High-Tech War Games Help Save Lives

An anonymous reader writes "CNN is reporting on the new training mannequins being used by the United States military. Advances in technology have allowed the training dummies to become ultra-realistic. From the article: 'New battery-operated, remote-controlled mannequins can simulate bleeding and breathing, and they have blinking eyes that dilate. Medics can test their skills on these life-like mannequins. The new units, which are packed with technology, are used at 23 US Army Medical Simulation Training Centers as part of a program to teach lifesaving techniques to medics and nonmedical personnel. A Pentagon study says the training program has saved 1,000 soldiers' lives in combat, said Lt. Col. Wilson Ariza, manager of the US Army Medical Simulation Project.'"

Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, too.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not getting into pointless wars, like the one in Iraq, helps save lives, too.

Re:The problem with dummies....

[hoytak]

If you RTFS, the dummies here are used to train soldiers in field medicine, not target practice. They represent an injured comrade. In such situations, you really don't want to be emotional, as that soldier's survival depends on you thinking clearly, and that's where lifelike training is exactly what is great -- when confronted with such a situation, you do what you're trained to do. Of course, afterwards, processing things can be tough.

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to

[slimjim8094]

I'm by no means a warmonger, and the US has gotten involved in a bunch of stupid wars. Having said that: the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and World War II were almost unquestioningly necessary. In each case, action was necessary, and diplomacy had been thoroughly exhausted. But, as much as I hate to say it, sometimes you need to beat the crap out of an enemy for your safety or for what's right. It was time for the colonies to be independent, the union is not a fair-weather friend, and Hitler/Japan needed to be put in their place.

If you disagree, how would you have handled the above situations? Keep in mind that colonial control, secession, and a Nazi Europe are not acceptable outcomes in this game.

Re:Not getting into pointless wars saves lives, to

[demonlapin]

It's hardly pointless. It might be cruel, or evil, to start a war, but it's worth remembering that quite a lot of wars have achieved their goals magnificently. The wars against the Native Americans? Spectacularly successful. Britain's colonial wars? With the exception of the American Revolution, spectacularly successful.

Re:Sorry, I don't buy it

[Sarten-X]

So when was the last time you volunteered to be shot in the chest, to help train field medics? Sure, dummies are limited, but every advancement means better knowledge beforehand. That means fewer mistakes when the real thing comes along.

Re:s/Save Lives/Save our soldiers' lives

[westlake]

...by making it easier for them to end their enemies' lives. You haven't saved any net lives, just switched which side lost the lives.

Which is what war is all about:

I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country. ...

- George S Patton.

Re:s/Save Lives/Save our soldiers' lives

[Jahava]

...by making it easier for them to end their enemies' lives. You haven't saved any net lives, just switched which side lost the lives.

Wow, you're deep *rolls eyes*. But wait, maybe killing more enemies ends up saving more lives in the long run? Or maybe one of the saved soldiers goes home and ends up being the next Norman Borlaug [wikipedia.com] and saves millions (and counting)? How do we know this isn't the single most important life-saving technology ever invented, in some "butterfly effect" fashion?

Or you could just silence your snarky pseudo-intellectualism and enjoy the damned article.