As drone strikes devastate countries across the world, military branches continue to market their esports teams. Yet, within the esports community, there is little regard for how digitally-executed violence methodically compromises the moral integrity of military training.
Military esports teams have begun to grow and gain traction in recent years. Alongside more unrealistic games like Rocket League and League of Legends, teams play a number of shooter games including Counter Strike 2 and Call of Duty. While esports are presented as a lighthearted attempt to get young people engaged with the military, there is a reason to question their implementation into military culture. Competitions where efficient lethality is the key to success may encourage an overly hostile perception of military duty.
One Instagram post from the Navy’s outreach team interspersed clips of the Navy esports team, Goats & Glory, with clips of boats driven by gaming controllers. The caption expressed the military’s desire to use the players’ “dexterous thumbs” to power “unmanned systems.” More recently, the White House posted videos callously combining Wii Sports with bombings in Iran. While the tone of the Navy’s esports post is less explicitly cruel, a concerning mindset seems to be brewing within the military: mass casualty events are becoming games for American soldiers.
Many people already fear that the modern military is losing a sense of responsibility for its actions, particularly as the Department of Defense forms highly controversial contracts with AI companies to automate military tasks. Main concerns include the new use of autonomous weapons systems and the overwhelming power of bombs, such as those used in Palestine. Technology can separate soldiers from the destruction they cause, physically and mentally. While many people believe that this moral disassociation is an inadvertent side effect of physically protecting soldiers, the creation of military esports teams displays a more generalized and problematic tendency to avoid moral questions surrounding technological death.
Concerns about player vs. player games in the military are very different from more general concerns about violent video games. While some people do argue that video games predispose young people to aggression, existing research is inconclusive. But, unlike the average game player, soldiers have a license to kill. Video games often associate death count with success. In young recruits, such a goal might form violent instincts or priorities that are unsafe for armed soldiers to have. Proper military service requires level-headedness and discretion, alongside a strong understanding of the significance of murder.
Participation on an esports team also structurally differs from playing a video game for fun. Instead of trying experimental strategies and playing lighthearted games against friends, players are expected to learn and implement their coach’s strategies. Their job security is dependent upon immediate obedience and success. In this way, military esports teams embed the same automatic deference as official rules banning soldiers from publicly criticizing the military. Though soldiers are officially expected to reject illegal orders, esports discourage the impulse to question an authority figure — even when killing is demanded.
The military does have other teams for more traditional sports like football and basketball. These teams have generally been seen as non-problematic and patriotic, and some people believe that participation in esports is the same. However, this viewpoint discounts the fundamental difference in goal between first-person shooters and other sports; baseball doesn’t require a player to simulate harmful behaviors. The esports industry also has newer and less powerful codes of sportsmanlike conduct. Where red cards or fouls may help train soldiers to prioritize fairness and self-control, online gaming culture is notoriously saturated with discrimination and cruelty.
Amidst increasing global tensions and ongoing military conflicts, it’s important to approach the military with strict scrutiny and high expectations. As soldiers incorporate new technology and hobbies into their daily routines, their minds and instincts must be responsibly influenced.
Ruby Goodwin is an Opinion apprentice for the spring 2026 quarter. She can be reached at regoodwi@uci.edu.