Wars fought in Virtual Reality

[Bill Phil]

Well it would also be a comedy, so...

[vger]

Hmm...

This could be interesting as the subject of a novel, or a story, or whatever. The entire plot would revolve around how the system could be exploited...

*gears start turning

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled_from_Paradise

Not about a virtual wargame, but interesting nevertheless. Sort of a cross between Wall-E and the Matrix, where humans voluntarily abandoned physicality and plugged their minds into cyberspace, as a way to eliminate the need for food/life-support. Not hard to imagine how messy a hacker war could end up in such an environment.

[tomf]

I will add Surface detail by Ian M Banks which partly concerns a virtual war over whether hell should exist.

[theend3r]

You would still need to keep a physical army because if you didn't, the obvious would happen. It would change nothing.

[Nibb31]

You would just send in ground troops to unplug the enemy's modem. Frag!

I don't see virtual wars happening, other than through electronic warfare as part of a real-world conflict.

There is however the possibility of seeing "drone vs drone" confrontations fought by proxy with no actual casualties, but the objectives of such attacks would always be to hit real world targets.

[Mazon Del]

Really the big problem that you'd have in such a system is that if it was a "perfectly modeled" copy of the real world, then countries with nukes have no reason to ever NOT use them in the virtual fight. After all, there is no consequences for doing so. The game would have to have a stale-mate option because it is certainly possible to stalemate in a war where both sides can nuke each other out of existence.

Really the only way this would help anything (but still fail to do so) is if you as some unbiased 3rd party created as good of a simulation as possible for all participants and then let them use the simulation to try and guess how good they'd do against their opponent. If they see there is no possible way they can win, then they might not fight.

Chances are though, all you have done is made it so they are better at anticipating their opponents moves and for the sides that are pretty much guaranteed to win, you are further confirming to them that they will win, which allows them to just throw their weight around more in the political arena.

[peadar1987]

Why do you even need a perfect simulation? If you're going to essentially play a game and both sides agree to abide by the result, why not just play football or rugby?

[RainDreamer]

Why do you even need a perfect simulation? If you're going to essentially play a game and both sides agree to abide by the result, why not just play football or rugby?

Or chess. Or damn it, D&D. Imagine that. World leaders sit down and do role plays of their character for their citizen's entertainment.

But here is something else I just thought about this scenario. Let's accept that no one is going to break the rules and do a physical attack because the world got arbitrated by an alien species so advance that we can't fight back and they host the game for us to solve conflict (and perhaps for their entertainment).

What is there to prevent nations from developing a super AI that can play the game much better than any other human players? Soon it will still be an arm race where nations developing increasingly sophisticated AI to lock themselves in fights, and a glitch can cost a nation their sovereignty. Computer scientists suddenly become much more respected than any other profession, and mental prowess became objectively better than physical abilities. It is a nerd's dream comes true.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Hmm...

This could be interesting as the subject of a novel, or a story, or whatever. The entire plot would revolve around how the system could be exploited...

*gears start turning

For example, the company/nation/entity that makes the game could be biased. Or, even better, one of the developers might have had his wife/child/relation killed by one of the countries and makes the game easier for one country, and then someone has to fix it as the game is in progress...

Really the big problem that you'd have in such a system is that if it was a "perfectly modeled" copy of the real world, then countries with nukes have no reason to ever NOT use them in the virtual fight. After all, there is no consequences for doing so. The game would have to have a stale-mate option because it is certainly possible to stalemate in a war where both sides can nuke each other out of existence.

[...]

Also, do you want countries used to using nuclear weapons in the advent that real war breaks out?

[Mazon Del]

Also, do you want countries used to using nuclear weapons in the advent that real war breaks out?

An additional concern! After all, this system also doesn't replace the real armies if your countries VR army is based off of their current capabilities.

Or damn it, D&D. Imagine that. World leaders sit down and do role plays of their character for their citizen's entertainment.

I cast magic missile on the darkness!

GM: US, please stop referring to the North Korean player as "the darkness", his characters name is The Grand High Emperor of Earth, His Holiness, Slayer of the American Demon, Ruin-er of the fake South Korea, Enslaver of....ok, fine, The Darkness it is. *grumbles behind his GM wall*

[Nothalogh]

A book worth reading, that is somewhat related to this subhect is Player of Games, by Iain Banks

[vger]

What is there to prevent nations from developing a super AI that can play the game much better than any other human players? Soon it will still be an arm race where nations developing increasingly sophisticated AI to lock themselves in fights, and a glitch can cost a nation their sovereignty. Computer scientists suddenly become much more respected than any other profession, and mental prowess became objectively better than physical abilities. It is a nerd's dream comes true.

We're already getting pretty close to this with real warfare. And any industry where a machine can replace a human.

Edited August 19, 2015 by vger

[NuclearNut]

And then someone determines that they are fed up with loosing and use nuclear weapons to solve the problem while their enemy got rid of them because they thought they did not need them because everyone would fight virtual "wars".

War more or less does not have rules, that is the reason it exists. Once you attempt to add rules that are not logical or easily enforceable, then people ignore those rules in war. If there is a perceived need to use gas weapons, than gas weapons will be used, if there is a perceived need to firebomb civilians, then those civilians will be firebombed. Regrettably war does not work well with rules.

To create an analogy, attempting to make rules of war is like attempting to make rules for school fights or gang violence, it will not work out.

That is not to say that sanctioning others for improper action during war does not work, but it is to say that when push comes to shove in war international law will take the back seat.

[Nothalogh]

And then someone determines that they are fed up with loosing and use nuclear weapons to solve the problem while their enemy got rid of them because they thought they did not need them because everyone would fight virtual "wars".

War more or less does not have rules, that is the reason it exists. Once you attempt to add rules that are not logical or easily enforceable, then people ignore those rules in war. If there is a perceived need to use gas weapons, than gas weapons will be used, if there is a perceived need to firebomb civilians, then those civilians will be firebombed. Regrettably war does not work well with rules.

To create an analogy, attempting to make rules of war is like attempting to make rules for school fights or gang violence, it will not work out.

That is not to say that sanctioning others for improper action during war does not work, but it is to say that when push comes to shove in war international law will take the back seat.

This.

Those who hammer their swords into plowshares, will plow for those who didn't

[Mazon Del]

War more or less does not have rules, that is the reason it exists. Once you attempt to add rules that are not logical or easily enforceable, then people ignore those rules in war. If there is a perceived need to use gas weapons, than gas weapons will be used, if there is a perceived need to firebomb civilians, then those civilians will be firebombed. Regrettably war does not work well with rules.

Actually the rules of war DO have an affect. It isn't just a "oh no! He used gas! Sanction him!" situation. Effectively the way that the rules of war work in this day and age runs through the UN. If someone fights another outside a certain set of unacceptable reasons, then the fight pretty much gets to happen barring bigger countries interfering anyway. But if one country attacks another and starts to break the rules of war, then you start getting into some low level punishments as a warning, but if within a couple months you see they have not backed off, then you have reached the point where countries are allowed to utilize this breach of the RoW to attack THAT country without starting themselves off on the punishment track.

In the olden days (WW2 and before), the problem with this setup was that the people "making" the RoW had no real authority to do so. The British, as a famous example, stipulated that the only legal and fair way to utilize submarines was a set of instructions that guaranteed the attacking submarine would be sunk, likely without having committed any damage. The Germans of course just ignored this entirely to no real consequence. The whole League of Nations thing is widely recognized to have the critical flaw of being intended to stop war from happening under any circumstance. We understand now these days that this is not particularly manageable. So the point of the UN is to try to keep things in a somewhat orderly fashion to prevent massively escalating engagements between nations.

The RoW also have a secondary method of trying to keep things "civil". Generally speaking the internationally accepted rules of war are defined based off of what we tend to loosely agree are a bunch of human rights. So it is not too out of line to state that by breaking the RoW, you are committing human rights violations. Meaning that as the person in charge of causing the RoW breakage, you are now able to be grabbed post-war and imprisoned or executed. Remember, in a "normal" war while the losing government might be thrown out of power, generally speaking that is where it is supposed to stop. The trick being that these days most of the wars getting fought end up happening because, in addition to whatever might be the real hidden reason (*cough* oil *cough*), we already know the ruler in question has broken human rights.

[BashGordon33]

I'm sorry but as good as this sounds, this could never really happen. Do you really think ISIS will agree to battle US in a video game, and surrender in real life if they lost? Do you think China would not hack the game to give themselves an unfair advantage? Would Hitler have shot himself over losing to virtual soldiers? This game would be played, a country would lose, and would start a war in real life anyway. 

[Red Iron Crown]

Old thread bumped with political content? Closed.