The Case for Remaking War Games
Apr. 30th, 2018 08:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wingedbeastNote: There was a sequel long after the original. I did not watch that. I've heard of some kind of interactive online fiction. This Case won't take either of those into account. It only references the original movie that we have.
War Games, for those who did not experience the 80s, was the movie in which a Highschool student and early computer gamer nearly causes the nuclear apocalypse. It's a good movie and I would not suggest replacing it. In a decaded marked by a debate over nuclear weapons and shadowed by a cold-war policy of preserving life through the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction, this was a movie with something to say about how we, as a nation, responded.
In the movie we have, which I advise you to watch, a young Matthew Broderick plays David Lightman. He's a teenager, he's somewhat socially awkward, and in the 80s when home computers are still a new thing, he's into computer games. This not only limits his social circle, but leaves him with an unsatisfied interestest in computer games. Zork is not all that satisfying to the computer game strategist.
He gets in contact with what he thinks is a private server for computer games. And, in part, it is. In one of the few early examples of accurate hacking, the movie shows him figuring out a back-door password by researching the life of program's creator, giving him the password of "Joshua", the son the programer had lost young. All of this gets him the contact with the program and enables him to play a game of "Thermo-Nuclear War".
Here's what he didn't realize. That game wasn't a game. It was a simulation. The program is known, to David and its creator, as Joshua. The Department of Defense calls it WOPR and uses it to control their nuclear weapons.
What follows is David getting the attention of the DoD and the DoD not realizing what, exactly, is going on with the WOPR. They're not overly cruel about it, but they are security conscious and interested in making sure David understands the gravity of the situation. But, David needs help because, if he doesn't stop this simulation from going forward and bringing us to Defcon 1, nuclear war destroys much of humanity instantly, much of humanity slowly, and leaves the remainder of humanity with bad odds.
There's a standard trope of getting the "out of the game" elder expert back into the game. In this case, the creator of Joshua/WOPR both realizes the stakes and feels the fatalism of so many who realize those stakes. He even chose the location of his otherwise remote home specifically to be within the blast radius of a first-strike target.
It's a good movie and, again, I advise you to watch the movie that we have. It makes a point about Mutually Assured Destruction. At the risk of spoiling, Mutually Assured Destruction rests upon using the nuclear capacity to destroy the world as a kind of fiction. Either side avoids destroying the world by recognizing that the other can. By pretending to be ready to destroy the world, MAD attempts to avoid destroying the world.
The movie we have explores the flaw that we can't immerse ourselves in that fiction without it becoming non-fiction. The result is that our readiness to play out this conflict, a readiness we maintain as a strategy of stopping us from playing it out, becomes a readiness that can be triggered with a simple mistake. And, historically speaking, such mistakes have happened and resulted in close calls. The movie reminds us of what has to be at the forefront of all preparation for this "game".
"The only way to win is not to play."
Today's world requires that we focus on a different element of the problem with this game of readiness.
One difference we have is that today's world needs less explanation of the basic concepts of computer programs, finding access, back doors, and what has since become known as "hacking". That could be more disadvantage than advantage if we maintain a contemporary setting. Either way, the same basic start should be maintained.
Our David Lightman, computer geek and one with an interest in computerized strategy games as well as an interest in computer development contacts a computer program with some archaic games but advanced strategy. David might well believe that he's dealing with some old prototype of what is now obsolete technology. (And, considering we're talking about the equipment used to maintain and operate our nuclear weapons, that much might be accurate.) He won't know until later that he's actually interacting and activating the once-advanced computer system that controls America's nuclear readiness.
At this point, it'll be blindingly obvious that David is no threat to America's interests. Given the opportunity to back off and/or surrender his computer to the DoD, he's glad to do so. And, he's got good evidence, in the form of this online record of his interactions, that he isn't even interacting with any terrorist or espionage interests. But, he runs up against another element of our game of readiness, one that's on stronger display today.
We're not playing with or against the other side, anymore.
Agents of the CIA, agents of the DoD, and politicians all have to play against each other. Who is more willing to go father in the name of readiness? The enemy isn't the opposition in the game of readiness, but the backdrop. For the sake of career and place in society, each one has to be more ready to do more to gain... nothing, because David's already willing to give up everything so long as he can get the help to stop what he accidentally started.
It's a different reason. It's a different aspect to this game of readiness that I can't fully claim to be avoidable. But, we do need a reminder of the basic lesson.
The only way to win is not to play.
War Games, for those who did not experience the 80s, was the movie in which a Highschool student and early computer gamer nearly causes the nuclear apocalypse. It's a good movie and I would not suggest replacing it. In a decaded marked by a debate over nuclear weapons and shadowed by a cold-war policy of preserving life through the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction, this was a movie with something to say about how we, as a nation, responded.
In the movie we have, which I advise you to watch, a young Matthew Broderick plays David Lightman. He's a teenager, he's somewhat socially awkward, and in the 80s when home computers are still a new thing, he's into computer games. This not only limits his social circle, but leaves him with an unsatisfied interestest in computer games. Zork is not all that satisfying to the computer game strategist.
He gets in contact with what he thinks is a private server for computer games. And, in part, it is. In one of the few early examples of accurate hacking, the movie shows him figuring out a back-door password by researching the life of program's creator, giving him the password of "Joshua", the son the programer had lost young. All of this gets him the contact with the program and enables him to play a game of "Thermo-Nuclear War".
Here's what he didn't realize. That game wasn't a game. It was a simulation. The program is known, to David and its creator, as Joshua. The Department of Defense calls it WOPR and uses it to control their nuclear weapons.
What follows is David getting the attention of the DoD and the DoD not realizing what, exactly, is going on with the WOPR. They're not overly cruel about it, but they are security conscious and interested in making sure David understands the gravity of the situation. But, David needs help because, if he doesn't stop this simulation from going forward and bringing us to Defcon 1, nuclear war destroys much of humanity instantly, much of humanity slowly, and leaves the remainder of humanity with bad odds.
There's a standard trope of getting the "out of the game" elder expert back into the game. In this case, the creator of Joshua/WOPR both realizes the stakes and feels the fatalism of so many who realize those stakes. He even chose the location of his otherwise remote home specifically to be within the blast radius of a first-strike target.
It's a good movie and, again, I advise you to watch the movie that we have. It makes a point about Mutually Assured Destruction. At the risk of spoiling, Mutually Assured Destruction rests upon using the nuclear capacity to destroy the world as a kind of fiction. Either side avoids destroying the world by recognizing that the other can. By pretending to be ready to destroy the world, MAD attempts to avoid destroying the world.
The movie we have explores the flaw that we can't immerse ourselves in that fiction without it becoming non-fiction. The result is that our readiness to play out this conflict, a readiness we maintain as a strategy of stopping us from playing it out, becomes a readiness that can be triggered with a simple mistake. And, historically speaking, such mistakes have happened and resulted in close calls. The movie reminds us of what has to be at the forefront of all preparation for this "game".
"The only way to win is not to play."
Today's world requires that we focus on a different element of the problem with this game of readiness.
One difference we have is that today's world needs less explanation of the basic concepts of computer programs, finding access, back doors, and what has since become known as "hacking". That could be more disadvantage than advantage if we maintain a contemporary setting. Either way, the same basic start should be maintained.
Our David Lightman, computer geek and one with an interest in computerized strategy games as well as an interest in computer development contacts a computer program with some archaic games but advanced strategy. David might well believe that he's dealing with some old prototype of what is now obsolete technology. (And, considering we're talking about the equipment used to maintain and operate our nuclear weapons, that much might be accurate.) He won't know until later that he's actually interacting and activating the once-advanced computer system that controls America's nuclear readiness.
At this point, it'll be blindingly obvious that David is no threat to America's interests. Given the opportunity to back off and/or surrender his computer to the DoD, he's glad to do so. And, he's got good evidence, in the form of this online record of his interactions, that he isn't even interacting with any terrorist or espionage interests. But, he runs up against another element of our game of readiness, one that's on stronger display today.
We're not playing with or against the other side, anymore.
Agents of the CIA, agents of the DoD, and politicians all have to play against each other. Who is more willing to go father in the name of readiness? The enemy isn't the opposition in the game of readiness, but the backdrop. For the sake of career and place in society, each one has to be more ready to do more to gain... nothing, because David's already willing to give up everything so long as he can get the help to stop what he accidentally started.
It's a different reason. It's a different aspect to this game of readiness that I can't fully claim to be avoidable. But, we do need a reminder of the basic lesson.
The only way to win is not to play.
