When warfare becomes a videogame: How American military benefits from the videogame industry

For a relatively young artistic and cultural field, videogames have already raised many controversies
in society. While these controversies will not be discussed in the essay, the topic in question is very
much related; how the U.S. Military benefits from the videogame industry. More precisely, the essay
will delve into how videogames dynamics have been integrated into the military recruiting and
training system and how videogames are many times used as a cultural mean of shaping public
opinion towards a militaristic approach and enhance American Exceptionalism. Both facts, even if
different among them with their corresponding implications, will be explored together in order to make
some sense of how a leisure industry has become a useful tool for American hard power.

Not even with half a century of commercialization, the videogame industry already counts with an
estimated of 2 billion users around the globe and has a value of 92.4 billion US dollars. From these
facts it is clear that videogames have had great success over the last decades. With the presence of
videogames going in crescendo, it is now possible to see how they have deeply penetrated into our
daily life. Some users enjoy the potential artistic and cultural channels that they offer, others use them
to connect with people worldwide, meanwhile, the U.S. government uses videogames to recruit, train and
even treat soldiers. This, perhaps, comes as a surprise to the average reader, but it is necessary to first take a look at the context; thanks to the XXIst century technological advancements warfare has become radically different than other traditional models. The ability to conduct an offensive attack even miles away from the target is currently a reality. Technology has allowed soldiers to operate from outside the battlefield at a relative safety while launching increasingly lethal attacks. The presence of the use of drones, robots and other types of unmanned weapons portray this very well. 

Parallel to military technological advancement another evolution has taken place in these last decades;
the technology used in the videogame development sector has prospered and grown like no other before.
This evolution is perhaps more notable in the field of war games. In its origins, this field focused mostly
on strategy, however, it has progressively turned into shooting simulations and battle games. War games
and shooting simulators are inarguably the most demanded type of videogames and very seldomly there
are projects launched into the market that count with the same success and reception as war games do.
It is estimated that 155 million Americans play videogames who spend 22 billion US dollars in just a
year, out of that percentage, nearly 50% of the sales correspond to action and shooter games. Hence, the
technological and technical improvements in these types of games respond mostly to the vast demand by
the public. 

With the rise of improved and realistic war videogames and the change in nature that military technology
was experiencing, the U.S. Military could not avoid connecting the dots. In fact, the development of
shooter games was indeed very welcomed; sooner than later the potential of videogames was considered
and their dynamics were transposed to many military fields. Most precisely, videogames were starting
to be used for recruiting processes, training and therapy treatments.

As avant-garde as the U.S. Military is, it was only 2002 when they decided to develop America’s Army
(AA). An online platform consisting of a virtual environment simulating that of a battlefield in which
many different missions similar to those undertaken in real life were available to the player. This project
was marketed as an innovative videogame that allowed young people to explore the possibility of
joining the military service. The platform aimed to test whether videogame skills could later be
transposed into the battlefield. It was the first project of such nature and it nowadays remains an
official recruiting tool. One of the main criticisms addressing this project was the huge disparities
between videogames and real life battlefield, arguing that a simulation could never properly determine
if a person is suitable for joining the military. Nevertheless, as the use of unmanned, long-distance
control weapons is increasing, the line between war and a videogame is becoming blurry. In fact, the
Obama administration has already started recruiting drone pilots through the use of videogames,
sometimes as young as 12 years old and the way these drones are operated highly resembles the
playability of a shooting game. 

The spread of unmanned weapons is not only erasing the skepticism towards the use of videogames for
military purposes but is also proving to play an essential role. The technological evolution of warfare entails a different preparation other than traditional physical training. According to a Pentagon Correspondent Paul Mcleary in 2008, videogames conform a strategic tool, improving the performance of army, navy officials and personnel. The United States Department of Defense has developed the Advanced Distributed Learning program which aims to provide with the highest technological advancements and quality learning for military personnel. Included in this program we find the use of videogames, both developed specifically for training purposes but also commercial ones like “Call of Duty” or “World of Warcraf”t to name a few. Former Secretary of the program, Robert Wisher, stated that these types of videogames were useful in improving cognitive performance, speed reaction, teamwork skills and created an immersive environment simulating very realistic battlefields which could psychologically prepare soldiers for a real life battle. A study conducted by the University of Trento interviewed 15 veterans which had been recruited and trained by using videogames, they all agreed on the importance of having a “battle mindset”, which was daily stimulated long before being assigned to a mission thanks to war videogames.

Additionally, videogames are used to create realistic settings which can facilitate exposure therapy.
This therapy is used to treat soldiers with traumatic disorders like PTSD. The U.S. Military takes
advantage of the improved commercial videogames graphics and ambience in order to help soldiers
confront their traumatic experiences through controlled and safe exposure to the source of the trauma.
However, this use is particularly new and whether it works is inconclusive. It simply aims to portray
another potential advantage that videogames pose for military uses.

By exploring these examples of videogames applied to the military field, it is possible to see how their
evolution and improvement has been more than well received by the U.S. Military, especially since
current warfare is resembling videogames more than ever. Nevertheless, videogames go even further into
being a positive role for the U.S. Military. It is in fact nearly impossible to explore warfare videogames’
direct impact on the military without stopping to analyse the “soft” implications they produce. Their
effects go beyond preparing soldiers; they also reach the civilian population.

The fact that American culture is very military oriented is nothing new, the Cold War serves as a perfect
example. However, since 9/11 and the War on Terror it has been possible to see how military themes have
become over-exploited artistically in literature, movies and even music. Videogames are no exception;
their content, targeted to the popular masses, is another cultural manifestation of  America’s fixation on
hard power. Unsurprisingly so, in the last two decades the games based on the Middle East has passed
from becoming almost non-existent to be present in most of shooter videogames. Needless to say, the
majority of warfare and shooter videogames star the American Army and the Navy as the main
protagonists.

This essay does not intend to state in any way that there is no causation between culture and videogames,
it is clear that if videogames behave in a certain manner, it is because there is a complex cultural
background that shapes them. Notwithstanding,  the inverse relationship is also worth exploring; the
use of a particular set of themes in videogames can also influence the culture and how people think.
This is especially true since videogames are so embedded in American society. As sales in warfare
videogames increase exponentially, it is easy to observe changing patterns in the behavior of younger
generations; they develop extensive knowledge on military hardware, vocabulary and even techniques.
Journalist Hamza Shabam back in 2013 argued that videogames have militarizing potential, not only
when it comes to influence young gamers into pursuing a military career but also into influencing their
opinion towards certain geopolitical topics. A veteran interviewed in the aforementioned University of
Trento study admitted that videogames had a “brainwashing” effect on him. 

Does this mean that videogames are used as a form of recruitment propaganda? It seems so, but their
cultural impact does not stop there. The way videogames frame certain geopolitical conflicts can
potentially affect the perception people have on said conflicts. One of the most notable example is how
videogames reinforce the notion of American Exceptionalism; they often frame the U.S. army fighting in
an external and hostile foreign environment which does not share American values, leaving America
isolated and threatened with no choice other than the use of force. This can be observed in the game
“Counter-Strike”. In some games like “Call of Duty”, America is glorified and portrayed as the carrier
of values such as honor, freedom and democracy which need to be spread to uncivilized regions through
military means. In most of the cases, America is a paradise in a world of savages, such as shown in
“Battlefield”.

Is this problematic? Obviously not for the U.S. since they can take advantage of the gaming industry to
shape public opinion according to their agenda. It is ultimately detrimental for the general public;
conflicts in videogames are often poorly illustrated and no useful insight is given whatsoever regarding
the nature or the context of said conflict. For the U.S. Military this proves to be very convenient; by
dehumanizing the enemy and portraying situations inaccurately it is easier to make warfare very
impersonal, this in turn makes it easier to later recruit soldiers but also to maintain the general public
“appeased” regarding foreign policy decisions which may take place.  Hence, videogames are taken
advantage of in order to embed particular perceptions like American  Exceptionalism, into the general
users.

Although very briefly, the essay has explored how the videogame industry benefits the U.S. Military in
many different ways. On one hand, thanks to the changes in the nature of warfare due to technological
advancements, videogames have become a very useful tool in order to recruit, train and treat soldiers
and marine officers. On the other, videogames can have a role in shaping how society thinks of the
military, further pushing people to pursue a military career, or even to accept and justify the American
foreign policy agenda. The example explored regarding this last issue was American Exceptionalism
and how videogames tend to fuel it by enhancing certain attributes of America and demonizing its
opponents.

From this brief analysis it is possible to observe how in many ways this industry poses an advantage to
the U.S. use of hard power. It is a clear example of a “love affair” between a primarily leisure industry
and a State. How this affair will evolve in the future remains an unexplored area which adds some thrill
to our unique century.

The beginning of a new space race, the end of the Westphalian Syste

“I think we are at the dawn of a new era of space exploration”- Elon Musk

For years now (370 to be exact) the Westphalian system has become the main paradigm of the study of international relations. Westphalia has entailed a revolutionary shift on the theoretical development of international relations and its implications have proven to be long-lasting. The fact that the international arena is dominated solely by States has been for many centuries upheld as an almost undeniable truth of the Westphalian system, however, as time and context change so does the consensus on this matter.

Traditionally, the theoretical framework upon which the supremacy of role of the State in the international order was built has always been Realism. Conversely, Liberal theories continuously advocate to acknowledge the increasingly important role of non-state actors within the global order. One of the main arguments put forward by liberals is that with globalization and the creation of supranational organizations there is room for more actors which can affect the outcomes of international relations. For instance, the United Nations (UN) or even private corporations are said to be already more powerful actors than many nation-states. 

The fact that a lot power is being accumulated in private hands is already undeniable. Nevertheless, the following questions should be made; does this matter put at risk the supremacy of States in the international order? Is this the end of the Westphalian system as we know it? In order to delve into these issues, this essay intends to explore one contemporary and unique event; the development of the private space race. The essay will briefly analyse how through technological, economic and military capabilities that developing a space race entails, private entities will sooner or later become as powerful as States, obtaining therefore a say in international outcomes. At the end of the day, the development of a new space race in the hands of private entities further demonstrates that the Westphalian system is becoming archaic.

It is fair to say that the original space race first saw the light thanks to Realism. In the 1950 during the Cold War two great powers, the USA and the USSR, were militarily, politically and ideologically confronted. The international order became primarily bipolar where these two actors operated within their sphere of influence. Given this context, the two powers were in constant competition with each other. At first this competition was purely militarily and diplomatically oriented, soonly the focus shifted towards the space; whoever could reach it first would outstandingly demonstrate technological superiority over the other, positioning itself as the strongest and most efficient power. The space race was therefore used by the USA and the USSR as display of power to guarantee their supremacy and safety. This event further reinforces the role of States as Westphalian entities; in an anarchic world they are the sole actors suitable for competition. The space race was conceived as a matter of States to guarantee their security, private actors were not to have any sort of influence. 

Even though the Cold War was over and the historical context changed, the space race continued to exist and to expand to other countries, among them we find Canada, China, India and Europe through the European Space Agency. This did, however, not pose a problem neither a threat to the Westphalian system. In fact, competition in some sense still remained a main driver of space exploration. Three reasons can be identified behind the development of the space race; economic and technological, military and lastly but most importantly the sense of national pride and achievement. It is possible to see therefore that the Westphalian system was in a way perpetuated by this competition; States as the main actors seeking to position themselves first in an unsafe anarchic world in order to guarantee or advance their position.

Nevertheless, it is possible to see that drastic changes have taken place during the last decade concerning the space race. Some have even coined the following term; “Space Race 2.0”. These changes have been generated by the emergence of private entities which possess the resources and the capabilities to join the space race and be in direct competition against other States. In recent years the space race has been shaped mostly by technological “startups”; SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic and Boeing to name a few. SpaceX joined the race in 2012, when they launched a spacecraft to the International Space Station (ISS). In 2015 they successfully launched and landed their own rocket. A month before, Blue Origin completed a vertical rocket landing without major incidencies. Later in 2016, they became the first entity to be able to launch and land a previously used rocket, something that not even the NASA was able to achieve. Additionally, Virgin Galactic aims to become the first commercial spaceline planning on organizing sub-orbital trips around the Earth accessible for civilians as early as in 2020. It is also worth noting that earlier this year SpaceX launched the most powerful rocket known so far; the Falcon Heavy and plans to land on Mars in 2023.

What all these actors have in common is that their main aim and vision is to become pioneers in commercial space exploration. In order words, they are mostly profit oriented. This for the first time changes the main driver and implications of space race. It is not a competition exclusively designed for States to guarantee their supremacy over the others anymore, the new space race concerns private actors competing to gain monopoly over the industry of space exploration which will ultimately bring them economic profit. This last notion has especial liberal connotations; because of globalization and free trade private entities have become so powerful that they already surpass the capabilities of many States, these private entities do not compete based on security but on the free market.

Does this imply the decay of the Westphalian system? Not completely, at least in the short-run. While it is true that Westphalian entities are obliged to share their “playing room” with other actors, they have still considerable power and there are still reasons to believe that the space race can continue to be used as a Westphalian tool. For instance, SpaceX as well as Boeing are subcontractors of NASA and bureaucratically as well as financially wise the former depend on the latter. Additionally, NASA develops financing programs and competitions, like the Centennial Challenges Program, in order to attract and recruit top talent in specific areas of space innovations. Through programs, fundations and prizes of up to $26 million, NASA finances private projects which they can ultimately benefit from. Under the presidency of Obama, high support was given to space programs development through the private industry. In fact, Obama chaired the White House Frontiers Conference where space exploration and development was highly discussed within the context of the private industry. Private space exploration is moreover considered by the USA government as a good way to reduce costs and drive higher innovation and efficiency.

It is possible to observe that the healthy attitude on behalf of the American government towards the development of the private space industry is aligning these private projects towards their own interests. It is further seen by the fact that not a single one of these entities is not collaborating with NASA, ultimately showing who really has the last say. In this sense, the space race is still indirectly State controlled hence still portraying the technological advancements and capabilities of a State and further feeding its own national pride. Thus the Westphalian connotations behind the space race are nearly intact.

There is however another question to be answered; what is to be expected in the long run? With or without State support, private entities will undoubtedly continue to accumulate power, they are already surpassing the capabilities of State-based space projects like India and China. The future dynamics of the Westphalian system are increasingly threatened by the growing presence of powerful non-state actors in the new space race. Even if in current times the private players in the space race are still subject to State limitations, it is important to point out that NASA is also increasingly dependent on the technological innovations of these tech-startups. In fact, companies like SpaceX have been described as the “savior of Nasa and of the future of Space Exploration”. 

In conclusion, even if present Westphalian dynamics are not being necessarily threatened by the private space race, the increasing power of private actors leaves a very uncertain scenario concerning how Westphalia will survive in the future. This trend towards the accumulation of technological and military capabilities in hands of non-state actors indicates that the Westphalian system and the supremacy of States within the international order might be becoming gradually obsolete. Even if some States like the US directs its efforts towards capturing the private sector under loans and financial programs, the fact that a dependency to these companies is being created can eventually fireback the American government. While dependency is increasingly becoming a factor to bear in mind, any solid conclusion at this early stage of private space exploration would be highly speculative. While the weakening of the Westphalian system can be intuited, the future is still very uncertain.

Bibliography

• Garvis, Lori “SpaceX could save NASA and the Future of Space Exploration”, The Hill, February 2018.
• Gerbis, Nicholas “10 Major Players in the Private Sector Space Race”, howstuffworks, 2017.
• Grady, Monica “Private Companies are Launching a new Space Race- Here’s What to Expect”, TheConversation, October 2017.
• Houser, Kristin “Private Companies, Not Governments, Are Shaping the Future of Space Explorations”, Futurism, June 2017.
• Thompson, Lorens What NASA Risks By Betting On Elon Musk's SpaceX” Forbes, May 2011.
• Wattles, Jackie “Branson! Musk! Bezos! The billionaire space race throwdown”, CNN, April 2017.

Lucrezia Borgia: Marriage as a tool of foreign policy

Contrary to what is considered nowadays, love has not always been the reason to initiatea marriage, in fact, in some common law countries the lack of thereof is not a valid reason to annul a matrimonial union. Marriage without love was a widespread situation in the past and the reasons were diverse; economic interests, financial security, dynasty survival... This essay intends to briefly explore the use of marriage as a foreign policy tool on behalf of political figures of the time. This will be achieved by delving into the multiple proposal arrangements and marriages of Lucrezia Borgia, daughter of Pope Alexander VI, head of the Catholic Church from 1942 to 1503.

As unimaginable as it may sound in 2018, having a child born in the nobility back in the XVth century represented a political opportunity. This was true especially for women, whose main contribution to the family was their ability to marry. The main reason is that marriage consisted of a suitable way in order to unite the patrimony, power and surname of powerful families. For chiefs of State it meant a key to build solid political alliances both for diplomatic and military purposes.Even though the best known examples of arranged marriages are the cases of European kings and queens, Pope Alexander VI was no less as he also counted with his own political agenda. His foremost goal was to protect his family amongst the competitive world of the Renaissance nobility, however, as he guaranteed his safety he adopted bigger aims; to control the Italian peninsula. This objective would encourage him to accept the papacy, the highest authority of the Catholic Church. Such a position in the pre-Westphalian world implied being granted with the ultimate say in political and moral matters all across Europe. As powerful as he was (and aimed to be), Alexander IV had to act wisely and think strategically about his moves. With the purpose of securing and increasing his power, he found in his children a meaningful tool to do so; he granted military privileges to his son Juan Borgia and appointed Cesare Borgia as cardinal and even later financed his military conquests across the Romagna. When it comes to his daughter Lucrezia, however, he found a different path for her in order to comply with his objectives which little had to do with her physical or intellectual capabilities; marriage.

The very first deal set for Lucrezia took place when she was only eleven years old to Valencian nobleman; Juan de Centelles. By this contract, Alexander VI sought to consolidate power in Valencia and the rest of the Iberian peninsula as it constituted the origins of his family and therefore a good way to safeguard his roots. Nevertheless, the contract was broken only two months later in favor of another candidate; Gaspare Aversa, a noble count from Naples with enough prestige and financial power to be a suitable husband. In 1492 the situation drastically shifted when Alexander VI (until then known as Rodrigo Borgia) accepted the papacy. The main consequence was that Lucrezia, which was publicly accepted and legitimized by Alexander VI despite his position, acquired enormous value as a bride, this gave way to a broader selection of spouses for her.

The more power Alexander VI acquired, the more cautious he had to be to secure it. By becoming the Pope he also became the head of State of the Papal States, this meant that diplomatically and militarily-wise he entered the arena of many powerful personalities of Europe where he had to defend his place. For that matter, he realized that the marriage of Lucrezia constituted a much more important issue than he previously thought. In order to understand the strategic importance of this marriage it is also necessary to consider that Italy was far from being the unified country currently in place; it consisted of fragmented dukedoms and counties which were permanently in conflict. Achieving political and military stability of the region could boost Alexander VI’s ability to unify the peninsula and subject it to the Church’s authority. Hence when the status of his only daughter increased, Alexander VI did not hesitate to annul the contract with count Gaspare Aversa and begin reflecting on better candidates that could favourably help him conduct foreign policy.

The attention of the new Pope shifted towards the house of Sforza, an Italian noble family ruling the Duchy of Milan. In 1493 Alexander VI acceded to marry Lucrezia to Giovanni Sforza, nephew of Ludovico Sforza who was the most powerful man of Milan. Forging an arranged marriage with the Sforza family meant that Milan and the Papal States would become allies, this did not only meant more political stability resulting from the peace among two powerful regions but also a crucial military advantage given the position of Milan as an entrance to the Italian Peninsula. By exercising influence over such territory, Alexander could much easier safeguard Italy against foreign influence and more effectively bring it under the direct command of the Church. Lucrezia did not have much of a say, she finally married at thirteen years old and was allegedly very unhappy with the union. Alexander VI was however very satisfied and considered it a political success.

The union surprisingly did not last long. In 1494 it was known that Milan pledged loyalty to France, much to the disappointment of Alexander VI who sought to strengthen links with the Spanish Catholic king Ferdinand whose devotion was stronger than ever after the “Reconquista”.  Even though he did not wish to completely turn a blind to the Sforza family, and consequently to the Duchy of Milan as a whole, Alexander VI decided to answer the petition of king Ferdinand of creating an alliance with Naples, which was very much disputed between Spain and France. By securing Naples, Alexander VI would not only count with Spanishsupport in his policies but also control an area of maritime importance.

Fearing the weak and unstable loyalty of the Sforza family and also using the unhappiness of Lucrezia and an excuse, he was committed to break the marriage. He first thought of executing Giovanni, but that would have been too big of an offense against the Sforza family, hence he finally negotiated a generous monetary amount in exchange of the marriage annulment due to Giovanni’s alleged impotence and the resulting non-consummation of the union.

Once Lucrezia was freed from that marriage, Alexander VI already had in mind the following candidate; Alfonso d’Aragon, member of the Neapolitan royal family, the illegitimate son of the king of Naples. This union between Lucrezia and Alfonso could potentially open the possibility for her brother, Cesare Borgia, to marry the daughter of the king of Naples, Carlotta of Naples and forge a strong resistance against France in favour of Spain. Despite the marriage between Lucrezia and Alfonso celebrated in 1500, the negotiations for Cesare were not successful. France grew stronger and tensions in Spain built up as a result of rumours regarding the murder of Juan Borgia by which his family was ostracised, Alexander VI made a difficult decisions and considered that his alliance with Spain was not as fruitful as expected. This together with the threat of a French invasion conditioned Alexander VI to shift his interest towards the stronger player; France. Naples, who counted with the support of King Ferdinand of Aragon came to be in direct conflict with the new French-friendly policy of Alexander VI. Soon after that, Alfonso d’Aragon was murdered in suspicious circumstances.

At her short life, Lucrezia saw once again her marriage collapse, and in spite of the recent tragedy, her family was sooner than later searching for a third candidate to become her spouse. In 1502 Alexander VI finally chose Alfonso d’Este, duke of Ferrara. This union had both political and military implications; on one hand the family was established in the Romagna, a region in the north of the Peninsula which was vital for the Papal States unification, on the other, d’Este family had a strong relationship with the French nobility which helped solidify the new alliance with France. Luckily for Lucrezia this marriage lasted until the end of her days, as no further decisive political changes had taken place. She could finally lead a happy life in Ferrara away from the scrutiny of her family.

It is undoubtedly that the first years of Lucrezia’s life were very turbulent, her case helps understand how aggressively foreign policy of the time was conducted; it was a Hobbesian world in which power and security primed in order not to be destroyed. For the purpose of survival not even private life existed, Lucrezia was “sold” three times for marriage by her family in order to guarantee the geopolitical interest of the Borgia and the Papal States. Marriage represented a tool in order to solve the foreign policy challenges that Alexander VI faced and his decisions towards the fate of his daughter portray this very well. By exploring the life of Lucrezia Borgia it is possible to understand how the institution of marriage little had to do with love but with geopolitical interests.    

Bibliography:

- Berenstein Monica, “ALEJANDRO VI: EL INSACIABLE PAPA BORGIA QUE GOBERNO LA ROMA DEL RENACIMIENTO CONVIRTIENDO A SU FAMILIA EN UNA PODEROSA REALEZA”, Nowtilus, 2007.

- Lee Alexander “Were the Borgias Really So Bad?”,  History Today, 2013.

      

- Palau i Orta Josep, “Lucrezia Borgia: predator or pawn?”, National Geographic History Magazine, 2017.

- Puzo Mario, Gino Carol “Los Borgia”, Editorial Planeta, 1999.

- Wilde Robert “The Rise and the Fall of the Borgia Family” ThoughtCo, 2018.