successful initiated programs, virtual training will be used throughout all of the military and be fully integrated along side traditional training.