What Are National Security Videogames?

An Extended Interview And New Research For WBAI Radio In New York

Q. Dr. Alford, you’ve explored various aspects of media and military intersections in books like “National Security Cinema”. Can you provide a historical overview of the military’s engagement with video games for training and recruitment?

Dr. Alford: Well, Jack, there wasn’t much of this when I was playing Pac Man (1980) and Jet Set Willy (1984).

The military’s engagement with video games did began in the 1980s, though, with simulators like Battlezone, which was adapted for training tank gunners. It really took off, though, after the Gulf War in 1991, when the industry saw a surge in military-supported games such as LHX Attack Helicopter (1990), Super Battletank (1992), and Desert Strike (1992) - all set in the Middle East. Similarly, Rainbow Six (1998), and America’s Army (2002) – the latter the most downloaded game in the early 2000s.

Games can be effective in preparing soldiers for real combat scenarios. According to a Georgetown Security Studies Review article, they can “maximize the combat lethality of our existing combat personnel and weapon systems.” One example is ARMA 3 (2013), a simulation game used by various armed forces for training. Ukrainian tank commanders have used tactics learned from such games. Similarly, while Doom wasn’t technically supported it was modified as a non-commercial training simulator - Marine Doom.

Q. Could these games impact perceptions of war among younger audiences?

Dr. Alford: Yes, games like Mercenaries 2: World in Flames (2008) depict implausible scenarios, such as Venezuela using nuclear weapons. Similarly, in franchises like Call of Duty, players are tasked with missions that involve assassinating characters resembling real-world leaders like Vladimir Putin.

These games portray the USA as under constant threat in a hostile world, as in Homefront (2011), where North Korea invades South Korea and annexes parts of Japan, then commits genocide against Americans. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (2009) and Battlefield 3 (2011) depict scenarios where the USA faces invasion or nuclear threats from Russian or Iranian forces.

Games like Medal of Honor: Warfighter (2012) US Special Forces collaborate with Philippine counterparts to rescue hostages held by terrorists but when Philippine command opts for negotiation, the US squad disregards orders in favour of force.

In Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (2009), the gamer participates in a terrorist attack inside Russia for a mission called “No Russian,” ie. the main character chooses to participate in a mass shooting of Russian civilians at an airport in order to gain the trust of a Russian terrorist. So Russians are terrorists AND you are encouraged to shoot Russian civilians - as many as you can. Of course, now we are doing that for real.

Call of Duty: Black Ops (2010) is set in historical situations like the Vietnam War and the Bay of Pigs invasion, justifying American military action. At the end of one mission you kill a man who appears to be President Castro of Cuba but is then revealed to be a double and that the real Castro is working alongside Russian ultranationalists and a former Nazi scientist to develop a nerve agent to kill millions of Americans.

In Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (2019) you are tasked with assassinating an analogue for top Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, who President Trump killed in real life. In the same game, there is a “Highway of Death”, caused by the evil Russians. In real life, The Highway of Death was the nickname given to an actual road leading from Kuwait City toward the Iraq border. It is so named because US Marines destroyed 2,000 Iraqi vehicles as they withdrew from Kuwait.

Q. What other ethical issues arise?

Dr. Alford: Military games can be just generally dehumanizing. In Call of Duty: Black Ops (2010), one mission features Special Ops character Hudson forcing Dr. Clarke, a renegade scientist, to ingest broken glass during interrogation to extract information about the chemical weapon Nova 6. Splinter Cell: Conviction (2010) does something similar. This is akin to what the TV series 24 did so famously in the aftermath of 9/11 – making the viewer sympathize with extreme violence.

Furthermore, the gaming industry buys licenses for real weapons. And on TikTok, influencers blend military imagery with playful content. There are CIA recruiters on Tiktok and Twitch, too, who mess around with whether they’re officially with the Agency or not. So it’s all a bit blurry.   

Q. Are there military games which are more challenging to established narratives?

Dr. Alford: Yes, in fact, the last game I played personally was many years ago but it was a good one - Metal Gear Solid! (1998) That series is renowned for its critique of military-industrial complexes, nuclear proliferation, and the ethical implications of warfare, reflecting on the psychological toll of conflict through its characters.

There have been games like Papers, Please (2013), in which you play a corrupt customs official who is forced to reflect on his actions.

The upcoming Black Ops 6: 'The Truth Lies includes sinister footage of Margaret Thatcher and Saddam Hussein, which is intriguing.

Army of Two (2008) explores the moral complexities of private military contractors, where players assume the roles of former military personnel now working for the Security and Strategy Corporation (SSC). Initially deployed to combat terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq, the narrative unfolds to reveal collusion between terrorists and SSC.

This War of Mine (2014) offers a poignant critique of war’s effects on civilians, focusing on ordinary people trying to survive in a war-torn city. It highlights the human suffering and collateral damage caused by military conflicts, offering a sobering perspective on the realities of war.

Spec Ops: The Line (2012) and Spec Ops: Stealth Patrol (2000) critique military operations by depicting the dangerous and morally dubious nature of special operations missions. A major theme of the game is heroism, where being a hero may bring more harm than help.

Valiant Hearts: The Great War (2014) provides a historical reflection on World War I, criticizing the glorification of war and examining personal stories of soldiers and civilians. It portrays the futility and human cost of large-scale military conflicts, emphasizing the impact on individuals.

Medal of Honor (2010) critiques US political leadership and military strategies through gameplay that confronts decisions affecting battlefield outcomes and moral implications in Afghanistan.

Q. How do you compare the effectiveness and ethical implications of video game-based recruitment to more traditional methods, such as military advertisements or school visits?

Dr. Alford: Video games like Operation Flashpoint (2001) offer an immersive military experience that traditional methods like school visits cannot match. This immersion can captivate potential recruits more effectively by allowing them to experience realistic scenarios firsthand.

Popular games like Fortnite (2017) and Escape from Tarkov (2017) have been leveraged for recruitment efforts, tapping into their massive Gen Z player bases. The US Army’s involvement in esports tournaments, including games like Counter Strike: Global Offensive (CSGO) (2012), has proven effective in generating thousands of leads.

Q. Where has the military had the most political impact on the narrative of the game?

Dr. Alford: The vast majority of games I’ll discuss had military support, though it’s less clear how political and invasive its role is because the paper trail on gaming is far from complete. But I sure have questions -- for example, we know Destineer Games had ties to both the CIA and the Marines, making numerous military-themed games including Starship Troopers (2005) – I wonder if that narrative was toned down from the original antiwar movie (1997) which the director said was inspired by Noam Chomsky.

We know that originally, the multiplayer mode of Medal of Honor allowed players to take on the role of the Taliban. Due to backlash and pressure from military bodies and families of soldiers, EA changed the name from "Taliban" to "Opposing Force."

It seems likely that changes are made but mostly baked in from the start of the collaboration. Games like Call of Duty and Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon exemplify close partnerships with military advisors. For instance, Ghost Recon: Wildlands (2017) highlights special operations with an emphasis on competence and moral justification, reinforcing positive perceptions of U.S. military capabilities.

Six Days in Fallujah (2021), initially developed with input from Marines involved in the Second Battle of Fallujah, faced controversy and delays due to sensitive content concerns and amendments.

By participating in esports and sponsoring tournaments in games like Fortnite and CSGO, the US Army targets younger audiences, enhancing positive perceptions of military service.

Let me finish by emphasizing how much you have done to guide me on this topic since we met, Jack. My research into the Pentagon’s role in video games has only begun to become at all substantive since we started talking. This has been a team effort with Tom Secker and Roger Stahl and I hope a solid overview of the problem. So, thank you.

For further details on “Call of Duty”, see Alan Macleod: