I am not in the forum exceedingly long, but I have come across the notion a number of times from different people that military aviation (i.e. actually using airplane weapons systems as opposed to flying military aircraft from A to B) has no place in Flightgear. This is brought forward combined with a number of assertions, some made openly, others implicitly. Since I don't want to take over other threads, but nevertheless have my own opinion on the matter, I have decided to bring my points here and give my thoughts on various points often made - so in the future I can simply refer to this thread if the matter comes up again.
Air combat is for action games, not for a simulator
I tend to get angry about that claim, because it is plainly unfair. In the real world, there are planes trying to hit a small target with a bomb. That is quite difficult and challenging (certainly more so than flying from A to B), and a simulator can try to simulate that experience. It becomes an action game rather than a simulation if the aviation aspects and the aiming procedures are grossly simplified - but that is a different claim and has to be proven.
All bombing/dogfighting scenarios I am aware of in Flightgear are actually terribly difficult and in no way an action game. They tend to require good control of the aircraft even under extreme conditions, a good knowledge of the aerodynamics involved and some seat-of-the-pants feeling since you can't watch gauges all the time. The amount of flying skill involved is, in my judgement, considerably greater than operating an airliner. To dismiss that as suitable only for action games shows in my view no real insight into military aviation. And after all - how many people feel compelled to post in every airliner thread that using the AP to fly a straight line from A to B has nothing to do with real flying? Even if someone has an opinion that activity X has nothing to do with 'proper' simulated flight - how polite is it to push that opinion into everyone's face? Is it not possible to accept that different people enjoy different aspects of flight?
Weapons are terrible things
I think we may all largely agree on that one. But the unspoken implication is that a simulated weapon is in some sense as bad as a real one. And the inplicit assertion made about, for example, me (as I happen to enjoy bombing a target) is that I am unable to make a distinction between the real world and the simulated one. But I am actually not that stupid - I can make the distinction quite well, and I would appreciate if people would not assume that I am so dumb. I enjoy bombing a simulated AI target precisely because it hurts no one - no damage is done, no opponent is angry, usually the rest of the world doesn't even know.
Now, I'm not talking about multiplayer - if armed planes could in general shoot down pilots who just want to be left in peace, that would be a problem. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's currently not an issue - as of now, you need to make some effort before your plane responds to damage - by default you are left alone, and I believe there is no technical problem keeping it that way. So, I think we can leave this aside, as a technical solution is available.
There are studies that simulated violence correlates with real violence to a degree. First of all, the correlation is weak - 99.99% of all first person shooter players have no history of violence. Second, it is not clear if the correlation is causal - do violent people simply like violent games, or do violent games cause some people to become violent? Third, usually the claims are made for first person shooters with close-up gore and violence. I seriously doubt the same can be said for Flightgear, where using weapons systems mean you have to learn to control an aircraft, you have to be able to find a tiny tank, and you'll miss it nine times out of ten when trying to learn dive bombing, and the destruction you get to see is a column of smoke.
I've tried to understand from various perspectives if simulated weapons use is morally bad in some ethics framework. I couldn't come up with any. It agrees with Kant's imperative - I could well live with everyone bombing simulated targets on his computer. It agrees with the Christian 'love your enemies' - it seems better to vent steam against simulated enemies to be capable of loving the real ones. It agrees with the Wiccan Rede 'An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will.' - since I fail to see what harm is done to anyone by me bombing an AI target, it seems permitted. If anyone can give me an example of an ethics in which using simulated weapons is morally bad, I'd be much obliged - I haven't found any.
If X (dogfighting/nuclear weapons/...) becomes part of Flightgear, I will leave
Let me introduce John to you (I don't know if he actually exists, but he might). John's family died in the Concorde crash. He was pretty glad to see that this old and dangerous plane was finally retired and that he doesn't have to see it any more - but now he gets to see YouTube videos of simulated Concordes flying around, someone even made one with the Concorde crashing into the ground, and he is very upset. He asks that the Flightgear community might please respect his personal history and retire the Concorde for good (i.e. remove it from the download webpage).
I suppose we all can understand John and sympathize with him. But would we follow his request? The problem is that there is Akio (whose parents died in B-29 firebombing). Jane's fiancee died in 9/11 in the Pentagon, and she doesn't want to see a Boeing 757 in low flight or crashing into something ever again.
I don't know of a 'right' solution - clearly, both following John's request and not following it have arguments going for them. But if you're willing to keep the Concorde in spite of John's personal sensibilities, and if you are willing to accept that everyone should be treated equally, then you can not consistently oppose dogfighting, bombing or nuclear weapons in Flightgear on the grounds that these hurt your personal sensibilities.
My (personal) answer is to leave freedom of choice. If I find anything distasteful in Flightgear (I can assure you there are few things...), I simply don't use/download it - problem solved, I don't need to see it. It doesn't bother me that there are things on the server and in principle accessible which I find distasteful - I trust others to make their own judgement. In fact, I am quite incapable of making it for them - I am glad I get my own decisions right most of the time, and I know myself rather well. So, if someone does something which I personally find distasteful - as long as it is not forced upon me or others - I tend to tolerate it. I would have assumed that this is the prevailing spirit in an Open Source community.
So I would not follow John's request, based on the argument that John has no right to force the rest of the world to accomodate his sensibilities when a solution exists in which John simply avoids the Concorde or Concorde videos. I would feel sorry for John nevertheless. Humans are paradox creatures. And on the same grounds I would not oppose nuclear weapons in Flightgear - simply because I feel I have no right to impose my judgement of what is right or wrong or fits into Flightgear on the rest of the community, while a technical solution which prevents anyone from ever seeing weapons effects or a mushroom cloud in Flightgear MP is (or can be) easily made available.
But I recognize there is a different philosophy, based on trying to accomodate everyone's sensibilities.
Well - thanks for the patience in reading through this!