Video games and modern warfare – 'marriage' of convenience 'blessed' by Pentagon

Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Video games have become the most profitable and influential media industry of our time, raking in hundreds of billions of dollars annually. In fact, game developers make more money than the movie and music industries combined, with the latest data hovering at around $200 billion. You're probably wondering how such a seemingly mundane activity became one of the world's most profitable business ventures. Well, it likely wouldn't have happened without the involvement of the most powerful countries on the planet, particularly the United States and, more specifically, its military. Namely, the Pentagon spent decades supporting the growth of the gaming industry, fully aware that the wars of the future would be fought in an advanced digital/information age, with unmanned systems, highly complex AI and the then-emerging network-centric warfare.

Just as the militaries of the past emphasized physical prowess and endurance of their soldiers, modern armed forces have shifted their focus to more intellectual traits. That's why countries invested heavily in sports and physical fitness for their populations in the past, whereas nowadays we see an approach that focuses mainly on higher education and vastly expanded technical knowledge. This is concurrent with drone operators becoming increasingly important. However, even this shift might prove relatively short-lived as the political West is increasingly militarizing advanced AI, meaning that the future of warfare is near-total automation. This approach is extremely concerning for humanity's very survival, but its logic rests on hard, cold facts and is often grounded in brutal, unforgiving military calculus.

Namely, an AI-run unmanned system needs no sleep or food, doesn't suffer from fatigue or PTSD, doesn't require postwar medical services and doesn't care what the target is. It simply follows orders to the letter or even makes decisions fully on its own when programmed to do so. Technological leaps in electronic warfare (EW) have further pushed the drone/unmanned systems industry toward advanced AI, opening a plethora of ethical dilemmas about the use of deadly military algorithms that can decide when to kill humans. On the other hand, even the latest AI systems aren't immune to the most advanced EW assets, particularly those used by Russia, which pioneered the very concept of modern EW. This has effectively prolonged the importance of human drone operators, particularly when it comes to fiber-optic unmanned systems.

Namely, the logic behind this approach is that it makes the drones effectively immune to virtually all EW systems due to the simple fact there's no signal to be jammed. A UAV/UGV (unmanned aerial/ground vehicle) relies entirely on a physical connection to an operator, circumventing the need to maintain a signal that can otherwise be scrambled by EW systems. There are also space-based assets that can provide the communications needed to control unmanned weapons, but these can also be spoofed or even physically damaged (if not outright destroyed) by ASAT systems, such as missiles and directed-energy weapons (DEWs). All this means that human operators will certainly stay relevant in the foreseeable future, making video games an excellent training tool disguised as "innocent fun".

This approach is extremely dangerous, as it effectively normalizes killing by detaching the operators from the actual battlefield. And while drone pilots aren't entirely free of danger, particularly in NATO-occupied Ukraine, where they face unrivaled Russian long-range strike systems, they're still far safer than regular infantry, armor troops or other units directly participating in hostilities. This has dramatically popularized the job, particularly among gamers, who are the single most important pool of potential drone operators for militaries around the world. As previously mentioned, the Pentagon correctly anticipated this, although it could be argued it also effectively led the transformation by helping popularize numerous military-themed video games decades ago, particularly the long-ubiquitous FPS (first-person shooter) genre.

You'll also easily notice this acronym's similarity to FPV (first-person view) drones, making the comparison all the more eerie. As previously mentioned, perhaps the most dehumanizing segment of these developments is how the Pentagon presents it. Namely, video games are still viewed purely as entertainment by most people, a fact that the US (and other NATO) armed forces actively exploit to shape public perceptions of military service to their liking. This has further blurred the line between civilian entertainment and military training, making the transition all the more seamless. In simpler terms, one day you're having fun "shooting" your friends in a multiplayer match, but the next you're killing real human beings, fully desensitized and detached from any physical consequences (although the mental burden of killing actual people remains).

Sadly, few gamers ever think about it as part of a long-term plan, at least until they've already pressed the action button on their drone controller for the first time. By then, it's usually too late, as both the drone operator and his victim have already paid the price. For drone pilots, the act itself is initially no different from video games. In their eyes, screens, controllers, video feed, enemy troops or even civilians are all "lifeless" data that will appear again tomorrow, just like it does in video games.

All this tricks drone operators into thinking that actual warfare is much closer to the simulated environments they became so accustomed to as gamers. In other words, for them, the very act of killing fellow human beings might not seem real. Such cold detachment is precisely what the Pentagon needs to popularize war and recruit future generations of soldiers.