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.

Just make sure

[xagon7]

You fill their house with a giant Jiffy Pop before you ignite it with your designed (but they took control over) laser.

Re:Just make sure

[peragrin]

very funny, and ironic. you describe a off the wall movie(Real Geninus). with a signature that says you shouldn't watch that movie to begin with.

What is more pathetic is that I can beat you on both parts.

What is even worse is that I agree with your signature.

When has it not shaped the foundation of CS?

[jhubbard]

Let's be realistic here. When has it not?

Computers were originally people who determined calculated firing tables. The first computers were used to calculate this information and break encryption codes.

The Internet is based on equipment and protocols that DARPA paid for. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Check out the current and recent solicitations.

I'll grant you that business plays a large role too. It funds its fair share, but it seems as though it is more practical and immediate. The military seems to fund things that might not be very practical now, but can possible provide the edge in battle.

It's not uncommon.

[Anonymous Coward]

That was similar to my experience back when I was in school.

And considering the history of computing, it is to be expected.

Computers are tool for automating complicated by not particularly egaging tasks.

From code breaking, to calculating artillary tables, to distributing information. It's not know how that's the obstical, but maintaing focus and attention. With the millitary, few people have the resources or the motivations to tackle the extremes that remain, besides them. The upside is, while the projects might be defense oriented as far as the money is concerned. The people aren't. Some of the people writing their doctoral thesis based on those projects might just want to make the most kickass games (like one of my CSE TA's). Smarter robots might well lead to smarter monsters.

That's just the nature of the bleeding edge, the inscentive is always going to be strongest for militaries. You can get wrapped up in black helicopters or Chile 1950. Or you can step back and know them for what they are, individual quanta which are part of vast spectrum. While the military might have given us ICBM, and the possibility of nuclear holocaust, the secondary benefits were world wide communications satillites, GPS, the internet, aluminum cans, nuclear power, the death star, and the only chance to defend ourselves from a rogue asteroid.

Be happy for the money. Be happy for the challenge. Be happy for the opportunity to hone your skills.

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.

Which areas atrophy?

[PM4RK5]

My guess would be that the fundamentals of system design atrophy. In many ways the computer science field has seen very little innovation as far as "operating systems" are concerned. At least in the recent past.

Most systems try to mimick windows or something else, except for Apple's OS X. But on the other hand, it is also built atop a UNIX-style system, and is thus somewhat based on old ideas.

The IT industry has created such large barriers to entry that any new or radical ideas as far as desktop systems go (or servers, for that matter) have failed to enter the market successfully. Arguably, Linux's success is due to the fact that it's just a reimplementation of the old UNIX system design.

Colleges and other higher-level academic institutions are the testbed for new ideas in the CS field, and things like system design and a computers' fundamental setup have atrophied over the past few years, since I, for one, have seen very little that qualifies as "new."

One thing I would like to do is try to completely reinvent the desktop system in college as a project, because many, many technologies are just improvements upon older ones. What the industry needs is a radically new system that takes advantage of what's out there now, as far as both ideas go and as far as hardware goes.

This is just my two cents, but if you look at basic system design (device drivers, processing, filesystems, et cetera), there has been very little that is radically new.

This is why I think basic system design has atrophied at the expense of other areas.

Re:Which areas atrophy?

[Phaid]

This is just my two cents, but if you look at basic system design (device drivers, processing, filesystems, et cetera), there has been very little that is radically new.

That's basically because the problem has been solved, and there's just no need to go reinventing that wheel. The approaches to operating systems, whether for desktops, small embedded systems, etc, are well understood, they are tested and reliable, and there isn't a magical new technique which will meaningfully improve on them. The only real "interesting" research in operating systems that still takes place is in very large systems, managing large numbers of CPUs, etc. And given the nature of military applications, I seriously doubt that those areas of research lack funding.

This is not to say that areas where the user interacts with and configures the operating system don't need work -- giving users an easy way to add and remove device drivers, for example -- but those aren't core operating system concepts, those are user interface issues, and it's important not to confuse the two.

Re:Which areas atrophy?

[shaitand]

"there isn't a magical new technique which will meaningfully improve on them"

Nobody can make such a statement about ANYTHING with accuracy. The fact is that if there is a magnificant new technique that improve something, we aren't going to find it if there is no research being done on the subject.

Re:Which areas atrophy?

[Rocky]

Your answer is too simplistic.

Here is an excellent overview of exactly what is wrong with current systems research.

The gist of it is (IMHO): the current research atmosphere is too short term to support a truly revolutionary systems research program - and a good one requires more resources than one can justify. The problems are nowhere near solved - everyone has just settled on some fixpoint.

Re:Which areas atrophy?

[Phaid]

Yeah except that paper really doesn't do anything more than rail against the current state of affairs. So what if 20 years ago people coming into Bell Labs were used to using 20 different operating systems and now they only use one? That doesn't disprove what I said in any way at all. It's basically just a longer and more eloquent way of saying the exact same thing that the original poster I responded to was saying -- quoting this back to me is really just begging the question.

Look, we already know how to make a protected memory, multitasking operating system that runs on commodity hardware and which, for the average user, provides multitasking performance indistinguishable from running individual tasks on a dedicated machine. We already know how to make a hard real-time operating system (and yes, BeOS shows us that essentially, realtime suitability multiplied by desktop suitability is a constant). We already know that microkernels don't do much more than protect you from badly coded drivers, and at a performance cost. None of these things are a mystery any more, and there just isn't a single-processor operating system model that's going to come along and revolutionize OS design on current hardware.

Multiprocessor OS'es? Yes, as I said there's plenty of room for research there. Come up with an analog processor or some other hardware revolution that we don't currently think about? Yes, that would likely turn commodity OS thinking on its ear. But there is simply no interesting innovation left in the nuts and bolts of operating system software for current commodity hardware - all of the interesting research is either at a lower (hardware) level or at a higher (way more hardware) level.

In terms of fostering new research, the one genuinely interesting statement in that paper is:

Only one GUI has ever been seriously tried, and its best ideas date from the 1970s. (In some ways, it's been getting worse; today the screen is overed with confusing little pictures.) Surely there are other possibilities. (Linux's interface isn't even as good as Windows!)

But look! He's talking about user interfaces there, not the core of the operating system. With all due respect to Robert Pike, all he's doing in this paper is expressing frustration that the good old days are over and people aren't doing fun research any more

At Wake Forest University

[FooAtWFU]

At Wake Forest University, ROTC and Information Systems share a building (#26 on the campus map).

Face it

[Bluesman]

The reason most things get done is because there is a pressing need, and people in the military understand this better than anyone else. Defending yourself and defending a nation is a pressing need, whether you'd like it to be or not.

It would be nice if we could all hold hands and do research for the good of humanity, but unfortunately, human beings aren't wired that way. Nothing would get done. This is why communist societies, which are beautiful ideas on paper, don't work.

One of the major fallacies that far too many people put a lot of faith in is that people are basically good. We are not.

I know this might sound harsh and cynical, but the fact of the matter is, once you accept the fact that human nature is brutal, selfish, and ugly, you're most of the way there toward a realistic world view.

And if you look at it pragmatically, you'll realize that necessity is the mother of invention, and almost all of the great technological advances in history stem from military necessity.

Yeah, it's not nice. No, I don't like it. But that's how it works.

Re:Face it

[Bluesman]

That's true, but it's only true because from the time we're born, society civilizes us.

I'm not under the illusion that everyone's a jerk out to get me, I'm just saying that absent a civilizing influence, we're all a bunch of animals. That's why education and parenting are so important.

But it's also why we need to constantly be on guard, because there are always going to be parents who don't do their job, and societies that fail to civilize their next generation.

This is why societies fail. I have no doubt that American society will fail this way. It's happening around you.

We like to laugh at people who point out that our country is going to hell in a handbasket, with the excuse, "Yeah, every generation says that. Parents always remark about how much better it was when they were kids."

But every generation is right. Parents are right. The longer a society lasts, the more apathetic it becomes. It's happening all around you. Americans have a very sheltered and distorted view of the world. We have become a culture of ignorance, apathy, and selfishness.

So while it's understandable to me why someone would look at military sponsorship of research projects and think it's a bad thing, I find the idea ridiculous. This is one of the only ways such things get done, and perhaps one of the best reasons to do it. Advanced technology helps avert war and reduces casualties when war cannot be avoided. It's a fact. Not to mention the beneficial uses of military technology soon follow.

Re:Face it

[Bluesman]

>What makes you trust our generals and technocrats so much?

If you don't trust someone in the military more than you trust an average joe, odds are you haven't spent much time working with the military, if any at all. I have no qualms about saying that people who serve in the military are hands down the best people a country has to offer. That goes for most modern democratic societies. It's why you hear all the anti war crowd still saying "oh, I still support the troops." Why would you support the troops but turn on them when they rise to the rank of general? Is there some transformation that takes place? Generals are not appointed, you know.

The whole idea is not to come up with a better way to kill people, in order to go out and kill them. If that were true, we'd have nuked the rest of the world while we were the only ones with the bomb. The idea is to maintain a military superiority so we don't have to fight, and when we do, we fight as humanely as possible, with as little loss of life on either side as possible.

I know it's difficult for an idealist to accept, but defense, killing, and wars are sometimes necessary. It's best to be prepared. I'm for giving my generals the military might they need to win decisively, because, hell, they're on my side, and I think my side is better than all of the others.

Humanity is not perfect, my country is not perfect, but it's the best there ever was. I think we've accomplished a lot of good and prevented a lot of violence through our military influence. Most recent case in point is Libya.

But hey, I'd be perfectly happy for the US to pack up all around the world, and leave the rest of the world to itself. You can imagine how many days it would take for China to obliterate Taiwan, for Israel to flatten the rest of the mid-east (yes, they have a very advanced military), etc. etc. etc. You can imagine what the Soviet Union would have done absent our influence.

On one hand, it would be so gratifying to sit and watch Europe have to eat its words, on the other, I'm glad our generals are the kind of people they are.

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.

Re:Yup

[T-Ranger]

For number crunching apps, sure. You diddnt mention the use of computers as far back as WWII for number crunching for nuclear research. In WWII it was to figure out how much stuff they needed, now entire nuclear explosions can be simulated. Or so they claim.

But there is a sepearate, distinct, and very important component of computers that isnt realy computation: data processing.

This is where, historicly (<1975 say) where IBM (and its predecessors) worked almost exclusivly. Censuses started it all, the 1890 US Census being the first done on punch card machines (reducing a 10 year job into months). IIRC, czatist Russia leased Hollerith machines in the 19th century. (since censuses doers were the primary market for infintile IBM, and no one continiously took censuses, IBM generaly leased machines (and opearators, assumably) rather then selling them. Of course, they continue this practice, esp. on the "big iron", even today).

Most people agree that censuses, at least, are benign. It hasent been until the last 5 years that data processing has become sufficently advanced for average people to consiter it at all threatining. Im making a distinction beteween data collection/processing itself from the application therof. Privacy concerns (for example) are now very much a concern of "normal people", even if they otherwise trust the data collectors and what happens to the data. Up untill 5 years ago no one had enough data for the data alone to be risky/dangerous/intrusive. Now, not so much. Anyway...

On the other hand, "data processing", even before "computation", has been used for what would be universally accepted as evil purposes. Or at least one: I speak of Nazi Germany using Hollerith machines to keep tabs on the Jews. To quantify the "Jew problem" (as they saw it). And to effectivly round them up. The rest being "common" history (which I will ignore, this being a discussion of computers). The use of Hollerith machines being largely unknown, even amongst computer/IT types. Even though I dont agree with the authors basic premis (that IBM is at least morally liable for some of the Holocaust), I will point out IBM and the Holocaust : The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most PowerfulCorporation.

Of course the topic of discussion here is military usage of computers. Censuses certenly dont count. I dont think the Nazis use of computers does either. There is a distinction beteween the German Military/Navy, and the German (Nazi) Government, and "special" (ie, SS) forces.

Hell yeah

[Will Sargent]

The military funded the Internet.

The military, as one of the largest software developers on Earth, basically created software engineering and still pushes for hard numbers from projects and code.

When the military tried out OO technologies on flight simulators, they scheduled five different projects, the first one of which was set up to fail(!) so they could accurately determine what actual benefit they could get from OO.

The military is funding the semantic web technologies, notably DAML, in hopes of getting better AI -- this will be needed for better drones and autonomous agents, not to mention scanning for terrorist activities...

There's just no question involved. The military will do things no other organization would even think of doing.

Re:You know what's sad?

[NateSac]

I'll agree with that. Thankgod I hadn't mentioned Natalie Portman, or something along the lines of "I for one, welcome our new military technology overlords"

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.

The military no longer drives CS research

[Anonymous Coward]

A little background,

I'm a United States Army Officer, who majored in Computer Science at West Point. I'm currently the computer security officer, and the network designer for Afghanistan.

While the military has come up with some great toys recently, they don't drive research anymore. Darpanet (pre-internet), secure transmission (with the help of NSA), the atom bomb, are over 50 years old. But when you really think about it - the last thing the military research has done for the average joe is GPS, and that was started in the 70's.

When the military had a huge budget, and computers were exorbitantly expensive and arcane, the military was a leader in tech. But now when anyone can drop $800 to get a computer that was astronomically more powerful than those, you no longer lead the way.

Admittedly there are some projects that are out there that the military funds, but you see similar research in universities or corporations. Robots, protective suits, chemical detection, body armor are just a few examples. Most of the time, military researchers are looking at the cool stuff, the best way to blow stuff up.

If you look at purely CS stuff the military is just trying to keep up. We have 27 systems to track where people, vehicles and planes are, most don't talk to each other. We don't make our equipment or contract some one to make it anymore, we just buy our routers from CISCO, our servers from Dell, and our computers from many companies, just like the rest of America.

The military is no longer a factor in CS research

More interesting constraint sets

[theonetruekeebler]

There is a certain sense of urgency in solving military problems. In that domain, requirements documents imply "...or many people will die". In a corporate environment, the requirements imply "...or we'll have to keep doing it the old way".

Then add to that "...and if it screws up even the slightest bit, under any circumstance, in such a way as to so much as hurt somebody's feelings, we're screwed." In that regard, the military provides a hell of a test bed for high-risk, high-concept toys, well away from the prying eyes of trial lawyers. Adaptive cruise control probably could not have been developed in a liability-conscious environment like, well, the real world. Without years in the hands of testers who knew enough about personal responsibility to be entrusted with extremely fickle multimillion dollar jets, your ludicrous SUV would be that much harder to drive inattentively. A decade keeping jet fighters about a meter from each other at supersonic speeds refined the product to the point it could be implemented in an environment that, while far more mundane, is far more expensive to fuck up in.