Does the Military Dominate CS Research?

An anonymous reader asks: "It seems at my university the military has their fingers in much of the computer science research happening on campus: sensors, intelligent agents, autonomous vehicles, supercomputing. Is this the case at other schools around the US? How about outside of the US? How is the military shaping the current state of CS research? What areas of research atrophy because the funding goes to investigating military applications of new technology?"

Comments

Not actually an informed opinion, but...

[josefcub]

Really, if you think about it, the military will eventually, if it doesn't already, have its fingers in any technology that it thinks will further its goals. School location or subject really doesn't matter to them.

The question doesn't make sense.

[theNote]

I'm a little confused on the premise of this question.

Research needs funding.
If the military wasn't funding autonomous sensors, who else would?

And what does having military funding for some projects have to do with the "atrophy" of other non military projects?

Are you surprised you can't find funding for research no one wants?

Its little like asking how McDonald's research on hamburger recipes is adversely affecting research on hydrogen energy.

What do they have to do with each other?

Re:The question doesn't make sense.

[retards]

If the military wasn't funding autonomous sensors, who else would?

Gee, I don't know, maybe those who need them? And if no-one else needs them, end of story.

If the military wasn't funding mustard gas, nerve poison, clusterbombs, tactical nukes, etc., who else would?

Let the military stay out of non-military institutions. They engineer stuff with one ultimate applicable purpuse only: killing human beings.

Re:The question doesn't make sense.

[eht]

Nerve poison is very useful for insecticide.

Tactical nukes are useful for large scale engineering, think picking apart asteroids for mineral wealth among other things.

I'm sure I could think up or look up alternative uses for mustard gas and cluster bombs if I really cared to answer your question, these were ones off the top of my head.

Re:The question doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

The military is one of the few institutions to tackle fundemental research, and almost hopeless challenges on a large scale. Why, their need is great, their reasources are large, and so are the rewards.

It is arguable that computers would not exist at all without the military. Let alone global computer networks. Add to that communications satillites, and anything in space. For both the US and USSR the space race was about puting nukes on people. But that also gave us aluminum cans. And a lot of ceramic technologies. Need I point out RADAR, and the multitude of uses we put it to today? Or the lives it saves with weather forecasting? Or nuclear power. Did I mention jet engines? Or turbine technology in all it's incarnations? Let alone consumer products like Jeeps and Humvees. Or trauma medicine. The stirup? Can't leave out frequency hopping.

All this, monsterously large segments of the civilian economy, exists because of a military need at one time. General solutions to nearly forgotten problems. Take the military our of research institutions and you put a lot of researchers out of work.

So nothing new, another SNAFU, and your argument is FUBAR, another goof ball with a hemp cap and not enough common sense to fill it. Have a little appretiation for the freedom you enjoy, the freedom to bitch, and not know any better. More admirable people than yourself die to stamp your hand at the door of the little freedom party, and many of them never killed anyone. So your task, should you find you have any personal honor and decide to accept it, is to learn about the US Army Core of Engineers.

How dare they!

[Anonymous Coward]

What areas of research atrophy because the funding goes to investigating military applications of new technology?"

Indeed, how dare the military fail to fund research into non-military applications!

It's obviously the military's fault if you can't get a grant.
After all, thier charter demands they fund all worth research, no matter how militarily useless! ...doesn't it?

It's not like there are private corporations doing research for non-military products ...are there?

Yup

[Mark_MF-WN]

The history of computation is the history of war. From the Greeks and their studies of quadratics, to Galileo's ballistics tables (which funded all his later work), the Difference Engine, early mechanical calculators, etcetera. War has always been the driving force behind computation, sadly. Just look at super computers -- the US military keeps building new record holders JUST to model nuclear deterioration and detonation! Many physics simulations (the exact same ones that make cars safe now) were invented to test rocket, artillery, and bullet design.

Oh the irony

[sideshow]

Guess the military should have stayed away from that whole ARPANET thing. At the very least I wouldn't have to put up with morons on the internet because there would be no internet.

It always has been that way.

[WindBourne]

Back in the early 80's, I was a geneticists/Bio-Tech. The industry had collapsed and the fueher had moved funding from civil to Defense via Darpa. What was interesting was the military came in and had us change protocols. When we first applied, we were a defense based grant. As time went on, I suddenly realized that we were not doing defense but offense. It was an eye opener. (The more interesting part was the number of Iraqi's that we were training back then; I understand that Texas did the bulk of the training though)

Recently, when we did the iraqi WMD inspections, We insisted on inspecting the universities. It was a wise precaution.

So yes, Virginia, we do the bulk of our research in the open at Universities, but it is not what it appears to be.