Best 360 peripheral ever supports the troops
by Ken Weeks 
{ Mar 21st 2006 at 9:00PM }
We all knew that raising a generation of American kids on violent video games would pay off at some point for the military industrial complex:
The U.S. Army has discovered a remote control gun turret that works, and cannot get enough of them. The army wants over 9,000 CROWS (common remotely operated weapon stations), but is only getting 15 a month. There should be about a thousand CROWS in service by the end of the year.
...But there's another reason, not often talked about, for the success of CROWS. The guys operating these systems grew up playing video games. They developed skills in operating systems (video games) very similar to the CROWS controls. This was important, because viewing the world around the vehicle via a vidcam is not as enlightening (although a lot safer) than having your head and chest exposed to the elements, and any firepower the enemy sends your way. But experienced video gamers are skilled at whipping that screen view around, and picking up any signs of danger. Iraqis are amazed at how observant CROWS is. Iraqis tend to just wrote this off as another example of American "magic." But the troops know better. Video games can save your life.
God bless our Master Chief-loving troops and their mad fragging skills. It turns out splattering Iraqi insurgents from the comfort of your Humvee is that much easier thanks to countless hours spent blasting Covenant Elites. Maybe this means some defense contractor will sponsor a free weekend of Xbox Live.
Normally, I don't go for third-party peripherals but one of these CROWS (pictured above) would make a badass addition to the Xbox 360 (visions of ED-209), especially if they keep the M240B 7.62mm machine-gun and living room-ready grenade launcher. They cost $260,000 a piece, but I'm sure MadCatz could make a cheap version with flimsy buttons and less battery life.
While we're on the subject of the relationship between real wars and console wars, the South Korean Air Force is looking for a few good gamers to help develop next-gen flight simulators.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Reality Check @ Mar 21st 2006 9:07PM
Another expensive waste of tax dollars that will be used to liquidate arab peasants.
God bless America.
Rogue Soul @ Mar 21st 2006 9:17PM
I want one!
Murc @ Mar 21st 2006 9:45PM
to post #1.
I agree completely, Id much rather have our troops sticking there bodies out of the hole in the roof of the humvee, then inside an armored vehicle...in fact, I think we could save a lot more money if we just got rid of those bullet proof vests, since that also is a useless inovation. *rolls eyes*
mike @ Mar 21st 2006 9:56PM
as if was wasent all about money, this just proves it. In the future, people wont even fight in wars. All the soilders will just be video game nerds controlling remote controlled robots. The county that wins the war is the one who can afford to build the most robots, or the one who is better at hacking and takes control of the enemies army.
DJ @ Mar 21st 2006 11:47PM
Anyone remember that movie Toys? (right, the one with Robin Williams) The General brings in kids who are good at video games to remotely control killing machines for use in battle. At the time I saw that movie I thought it was a great idea. Sure, it takes all the honor out of fighting but it has the ability to save our soldier's asses over there and that's what people are clamoring for isnt it? Oh right, people like RC up there think America's soldiers are baby killers.
Logan T. @ Mar 22nd 2006 1:21AM
I think it's about time that people are fully realizing how being a good gamer takes real skills. It's good to see people putting those skills to use with these guns. I'd like to know how many shots one of those can take, and if there's a way for me to get my hands on a real one. :p
MattTS @ Mar 22nd 2006 2:35AM
"God bless our Master Chief-loving troops and their mad fragging skills". Not really likely that they played Halo when growing up, it's much more likely that they played some of the older FPS games first.
Thomas Crymes @ Mar 22nd 2006 9:11AM
Here's the real problem.
You have an army in this world that is mechanized to the point where people control war machines remotely. This eliminates the loss of life significantly on the mechanized side.
The problem is that for all countries that don't have the technology, this creates a terrible imbalance. If my loss of life is minimal, it makes me more likely to go to war, and if your loss of life is great, then how can you really oppose an army with that technology?
DJ @ Mar 22nd 2006 11:48AM
This is true Thomas Crymes. Hopefully someday we will live in a world where these things are no longer necessary. Unfortunately rational thought doesnt always win out and world peace doesn't always seem feasable. I have some hope for the future, but I think some things may get worse before they get better.
EatingPie @ Mar 24th 2006 12:07PM
#8 Good Post! Star Trek in the '60s made the same point with one episde. Sanitize War, make it palatable, and who will resist going to war when it's neat and clean. I saw this attitude in real life after the 1st Persian Gulf War, and it was saddening.
The difficulty is that, indeed, we want to protect our troops (say in a just war like WWII). So this is the way we move.
More importantly.
Where's Jack Thompson? I mean if ever there was an argument that it's NOT "just a game" we've got it here.
-Pie