A friend called this morning to ask, "Do you think that people have a renewed interest in strategy war games because of the war? Or is it just me?" He's heading out to buy his first war game in several years - he used to play as a teen, but he lost interest in the genre until now.

I don't think he's alone. Certainly the mainstream press recently has run several pieces on the subject. I'm not a psychologist, but I think it reasonable to suggest that some of us are having a tough time grappling with our thoughts of the war, and perhaps playing a simulation is one way to process our conflicting ideas and feelings. At the GDC last month, I spoke with several people who were either researching the military-industrial-entertainment complex or actually working within it. The well-publicized release of America's Army last year also brought the link between the military and the videogame industry to the public's attention.

As many have pointed out, the military's use of games and simulations is nothing new. Henry Lowood at Stanford teaches a course on the long history of co-operation between military simullation-builders and hobbyist and commercial war gamers. The sort of strategic thinking that large-scale simulations can teach have been useful in training officers who need to think about the big picture. It's only recently that games have been used to train the combatant in the field, who has a much different perspective. Obviously they are not trained to use guns in a game - that would be riduclous. Playing a shooter is not going to teach you how to hold an actual gun and shoot. However, the military is very interested in team-building, in-field communications, and creative problem-solving - what a squad would sdo if their commander suddenly got disabled or killed, for example - and these are scenarios that can be partially explored through virtual war.

However, all the "realistic" graphics and physics modeling technology in the world can't change Andrew Phelps's critical point about the difference between war in the physical world and a war game: While the point of war is to win, the point of a game is to have fun. And casualties in a game are not the same as deaths in physical space. His criticism is that world leaders at times think too much like war gamers, and thus lose sight of the actual deaths, which for them are merely points against their victory.

Increasingly the military is moving towards a total "no-contact" war in which soldiers will operate weapons and drones remotely. In such a scenario it is possible, indeed likely, that videogame-like technology can be used as a direct mechanism for recruiting and training soldiers. This presents the horrifying dillemma of "no-contact" - no contact for one side only; the other will be facing a scenario of humans versus robotic weapons in the battlefield.

As a gamer, however, I admit to being intrigued by the potential of war games when played in a massively multiplayer settings. I think that playing war games in teams, with real humans, such as the army does in both physical and virtual spaces, can reveal emergent human behaviors which a computer cannot predict. A recent Slate article points out that last summer's Millenium Challenge 2002 may have predicted Iraqi guerrilla tactics. Van Riper, the commander of the enemy "Red Team," claimed that war game officials told him to stop using innovative tactics to defeat his enemy and stick to the script. If true, a valuable opportunity for shaping strategy and tactics was lost.

Is it possible to use war games - or videogame technology in general - to make people more aware of the human cost of war at an individual level? For my war gaming friend and others like him, perhaps we need a videogame equivalent of Saving Private Ryan or Full Metal Jacket - a visceral exploration of fighting conditions. The immersiveness of videogames might help us access emotions and thoughts and feelings more deeply than the traditional arts.

At the very least, the strategy games do teach us one thing: it's not possible to win and bring everybody home.