Slashdot Mirror
Government Linux Gaming Supercomputer
pupkick writes "Wired news has a story about a government supercomputer running Linux that 'pits two opposing teams of soldiers against one another in a fight for control over a city under siege.'"
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
How seriously can one base decisions on the results? We've had weather simulation software in development for decades and the weather man on TV still can't tell me if it's going to rain tomorrow. It seems this simulation takes human emotion/reaction into account on a large scale, I would think that is much harder to simulate than a weather pattern. Also, who is in charge of programming the human simulations? I would hope they would consult very closely with people actually from the area in question.
IIRC, Maxis, the company that brought you SimCity, SimEarth, SimTrain, SimAnt, SimWhatever has contracted with companies for several years providing its simulation engine for use in petroleum refinery research, manufacturing automation, factory floor managment simulation. I would be surprised if they HAVE NOT done similar work with DoD. Me thinks a nice beowulf cluster of xboxes running linux would make a nicer story...
Busy aligning my non-linear thoughts.
Does this sound Strangely Familiar to anyone?
Are all the dupes I get to read from as little as two days ago.
For those who checked the screenshots in the article, doesn't that second one look suspiciously like a certain motorcade route in Dallas?
Brendan "Beej" Dery "Only in Canada, eh?"
No wait, they do... General Norman Schwarzkopf said he never understood the true meaning of the word Byzantine as it applies to politics until he had taken command in the middle east. And he had studied the area EXTENSIVELY prior to his deployment there. These systems are modeling behavior of of crowds, soldiers in combat, "battlefield detainees", traffic patterns, weather, weaponry, supply lines, AND the political climate. The people playing these games ain't high school video gamers. They are retired or otherwise very experienced military personnel that advise the JCS. All of them are very well educated in the art of war, and it's drawbacks. That's why they're so quiet about it.
Bush's suggestion that the only problem with the war currently was that we "won too quickly," that the enemy was supposed to stand, fight and be killed instead of retreating and coming back with car bombs the way they have, is ridiculous. It shows how out of touch he and his advisors are with the real world. All you have to do is look at American history: George Washington lost just about every battle he fought in, but the tactic of fight, retreat, and live to fight another day won the war.
Since they seem to be unwilling to learn from history, before our beloved administration engages in another wasteful bloodletting, maybe the high end of the chain of command should take a moment to see how regular people would fight if thrown into the situation.
Heck, make sure some 10-14 year olds are able to play. They're brutal! I remember when Warcraft came out, those little snots would pull some amazing tricks to kick butt right out of the gate. Remember the Grunt Rush offense?
The CB App. What's your 20?
There are two diametrically opposed endeavors that comprise warfare regardless of time period. There is a technological advantage, and there is a tactical advantage.
For a less technologically advanced force to prevail against a more technologically advanced force, it must employ superior tactics. The opposite also holds true: A technologically superior force can get by with a less tactically sound battleplan, letting it's technical superiority tip the balance in it's favor.
You refer to two conflicts where this is demonstrated with near perfect clarity: U.S. involvement in Viet Nam, and Soviet involvement in Afghanistan.
In both cases, the technologically superior force was outclassed by the tactically superior force. An insurgent force (rebels / guerillas / etc) can negate the technological advantage of the opposing force by changing the nature of the engagement.
Your question about "keeping in check" a technologically advanced force answers itself.
But right in line with how things have been going over the last couple of centuries. The revolutionary war against brittain was fought using geurilla tactics learned from the native tribes. The brittish cried foul, saying that the yankees were'nt fighting "fair". We fast forward to 'nam, where the VC would hit and fade, hit and fade... hit and fade. This tactic has the advantage of continually reducing both enemy numbers and moralle. America cried foul, said the VC weren't fighting fair, took their ball and went home. Now the same thing is happening, a smaller, weaker enemy is using guerrila warfare to constantly harrass a larger and better equipped force. The tactic works, and always has worked.
The chains are broken
Loki is free
Ragnarok is at hand...
1) I'm joking.
2) If I were serious, that wouldn't be a particularly useful site to which to send me. hapypenguin.org is much more useful to a non-developer.