The most meaningful day of my college career was a guest lecture by a Hiroshima survivor. Just that phrase "Hiroshima survivor" was impactful. It hadn't occurred to me that anyone survived.

The professor translated as this woman, now old, described a week of her life when she was a very small child. She saw some absolute horrors. Not all of them were unique to nuclear weapons. Traditional aerial bombing has some awful outcomes.

Trying to understand the trauma experienced in those days and weeks and months afterwards will always be very difficult. The smells described won't be present in VR. A 90-minute lecture by a soft-spoken septuagenarian was hard to bear.

The Civil Rights Museum in Atlanta has a great exhibit to simulate the abuse lunch counter sit-in protesters had to endure. The museum is all-around excellent and that exhibit in particular is a highlight.

This reminds me also of the playable prologue to Battlefield 1. Before you get to play the rest of the chaotic typical crass online environment you have to play through a series of situations centred around a person you’re introduced to before getting dropped into a messy battle where the character inevitably is killed.

Unfortunately judging by the comments you’ll hear online after playing through the emotional introduction, it doesn’t seem it makes a lasting impression on many.

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that that's because it was an equally crass attempt at stimulating that kind of emotional investment. You don't get feelings for free. They are contextual things with many more dimensions that what is put immediately in front of you. Trying to build a genuine commentary on the nature of war into a game like that requires a fundamentally different kind of game, and attitude towards game-making, more than just a tacked-on nod to the fact that some people died in the War.

I found it unexpected and sobering, even if it was a 'tacked on nod'. It certainly changed the way I played the single player campaign.

>Unfortunately judging by the comments you’ll hear online after playing through the emotional introduction, it doesn’t seem it makes a lasting impression on many.

Cynicism is the default mode for internet denizens. Wouldn't want anybody to think they were soft enough to feel an emotion!

I loved the introduction. As much as I love war games, I despise the concept of war, and think more media should reflect the abject, stupid-as-fuck reality of it. Because it is absolutely stupid as fuck. Almost any vet would tell you that. Everything about it.

Though less centered on a real scenario, the phosphorous section in Spec Ops The Line has had similar effects to some (including me). War isn't pretty.

> Just that phrase "Hiroshima survivor" was impactful. It hadn't occurred to me that anyone survived.

Tsutomo Yamaguchi survived not only the Hiroshima bombing, but the Nagasaki one too.

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

I don't know if this would be a highly controversial opinion here, but I think that teaching people about the horrors of war isn't what stops war. It is the governments feeling the pain of war, such that they enact safeguards against easily going to war, and established norms to prevent the slaughter of civilians.

I may be mistaken, but I rarely see good faith efforts to, say, curtail the unchecked ability of the executive power to simply plunge into a de facto war without much direct authorization, or to use weapons such as the atomic bomb against civilians.

Let me add: visualizations like this are important, I think. I am not arguing against these, I'm just saying these probably don't produce political change.

Before World War 1, there was a (relative) period of some peace, and something insane happened - people started glorifying war. The idea of war bringing out the "real" in a person, or skimming off the excess of society was a thing.

Then of course, once mustard gas is rolling through your neighborhood, glorifying war seems rather stupid.

People are dumb forgetful creatures, but it's important to keep well in mind that war is terrible and horrible, and we as people never want it. Public opinion won't prevent another war from happening ever, but it will make war much harder to argue for.

> Public opinion

As events in 2000-2003 have taught us, it's quite easy to sway public opinion in favor of war, even more so when it's largely not on your own soil.

And easy to continue it, when the costs are so readily ignored.

Iraq/Afghanistan have been much longer than Vietnam for a very obvious reason.

My view is that the images from Hiroshima and Nagasaki allowed people to see the destructive power of these weapons and the horrors of the wounds inflicted. It’s my strong belief that those images that prevented nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union. I also strongly believe that without Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we’d have seen nuclear exchanges between nation states.

I can't read this in any other way than just speculation for which the primary purpose is to act as a comforting rationalization to what happened.

I think you are very naive if you think the images of survivors didn’t do anything to prevent nuclear war. Of course there is no “evidence” because how could you prove something like this. Also it’s your own bias and perhaps your politics that leads you to believe that I’m rationalizing.

I didn't say that images didn't do anything. In addition, I would expect someone to call me naive, not for what I wrote, but rather if I'd thought that what stops powerful people from doing horrible things are images of suffering civilians.

> It’s my strong belief that those images that prevented nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union.

I'm going to guess it's more because neither government was willing to find out if they could survive the other side's nuclear attack. Who wants to rule a country with all the major cities destroyed, transportation recked, the economy in ruins, massive humanitarian crises, etc.

Ugh in part because of the images from Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

We could study this, right? Simply ask soldiers what the their combat experience was like and also what they think about nations starting wars, and see if there's a relationship between how much they've been exposed to the "horrors of war" however you define it and how they feel about war in general.

I'm saying convincing the people that war is bad doesn't stop wars. For example at the start of WWII the German people were not enthusiastic about starting another war. That was not enough to stop it.

It's a prisoner's dilemma. It only works if all nations agree to curtail aggression.

The prisoner's dilemma demonstrates how decisions that are individually rational can create worse outcomes collectively. The incentives for the individual {prisoner,nation} are not compatible with larger group dynamics.

The solution is to create an environment where individual decision makers are strongly incentivized to make decisions that are collectively beneficial. This is where modern telecommunication technology and - in spite of it's problems - economic globalization can help a lot: nobody wants to drop bombs (atomic or conventional) on another country if their friends or business partners live there.

How do Russia's actions in Crimea fit into this model? In fact, I'd argue they invaded exactly because they had close close economic ties to the area. This is kind of what I'm referring to -- the rest of Europe wants to avoid war and Russia takes advantage by making aggressive military moves.

> they invaded

How many bombs did Russia drop on Crimea during that invasion?

Russia may have had ties to local areas like Crimea, but the are not as integrated economically and socially on a global scale. Compared to e.g. US/EU relations, a lot of people in the US still see Russia as suspicious/hostile.

Russia's attempts to disguise their initial presence with astroturf "popular support" is an example of the country being increasingly aware of how they appear on the international stage. Bombs become less appealing as the economic cost of pissing off the rest of the world grows. Unfortunately, there is still a lot of work to do to create that goal.

Interesting article, can definitely see the potential for learning/empathy here. Ethically (in the US), I wonder how VR modules like this will be received. I see a case for and against a VR module that allows next gen students to 'experience' 9/11 or any other historic catastrophe.

Actually I think there is already a 9/11 VR experience:

https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/30/9642790/virtual-reality-...

That's a very interesting article!

I mean, we have video games that depict both world wars, with very realistic recreations of major battles. Does being in war make it fundamentally different?

>Does being in war make it fundamentally different

Do you mean, like, is there an experience difference between "being there" and experiencing a highly realistic VR simulation?

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding because the questions seems to answer itself... "yes, of course!"

Besides the obvious fact wherein if you get shot you die for good, and if you don't die you'll feel tremendous pain and be potentially maimed for life, you've got other factors such as

-Friends you've developed closed bonds with being killed next to you

-A campaign lasting months or years that consumes your existence

-Terrible food

-No sleep

-Extraordinary boredom in downtime (which doesn't exist in videogames or nobody would buy them)

-The endless question of "why are we here" (which doesn't exist in videogames - we are here to have fun)

I wasn't asking if a VR experience is different than reality.

I was asking if this new experience of the atomic bomb in VR is different than the other WWII games we have, some in VR.

Basically, if war video games based on real wars are ok, are other games based on real, horrible, events ok?

Yes. Most people who experiance modern war never see a battle. Soldiers battle. For the other 90% of the population, war is suffering, deprivation and fear.

In war games, soldiers usually die quietly, instantly, and in one piece. Reality is still too brutal.

At the moment, no. VR is still in its infancy, and the experiences are distinguishable from reality in a way that they are closer to video games than real life.

However if VR and haptics are able to perfectly recreate war in the next few decades, let's hope that psychology develops in pace. A generation of teenagers who have been exposed to perfect recreations of trench warfare and 9/11 is a generation that will have more PTSD than any other generation before it.

I think there would be an important psychological difference in knowing that your life isn't really in danger, or your friend didn't really just get killed, and so on.

There's also the issue that such a realistic sim probably wouldn't be fun for a lot of people, and wouldn't get played that much.

What's the moral argument against?

There's an argument that putting children through traumatizing simulated events has unclear psychological consequences. Western education at young ages goes surprisingly graphic when talking about certain historical atrocities (think seeing Schindler's List in grade schools). While this sort of shock-and-awe storytelling can be impactful, its consequences may not be all positive.

Another issue is that a stronger reliance on "empathetic/emotional" learning experiences can delve too far from education and too much into propaganda. Group A can produce material that hits deep at our psyches and highlights the evils of Group B, and vice versa. Whose side wins the popular debate isn't from the facts on the ground, but from which group has the tech/production skills to make their story grip the heartstrings. In that way it's like any other over-produced documentary, but VR can have the seductive appeal that it's "more real" and thus more objective.

The issue of "experiential VR learning" becomes harder and harder to do right the further back in time you go, because of the mistake we moderns make when trying to "relate" to the past. We often imagine time-traveling and dropping ourselves in a past environment, thinking that's what it would be to be, say, a medieval peasant. We too easily forget that our own mindsets and approaches would be fundamentally different in some ways.

There's a very simple overhead-view VR recreation of the Hiroshima bombing at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. It, along with the rest of the content, is emotionally stirring while at the same time not placing blame or pointing fingers (something I found incredible).

Some of the stories told at the museum are from school kids who were walking around the city during the blast. They walked through streets in intense pain, skin hanging in sheets off their bodies, trying to find their friends so they could pick them up and help them. Some of them were on fire. Some returned to their homes to find their families dead. Those same children grew up and lived full lives, and can be heard in recounted interviews at the museum.

Children are a lot stronger than many adults think.

I think those are all valid concerns in the long run. My thought about 9/11 is that most of the country 'experienced' 9/11 but in a much different way than being on or near the site of the attacks. As a kid, the weeks/months long aftermath was far more impactful on my psyche than the immediate moment of learning of the attack. It would be tough to recreate that experience in VR.

If watching Schindler's List is traumatizing, then what is going to happen to your kid when they actually meet someone trying to take advantage of them in one way or another?

I'm thinking a lot about your OP.

I'm still developing these thoughts, but I think the critical difference lays in the difference between "VR experience of Hiroshima bombing" and "watching Schindler's List."

A movie is a narrative. Otherwise it wouldn't be entertaining and nobody would watch it. Even documentaries have narratives. Narratives require good guys, bad guys, etc.

A VR "experience" is just that - one little slice of experience. I really don't think that can be biased (maybe, depending on the experience). It's just "putting yourself in someone's shoes." I don't see how anybody could be biased about how terrible a city being nuked was. It was terrible. Someone might argue that "it was for the greater good," but it was still terrible. Maybe it'll make it harder for a future (now child) president to make the decision to drop the bomb, good! Is that a biased viewpoint, to not want suffering of anybody? I guess maybe it is.

At a point it’s a matter of norm and probability. If the chances that a kid goes through that kind of experience are astronomically low, prepping them for that kind of traumatic event while encuring PTSD risks might not be worth it.

Are you sure it's that unlikely?

I would even dare to say that the moment you allow a majority of your children to grow up this way; you allow a minority of psychopaths to do whatever they want to them (the children). It’s a simple game-theoretic question.

> putting children through traumatizing simulated events has unclear psychological consequences.

I visited Yad Vashem when I was 16. I have been traumatized for the rest of my life. The Children's Memorial is not for children.

A counter argument: if we don’t teach kids about the atrocities of war, fascism, and communism, they will grow up ignorant of those things and discover them all over again for themselves, but worse, because we can now slaughter and surveil people much more efficiently than ever before. I’d be in favor of showing “Come and See” by Elem Klimov to school age kids, with peasants burning alive in barns and everything else, because that did actually happen and it absolutely can happen again. In fact I made my son watch it when he was 12.

Counter counter argument: do we make them watch equally graphic recreations of what happened in Nanking? Based on the American morals I'm use to seeing in others (granted these may not apply to people not in the US), any notion of letting a child see the horrors of war is immediately destroyed once you introduce certain forms of violence.

If it's not handled appropriately, you're potentially making a really poor-taste virtual roller coaster. It could easily be seen as making a spectacle of a national tragedy.

Interesting use of VR! Anybody have a download link?

Commenting, because interested too!

What does that have to do with anything?

Both of these are about creating a virtual experience, one is presented as study and the other got someone expelled.

Come on, no one else sees this as a double standard?

1. Japanese students create a view-only virtual reality experience of a horrific national tragedy that killed over 140,000 people and altered the region, their country, and the world forever.

2. Highschool kid makes a Counterstrike map of his school.

Or inside Unit 731.

Nanking?

What ever happened a nuclear bomb is criminal act in itself and considered a terrorist attack, at least Japan stopped being criminal not like USA were they still justifying their terrorism.

Where do you draw the line between a nuclear weapon and so many other forms of modern warfare?

modern warfare can be very specific, nukes can't. The only use for nukes is to kill the maximum people and it's going to be big cities where civilians exist. Are you going to use nuke bomb to kill 10, 15, 2000 people? of course not.

I think I would have preferred being in Hiroshima than in Nanking.