Lockheed Martin Selects Linux for Missile Defense

m3lt writes "Business Wire is reporting that Concurrent announced today that Lockheed Martin Space Systems has selected RedHawk(TM) Linux as the operating system for their United States Army Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program." From the article: "Lockheed Martin selected RedHawk for the THAAD program due to the precision and guaranteed response time of Concurrent's RedHawk Linux real-time operating system. Only RedHawk Linux was able to ensure the high frame rates required in their HIL simulation without frame overruns, thereby ensuring the highest quality of system test."

Comments

Arms

[Anonymous Coward]

So we like big arms companies now?

Re:Arms

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

Yes, ofcourse we do.
Arm developers are a very important industry. Without it we wouldn't have realistic weapon models in our games. No sir, if it wasn't for the arm companies we would have shitty weapon models that weren't even near realistic. We should thank our deity for those marvelous people of the weapon factories, without them we wouldn't be were we are today.

Re:Arms

[C 12]

If you value survival, you do. Not that I advocate war or anything, but I would like the baddies to believe I have a reasonable ability to kick their ass.

Re:Arms

[Anonymous Coward]

who is we?
anyone can use linux weather "we" like them or not.

Re:Arms

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

"Most development projects don't need hard real time." -- Microsoft

Are we sure missle defense is one of them?

Re:Arms

[hey!]

ARM is the last RISC CPU standing. Oh, wait.

Re:Arms

[mmkkbb]

If ARM is standing, then so are MIPS, ColdFire and PowerPC.

Re:Arms

[Glock27]

If ARM is standing, then so are MIPS, ColdFire and PowerPC.

With Niagara systems being launched today(?) you'd better include SPARC.

Re:Arms

[everphilski]

they just have to pay for it ...

Re:Arms

[Ucklak]

Good point. I don't advocate war either but I do advocate term limits for politicians. What was that saying about old men debating while young boys die??? I don't remember but something to that effect.

What is this hatred for the military? It was the militia that kicked the Brits ass (with outside help of course but we American colonists were fed up with it) othewise we'd be bowing to the Queen right now. Organized military came from that.
This pacifist BS needs to stop. There are plenty of scavengers that want to take from us and if we don't have that image of being a bad ass, they're going to do damage.

And what's up with the San Francisco sissies banning guns? Isn't that a 2nd amendment right? I say remove remove the civil obedience oppressors (cops) from there then.

Re:Arms

[TheLink]

Old men debating whilst young boys die? Well how about this:

If political leaders wish to send troops to battle for _offensive_ (not defensive[1]) purposes, they have to put their own lives at risk as well.

This could be done in the following manner:
A referendum is held. If there is an insufficient majority, the proposers' lives are forfeit. They are put on deathrow.

If there is actually a majority, there could be a "redemption" referendum, and their lives depend on the results.

A similar referendum is also held if at any time it is found that a politician caused the public to be deceived/misinformed (even unknowingly) and "justify" a war or similar military action.

If a leader's life is not successfully redeemed, but later it is found the war was justified, the leader will get the equivalent of a "purple heart".

The idea is that even leaders who have no qualms about lying about "caring about the lives of soldiers" would then actually think twice about sending soldiers to risk their lives. Even amoral people without a conscience would be inclined to take things a bit more seriously when it's not just a matter of losing the next election, or going to jail for a few years.

After all if a leader thinks it is worth risking the lives of soldiers and civilians, that leader should also be willing to risk his/her life. That's only fair right?

Also, if >= 66% of Nation A thinks it's worth attacking Nation B, then it might be easier for people in Nation B to decide whether to kill people in Nation A or not.

[1] Defensive wars are different of course.

Re:Arms

[demachina]

This is an interesting problem.

Yes it is good to have enough weapons to deter someone bad from attacking, invading or destroying you. There are bad people in the world, and there are people who good or bad don't like what you do or stand for.

A problem today is certain American enemies know full well that they can't go toe to toe with the U.S. in conventional or strategic war. They don't and can't squander $500 billion on weapons, the military and intelligence a year, much of that money borrowed by the way. So they don't even try and don't need to.

What do the do? Well they use hijacked jetliners, suicide bombers, IED's, propaganda and other forms of asymmetric warfare. They have proved in Iraq that they can spend millions of dollars on asymmetric weapons and tie up the U.S. military in knots, which is spending billions a month, and which has hundreds of billions of weapons most of which are useless in urban guerrilla warfare. They can launch attacks that costs millions of dollars, if that, that cause, billions of dollars in economic damage to the U.S.

THAAD is in a lot of ways a good weapon if it works. Its main goal is to keep someone with ballistic missiles from killing people weather they are civilian or military.

There are other classes of weapons which unfortunately are dual use, and can be used both offensively and defensively. There have been times when American's have shunned foreign adventure and aggressive warfare. During those times our defense department was really for defense, to deter attack and counter ruthlessly when attacked.

Sadly political and military elites have at various times forgotten the basic difference between defense and preemptive or aggressive warfare. Preemptive and aggressive warfare is something only bad people, like the Nazi's did. Well not ture, The U.S. for example launched the Spanish American war largely under false pretense and to cover a large colonial expansion in the Carribean and the Phillippines. In the Phillippines there was an entire, lengthy, bloody war in the early 1900's never taught in American history classes where the U.S. ruthlessly killed civilians in a largely vain attempt to suppress an insurgency that didn't appreciate decades of American colonial occupation. It holds a lot of parallels to Iraq today, and probably could teach some lessons if we hadn't pushed it out of our collective conscious because it was so ugly.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm all for paying for enough weapons to defend the U.S. but the U.S. military is completely beyond that today. Its is a cold war relic turned in to an preemptive, offense tool for dominating the world and that flies in the face of what many people want the U.S. to be. What's worse it isn't even any good to deal with terrorist attacks or insurgencies like the ones in Vietnam and Iraq which are far more likely than a conventional war today.

You also need to look no further than the Duke Cunningham case yesterday to realize the Pentagon is mostly just a vast corrupted mechanism for funneling vast quantities of money from tax payer's pockets in to the pockets of largely corrupt defense contractors.

There is irony that China may well dominate the U.S. militarily and economically in the near future because the U.S. is squandering its wealth on excessive defense spending, and watching its economy wither in the face of globalization, budget and trade deficits. The Chinese might well win World War III without firing a shot. They will win it with a steady stream of containers ships to the U.S. and of U.S. dollars to China. The U.S. spends billions developing new weapons technology and the Chinese spend thousands to steal them. The Chinese will soon have all the manufacturing base to make weapons and the U.S. wont be able to make any without importing them from China.

Re:Arms

[C 12]

The Iraq war is different, I think, because it is a war waged for one [set of] reason[s], justified with another, funded with yet another, and finally morphed into something altogether different. It's also irritating how much false information, from all sources, is floating around there, so the citizenry cannot form a coherent picture of what's going. The result: anger and a growing desire to flee, which would be disasterous for all parties involved.

Some straight talk from the politicians would be in order. But we will never get that.

Re:Arms

[Anonymous Coward]

Arm developers are a very important industry. Without it we wouldn't have realistic weapon models in our games.

Try to get realistic data for any firearm bigger than a handgun sometime...

Re:Arms

[Nutria]

ColdFire

It's 68K based, not RISC.

Re:Arms

[mmkkbb]

It's 68K based but a lot is taken out

Re:Arms

[demachina]

"The Iraq war is different..."

Its not really that different. Its one in a long string of regime changes where the U.S. seeks to take down people it doesn't like, people who don't do what the U.S. says, people that thumb their noses at U.S. corporate interests, who challenge the U.S. on the world stage. The goal is to prop up friendly puppets who defend U.S. business interests and kowtow to U.S. demands.

Its been long established that the surest way for a sovereign leader of any state to be taken down by the U.S. is to have oil reserves and to not sign them over to the control of American/British/Dutch oil companies. The U.S. military and intelligence agencies have spent most of the last century insuring Allied oil companies control of the world's oil fields. The U.S. toppled the government of Iran, and installed a ruthless dictator, the Shah, precisely to put its oil fields in to the hands of American oil companies.

The U.S. has tried unsuccessfully to topple Chavez in Venezuela pricesly for the same reason, to get its oil reserves in to the hands of friendlies.

The only things really different about Iraq is the blatantness of the aggression, the blatantness of the lieing and the fact that it failed badly. Taking down Noriega in Panama was very much the same kind of war, its just it was much better executed and there wasn't the deep ethnic division that there is in Iraq, which is fueling the civil war there. Taking down the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, very similar, its just the war was much more covert and used largely indigenous guerrillas with CIA handlers. American's didn't die much in Nicaragua so American's mostly didn't care, even when the Reagan Administration tore down the Constitution by waging a war Congress forbad. The never ending series of coups in Haiti, pretty much the same thing. The U.S. gets tired of leaders there that don't play by U.S. rules so they arm bands of right wing thugs in the Dominican Republic and their CIA handlers send them to do their bidding.

I wish Iraq really was different but in fact its just how power politics is played. The U.S. and the U.S.S.R did it most of the last century and killed millions of people in assorted third world countries around the globe fighting proxy wars. In the process they created the cauldrons that brew terrorism. Somalia is the hell hole it is thanks to decades of proxy wars to control the horn of Africa. Afghanistan likewise became the base for Al Qaeda thanks to a proxy war between the U.S. and U.S.S.R there. The U.S. is just seeking to shape the world out if its own self interest, and the harvest it is reaping is very, very ugly.

Re:Arms

[SageMusings]

Let's not forget that whole Internet-thingy that DoD came up with....

Re:Arms

[AstroDrabb]

As a U.S.M.C I agree with most of what you said. These ultra rich, corrupt politicians have no problem sending me or others off to die while they continue to get the big "phat" pay checks.

However, what I don't totally agree with is this statement:

If political leaders wish to send troops to battle for _offensive_ (not defensive[1]) purposes, they have to put their own lives at risk as well.

Why should it be OK to send people to die for "defensive" purposes? A defensive op could very easily turn to an offensive one where you are fighting for you life.

My position is simple. If you attack the USA, we come and blow the crap out of you. Otherwise we don't fight. By attack I do not mean just some "official" military attack. 9-11 was enough for us to blow the crap out of Afghanistan IMO. However, to just keep going "since we are in the neighborhood" is pretty wrong. We knew Afghanistan had a part in 9-11, not directly, but indirectly. IMO we should have hit them harder. But to continue and go on to Iraq was wrong. Where do we go next? Do we just keep going throughout the Middle East until we wipe it out?

I think a much better approach is to be the "sleeping giant". We should refrain from war as much as we can, we shouldn't just start attacking for any reason. However, if a nation does cross that line, then we go in fast and hard and bring them down. That should send a nice message around the world that A) we don't want to fight. B) if we do have to fight, we are doing it to win.

When I think of how much money has been spent on the "war" on terror, the "war" on drugs, the "war" on $POLITICAL_TERM, it is just sickening.

Re:Arms

[theLOUDroom]

Well put.

...nothing else to say really, it's nice to see someone have some perspective about the situation.

Re:Arms

[TheLink]

What I meant by "defensive" is when a nation is directly attacked and under _immediate_ threat, there would be no time to hold referendums and all that.

Shooting planes attempting a 9/11 = defensive. The attack on Afghanistan = offensive.

Shooting nukes that are launched at you while within foreign soil before they reach your country = defensive.

One may wish to come up with a clause dealing with nuking countries that launch nukes at you. It's not very defensive. It's more a "revenge" thing. The threat of revenge is the defense I guess.

However, if a country uses my proposal, I believe far fewer nations would ever view that country as a military threat - what would be the point of nuking that country? You'd destroy most assets you'd want to take.

The "sleeping giant" thing is still compatible with my proposal, in fact it may be complementary.

If there is a war between two such countries, they can proceed to _really_ wipe each other out totally. If you think wiping out the 33% minority who weren't for the war is bad, then go adjust the ratio.

It's still better than many wars where far far more didn't want war but were dragged into it. Most people don't want war. Often politicians/leaders may want a war for their own selfish reasons.

My proposal will help make it clear whether people actually want war or not - after all who pays the most for the war - in blood, money, life?

Typically it's not the leaders. I wish that to change.

Re:Arms

[aevans]

How's this for perspective? US, British, and Dutch oil companies may be evil or benign, but no one except the most evil or idiotic think that Khomeini, Hussein, and Chavez are a better alternative.

Re:Arms

[AstroDrabb]

Well, I think your proposal is pretty good. As a former U.S.M.C, I agree with you about 97%. I am not a pacifist. So I do not think war is totaly wrong/bad, however I think it is very ugly and should be a last resort. I think what Regan did was the best option. He led the USA to defeat the U.S.S.R without firing a single shot. He beat them politically. Anyway, I agree with you 100% that if our "leaders" want to send _us_ to war, then they _need_ to be responsible for that decision with their lives. If I can die because of their decision, then so should they.

To me, it is really simple. If our "leaders" want a war, then they need to be the first in, and on the front lines. The U.S.M.C. has a motto of "First to go, last to know". Which sadly is all too true. Anytime our military is ordered/voted to take action and a war is not officially declared, those "leaders" should have to put on the flak-jacket and carry their M-16 like the rest of the military is expected to.

Why doesn't Bush send his daughters to the FRONT line? Why shouldn't his to daughters be subject to what we are? Why shouldn't the Bush daughters be subject to having their heads cut off with a dull blade like others in the military?

While I am not the biggest fan of Michael Moore, one of the videos I watched was actually pretty good. He went around DC and was asking all of our "representitives" why their kids were not taking part in the "war effort". Sadly, most just ran away from the camera.

Re:Arms

[daraf]

Perspective indeed.

Yes it is good to have enough weapons to deter someone bad from attacking, invading or destroying you

What do you consider an attack? Does somebody have to directly destroy your troops / invade your land? Weapons are one of the array of tools used to defend the interests of a nation. These interests include, but aren't limited to, integrity of territory, freedom of navigation, strategic interests of allies, and vital economic interests. Aggressors don't always stand up and say, "Hello, I am going to attempt to f*** with you now, I declare war". Sometimes they willingly harbor terrorists, or annex a neighboring state and mobilize the 4th largest army in the world to the Saudi Arabian border, or shoot surface-to-air missiles at your aircraft attempting to enforce a no-fly zone that they agreed to.

A problem today is certain American enemies know full well that they can't go toe to toe with the U.S. in conventional or strategic war ... They have proved in Iraq that they can spend millions of dollars on asymmetric weapons and tie up the U.S. military in knots, which is spending billions a month, and which has hundreds of billions of weapons most of which are useless in urban guerrilla warfare.

The US military is subordinate to and follows the wishes of elected representatives, who ultimately are elected by the people. You want more troops to come home alive? Well, then we can't just overwhelm the enemy with numbers. You'll have to buy better training. You want a fast war, rather than a protracted conflict? Okay ... but fighter aircraft aren't exactly sold below sticker price. Oh, yeah, you'll also need AWACs crews to support the fighters, maintainers to support all the aircraft, and you'll have to build a tent city to house everyone. You want to reduce civilian casualties? Break out that checkbook - those smart bombs cost a premium. Oh, yeah, there will also be an additional charge to deploy and maintain that GPS constellation to guide those bombs.

Asymmetric warfare isn't some mysterious, secret terrorist weapon. It's warfare with blatant disregard for the lives of civilians (or your own soldiers, for that matter), and using information to turn the fickle opinion of an electorate with a culture of free expression, while brainwashing your own people in madrasas.

Used in specific ways, conventional weapons can be an extremely effective counter to guerilla warfare tactics -- reference Linebacker II. For many reasons, we don't always choose to use them in those ways.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm all for paying for enough weapons to defend the U.S. but the U.S. military is completely beyond that today. Its is a cold war relic turned in to an preemptive, offense tool for dominating the world and that flies in the face of what many people want the U.S. to be.

Many people in the U.S. want their government to protect their interests. An assured energy supply is one of those interests. Did you type your post on a computer? Did you drive today? What about those lights all over your neighborhood, burning away all night -- they make you feel safer, right? Do you get your food from a grocery store (that's all delivered by truck, you know)? Do you want to make sure you can do the same tomorrow? You can spin it however you want, call it "dominating the world" or "nation-building" (though I dare say the current situation in Iraq is more akin to the latter -- promoting stability by building a new democracy in a culture to which the concept is foreign is the essence of doing things the hard way). The fact of the matter is, no matter how much you can get diplomats together to talk and hold hands, there will always be a need to use the military in more than a defensive role to protect our interests. Feel free to move to Europe if you want to send your soldiers out under a NATO flag instead so you can feel better about it.

Re:Arms

[TheLink]

I think nowadays it's impractical for "kings" to lead their troops into battle, right at the frontline, as in the old days.

Anyway I doubt my proposal will ever become a law. I still think it's quite a good idea (I'm biased of course).

I'm no soldier, and never ever want to be one, but I figure most soldiers would be more willing to risk their lives for a particular war if they knew their leaders were willing to risk their lives too (and most of the country were in favour of the war).

Anyway, I've been trying to spread this idea further. I'm far from influential though ;).

Re:Arms

[C 12]

How do you define threat?

Re:Arms

[C 12]

Is it possible to have a discussion on /. without Bill getting mentioned, for good or bad? Jesus...

Re:Arms

[theLOUDroom]

Many people in the U.S. want their government to protect their interests. An assured energy supply is one of those interests. Did you type your post on a computer? Did you drive today? What about those lights all over your neighborhood, burning away all night -- they make you feel safer, right?

This is pretty silly. In order to have this it's necessary to overthrow governments of third world countries and replace them with people like Saddam Hussein? (We gave him the key to the city of Detroit when he was our friend). Or is it necessary to overthrow Saddam?

The fact of the matter is, no matter how much you can get diplomats together to talk and hold hands, there will always be a need to use the military in more than a defensive role to protect our interests.

You can say this as much as you want, but you don't actually have any proof.

The thing is, America is blessed with lots of natural resources and know-how. We don't need places like China to make our stuff for us. We can do it ourselves. It just means we would have LESS stuff. And that's what it really comes down to is greed.

You try to make it sound as if we don't have any choice. We HAVE TO attack other countries because we NEED their stuff. But it's not true.

The US has a long history of propping up nasty dictators that later comes back to bite them in the ass. Even if we were to go around influencing the governance of other nations, we should be doing in accordance with good sense. We should be creating governments that americans would be willing to live under, not arming nutjob dictators.

Re:Arms

[StarvingSE]

And this is coming from someone who posts as an AC? Man, you're much cooler than I. I am not trying to get modded up or cool points. I have karma to burn and that was the first thing I thought of when I read the parent's comment.

Deal with it.

Re:Arms

[daraf]

We HAVE TO attack other countries because we NEED their stuff

"Stuff" is a subset of our interests, and in a military context a very small one at that. It's an order of magnitude more expensive to go to war to get "stuff" than it is to simply buy the "stuff".

The U.S. has a long history of propping up governments -- some of which were nasty dictators -- to contain the spread of communism and, by extension, the influence of the U.S.S.R. In hindsight (which is always 20/20), the long-term consequences of such actions makes them seem shortsighted. However, propping up governments seemed to be pretty effective and expedient for most of the ~50 yrs of the Cold War. I'm not trying to be an apologist for past wrongs, just trying to show how those past decisions supported legitimate and important strategic aims.

We should be creating governments that americans would be willing to live under

You, me, and the Secretary of State seem to agree. Condi (from speech in Cairo):

For 60 years, the United States pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the Middle East -- and we achieved neither. Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people.

Re:Arms

[demachina]

"most evil or idiotic think that Khomeini, Hussein, and Chavez"

Khomeini came to power THANKS to the U.S. The Mossadegh government the U.S. toppled originally was in fact a pretty progressive government, the only thing they did wrong is they got fed up with the fact British oil companies, who got their foothold in the middle east thanks to colonial expansion from World War I, were taking the lion's share of their countries wealth so they nationalized Iran's own oil fields. The British whined to the U.S. to do something, they did, the CIA overthrew a sovereign government, oh and then they screwed the British too and gave the oil fields to U.S. companies. How did the U.S. put Khomeini in power? They put the Shah in power and he and his secret service were one of the most brutal regimes in the middle east, they were every bit Saddam class, disappearing, torturing and killing their opponents. The Iranian people hated the Shah so much they viewed Khomeini and Islamic fundamentalism as an improvement. Many Iranians hate the U.S. with a passion to this day thanks to the Shah.

As for Chavez he has been demonized by the U.S. as is the U.S. way when they want to topple someone, Kaddafi, Castro, Noriega, Saddam etc. Notice who since Khaddafi started kissing American and British boots, and opening his oil fields to them, they don't demonize him any more? Same guy, trust me. Chavez isn't perfect but the dynamics in Venezuela come down to two groups vying for power which is true of just about every country, especially in the Central and South America. A wealthy plutocracy where a few percent have all the wealth and power, and 90+% who are in grinding poverty and powerless. Chavez is popular with the 90+% who have nothing. He like Castro does some great things the U.S. always forgets to mention:

A. They insure universal access to quality health care for everyone, not just those who can afford it

B. They insure universal access to education, especially university education, again based on need and merit not ability to pay. Cuba turns out huge numbers of doctors for example that provide health care to poor areas around the globe who would have no health care if left to the whims of capitalism

C. They seek to distribute wealth more evenly versus having a few percent who are filthy rich and comfortable while everyone else is starving, illiterate and die young due to absence of basic health care.

Unfortunately Socialism is flawed just like Capitalism. People get drunk on power in both systems and abuse it. Socialism means big government and big government tends to be bad no matter what political philosophy it prescribes to. Socialism tends to trample individual liberties and freedom, but so does Capitalism. Capitalism just uses more carefully crafted and better concealed means to rob you of your freedoms.

Problem with people like you sir is you buy in to the propaganda the U.S. spews and think the only bad leaders in the world are the ones the U.S. hap
Problem with people like you sir is you buy in to the propaganda the U.S. spews and think the only bad leaders in the world are the ones the U.S. decides to demonize. The Shah was every bit as bad and probably worse than your list of three, so was Marcos in the Phillippines, Papa Doc in Haiti, Diem in Vietnam Pinochet, and a cavalcade of other ruthless dictators the U.S. has propeed up over the years to the misfortune of the people who suffered under them

The problem with people like you sir are you are suckers for the U.S. propaganda, and their list of people they demonize on a given day, and you buy it hook like and sinker. The Shah of Iran was every bit as bad and probably worse than your list of three, so was Marcos in the Phillippines, Papa Doc in Haiti, Diem in Vietnam, Pinochet and a cavalcade of other ruthless dictators the U.S. has propped up over the years to the misfortune of the people who suffered under them.

Re:Arms

[demachina]

"Well, then we can't just overwhelm the enemy with numbers. "

If you are referring to Iraq, for example, sir you have no clue. You can't overwhelm them with numbers unless you are going start indiscriminately massacring innocent civilians, kind of like the U.S. tried in flattening Fallujah. All you do is make the people you have under occupation hate you more, and work harder to kill you. The more troops you put in, the more targets you give them, both in people and supply convoys.

"Did you type your post on a computer? Did you drive today?"

LOL. Most of the power I'm using is unfortunately coming from coal mined right next door to me. There isn't any global power projection necessary for us to have electricity.

As for gasoline yes I do drive, but I telecommute and I drive as little as absolutely possible. You see unfortunately the U.S. has been designed for nearly a hundred years to be completely dependent on gasoline. It was a bad design and a bad idea. Its led to complete dependence on a fuel which is finite, and is now crossing in to short supply, its led to pollution, and people spending 2 hours a day driving to and from work. Some of the worst life style choices imaginable. I have for a number of years lived in a city where I didn't own a car, walked to work and took subways and street cars power by nuclear energy to travel to get about.

So not only have we designed our civilization to be completely dependent on fossil fuels, but big oil and coal have done everything in the power to prevent any attempt to switch to something better. They jack up prices and profiteer like this year, people start switching to alternatives and then they drop prices, through collusion, to kick the legs out from under the alternatives, wash, rinse and repeat. Aren't monopolies wonderful.

STOP LAYING YOUR SORRY ASS LIFE STYLE GUILT TRIP ON ME. The world would for the most part be a better place without gasoline and cars. Save it all for the farm machinery we need to grow food and maybe some trains, ships and planes for transport, not for some dumbass to drive 2 hours a day to get from the suburbs to a job in the city.

I would be overjoyed if all my electricity came from nuclear, hydro, solar and wind.

If "defending my economic interest" means killing people, I'm willing to live with get by with less and live and let live.

Re:Arms

[mpe]

What I meant by "defensive" is when a nation is directly attacked and under _immediate_ threat, there would be no time to hold referendums and all that.

Which is a reason for having a standing army. However it's hard to have soldiers protecting your nation when they are elsewhere.

Shooting planes attempting a 9/11 = defensive.

Which is the case of the US and Canada is part of the function of NORAD. Who were utterly useless on the 11th September 2001.

It's still better than many wars where far far more didn't want war but were dragged into it. Most people don't want war. Often politicians/leaders may want a war for their own selfish reasons.

Having some kind of referendum would also help protect against the case where a war is being pushed to further the interests of some third party, be it a nation state, corporation or terrorist gang. Maybe reading (and understanding) "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu should be a requirement before voting too...

Re:Arms

[JhohannaVH]

If you are referring to Iraq, for example, sir you have no clue. You can't overwhelm them with numbers unless you are going start indiscriminately massacring innocent civilians, kind of like the U.S. tried in flattening Fallujah.

I got a *serious* issue with this statement. Were you there? Do you know anything about the fight? Do you know what happened? I have 4 personal friends, Marines, no less that were IN that fight. And you know what, there was NOT ONE civilian killed. Certainly not a massacre as you describe. Our Marines were fighting for their LIVES.

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/001320.php
http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/001324.php

My close friends were in the line of fire for 16 months, in Fallujah and Tal Afar. There were no civilians, as they were removed from the city PRIOR to military action. In Tal Afar, they were removed by Iraqi Security Forces. The only people left were insurgents, and they were warned - get out of the city or we will take you prisoner. As you all well know by now, they would rather DIE than be taken alive. There were well over 1,000 insurgents left behind during the Fight for Fallujah, but no civilians were harmed. And that's from eyes on the ground, fuck the goddamn liberal media. They get it wrong 90% of the time anyway.

Please, before you go sputing off about things you don't know, do a little research. Most of all, use your reason and logic I know you were blessed with. May I point you in the direction of the BBC produced program on the History Channel - ShootOut! - they have two episodes that deal directly with the Fight for Fallujah, as well as the March for Baghdad (more like sprint, but we won't tell). You just *might* learn something useful.

Jho

Re:Arms

[JhohannaVH]

STOP LAYING YOUR SORRY ASS LIFE STYLE GUILT TRIP ON ME. The world would for the most part be a better place without gasoline and cars. Save it all for the farm machinery we need to grow food and maybe some trains, ships and planes for transport, not for some dumbass to drive 2 hours a day to get from the suburbs to a job in the city.

*WAH*!!!!!!!! In so many areas of our country, that's the only place for some DUMBASSes to afford a place to live. Who are *you* to judge people for the choices they are forced to make to survive? In order for me to buy a home that I could afford with the job that I have today, I would be forced into a 3 hour commute. That's because all of the homes within a 2 hour commute are over $500,000 USD. Do you really have any idea how much money that is???? No one can afford that on a decent salary, let alone someone who actually WORKS for a living but only makes 10 bucks an hour. Don't they deserve a home too?

And as far as your 'world being a better place'.... PLEASE!!!!!!!!!! Do you *really* think that this country, technology, space, and science would have advanced as far and as fast as they have in the past 100 years since the use of gasoline and cars? How do you think information travelled back in the 40s and 50s? And let me tell you something else - if we had NOT developed all of the technology and engines and transport that is still heavily in use today, you wouldn't even be here. Or your parents would be speaking German or more likely, Japanese. Yeah, the world sure would be a better place without fossil fuels... we'd be just like all the other third world countries! At least *they* only pay 0.16 a gallon for gas. (Sudan, Ethiopia, Nigeria)

If people would stop deriding nuclear energy as filthy and environmentally destructive as they have every day since the 60s, we would HAVE more than a handful of power plants, and we wouldn't have so much of these issues, particularly not with coal and natural gas. We could be like France and Japan where more than 70% of their power is provided by nuclear energy (yes, that's why THEY could sign the Kyoto treaty) - hell, we might have even developed beyond nuclear energy by now if we actually USED it. But NOOOOOOO... all the wonks and the peaceniks are so dumb, they constantly knock it down and spout misinformation.

I'm like you, I would LOVE to see alternative forms of energy. But these things take *time*. They don't happen over 20 years, they happen over generations. Fossil Fuels did. And why the hell do people forget about all the advances we've *made*? And why don't they know that it's not America using up all the damn fossil fuels, it's China and India - as proven in a report released last week. I just hope that SF really does build that tidal power system. I doubt it though, because *waaaaah* it costs too much. STFU! :P

Jho

Re:Arms

[demachina]

" And you know what, there was NOT ONE civilian killed."

That is naive to the extreme friend, or maybe military propaganda. You can't engage in a knock down drag out fire fight in an urban area without killing civilians. Sure a lot of civilians left before the assault, so did a lot of insurgents.

The point you are completely missing is when soldiers don't wear uniforms you CAN'T tell the difference between a civilian and a soldier in a war zone. The U.S. military quotes these wonderful numbers of how many insurgents they kill in their various offensives, and never report ANY civilian casualties. Why, because they just declare everyone who is KIA to be a terrorist, with some twisted reasoning that if they weren't a terrorist they shouldn't have been there, glossing over that this war is in the middle of people's homes and businesses. If you just declare all the dead as combatants, wallah, no civilian casualties.

You do also forget there is video tape of U.S. soldiers shooting wounded and incapacitated combatant one at point blank range, both by CNN during the invasion and by NBC in Fallujah. If someone did that to an American you would be screaming bloody murder and war crimes.

I feel for all the American soldiers in Iraq, they are in a difficult situation because they are fighting an enemy that doesn't wear uniforms and play by rules. They can't tell a combatant from a civilians. Soldiers placed in that situation are compelled to shoot first, and they make a lot of mistakes. I'm pretty sure most of them know that they are killing civilians, its is just an inevitable part of an insurgency. A key goal of insurgencies is to get the occupying army to kill civilians because its the easiest way to turn the population against the occupier.

All in all your bullshit is little more than disingenuous propaganda. And don't tell me that since I'm not in the Marine Corp and in Iraq killing people that I can't talk.

Re:Arms

[JhohannaVH]

OMFG!!!!!!!!! I just got done writing the HUGEST post to this, and /. ate it! :( And now I don't have time to rewrite it all. *blah*

I'll rewrite it tomorrow though, I promise. :) It was thoughtful, and I think I echo some of your thoughts... though not all of them. :P I'm sorry about that.. I hit submit, and I got a frickin' 404,... munching my post.

Jho

Re:Arms

[theLOUDroom]

How's this for perspective? US, British, and Dutch oil companies may be evil or benign, but no one except the most evil or idiotic think that Khomeini, Hussein, and Chavez are a better alternative.

Very poor indeed, that's how it is.

It actually shows a marked lack of perspective. Do you just have no idea at all how some of the people you're mentioning rose to power?

It's a poor argument you're making in general, but it rates especially low on the perspective side of things, given that some of those people got to be where they are directly due to the influence of oil companies.

Tux with a rocket launcher!

[LiquidCoooled]

M M M M M MULTI-KILL!

I wonder if the selected distro includes tic-tac-toe ?

Re:Tux with a rocket launcher!

[cHALiTO]

It should! I believe the Global Thermonuclear War package lists tic-tac-toe among its dependencies ;)

Re:Tux with a rocket launcher!

[KiloByte]

Here.

Re:Tux with a rocket launcher!

[James_Duncan8181]

Not that I ever thought I would see this kind of comment in a *-Nazi post, but shouldn't that be

"M M M M M MONSTER-KILL!"?

Re:Tux with a rocket launcher!

[parasonic]

How about a nice game of chess?

Re:Tux with a rocket launcher!

[zerocool^]

Double Kill!
Multi Kill!
Mega Kill!
Ultra Kill!
M M M MONSTER KILL (kill kill)
Ludicrous Kill!
HOLY SHIT!!


Why, yes, I do play UT2004. A lot.

Re:Tux with a rocket launcher!

[LiquidCoooled]

OMG, your right.

Its been a few years since I last played.

I shall hand in my geek card and relinquish my propelling pencil :(

Re:Tux with a rocket launcher!

[Shivetya]

More likely it has a new form of horseshoes.

Re:Tux with a rocket launcher!

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I believe the Global Thermonuclear War package lists tic-tac-toe among its dependencies

Most people know this, but what most people don't know is that one of the other dependancies of Global Thermonuclear War was sendmail. How else would the wardial hack work?

Re:Tux with a rocket launcher!

[Tackhead]

> More likely it has a new form of horseshoes.

Close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and missile offense. Missile defense is a whole 'nother ball game.

Re:Tux with a rocket launcher!

[Mathness]

I just know that some arsehat tech will accidentially write kill -9 -1 in the missile command window instead of the consol.

Re:Tux with a rocket launcher!

[dcam]

This is exactly the same as in the original UT.

Why, yes, I used to play UT. A lot.

Re:Tux with a rocket launcher!

[Ghent96]

http://www.chadland.com/images/penguin_wmd.jpg :)

Red is the colour

[ettlz]

Red Hat Linux, then Red Flag Linux, and now RedHawk Linux. What next, Red Light Linux bundling a GPL alternative to Leisure Suit Larry?

Re:Red is the colour

[Mahler]

This calls for a Linux coming from Redmond

Re:Red is the colour

[somersault]

RedMON-DIEU Linux?

Re:Red is the colour

[binkzz]

The next release will be to run the military helicopters, BlackHawk Linux(tm).

Re:Red is the colour

[sconeu]

There used to be Redmond Linux. Now it's Lycoris.

Re:Red is the colour

[forgoil]

Gives a new meaning to "Blackhawk down" if nothing else...

Besides, I want the source code to that missile thingie or whatever they are building. I want to build a few of my own to show those ungodly Danes who's correct about everything. Can I? Please?

Re:Red is the colour

[ettlz]

Da!

Re:Red is the colour

[smithmc]

  There used to be Redmond Linux. Now it's Lycoris.

Is that red lycoris, or black lycoris?

Re:Red is the colour

[marshall_j]

MS is blue, Linux is red. *Insert commie joke here*

Re:Red is the colour

[slashdotmsiriv]

Red dragon linux from China.

Re:Red is the colour

[legirons]

Red Hat Linux, then Red Flag Linux, and now RedHawk Linux.

"RedHawk... it's like Chinese Communism, but more war-like!

Great branding effort, Lockheed Martin!

I was killed by Linux

[flowerp]

hmm, Linus Thorvalds to the rescue! No killing people with the Linux kernel, please!

Re:I was killed by Linux

[Chicane-UK]

If its a missile defence system, surely the point is to SAVE lives, not take them? ;)

Re:I was killed by Linux

[ysegalov]

They forgot to put a no-killing-please section in the GPL.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[damned_mediocrity]

I think David Cross said it best:

"They're still talking about a f*cking missile defense shield ... in this day and age. It's been f*cking twenty years. They're still talking about a missile defense shield... What in the f*ck is a missile defense shield and how does it work? Nobody has told us. They take our money--take money out of our pockets and then it's going towards this missile defense shield and nobody explains what it is.

"And you sit there and you press them: 'What is a missile defense shield? How does it work?'

" [Government Official Voice:] 'Well ... since you really want to know... (long pause) ... Quite simply ... (pause) ... a missile defense shield... is a net... made of magic ... held in place by pixies.' "

Re:I was killed by Linux

[hackstraw]

If its a missile defence system, surely the point is to SAVE lives, not take them? ;)

A system that takes away fences is more likely to HURT lives.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[gatzke]

My dad works on this stuff.

Just like patriot, they shoot stuff out of the sky.

Pretty freaking amazing.

Thad is the medium range system, patriot is the small range system. There is a ICBM system that is now deployed, I think they have two intercepters in Alaska.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[C 12]

Actually, I'm not unconvinced the point of a missile defense shield isn't to spend the Soviets into submission, by forcing them to respond. ...oh wait, the Soviets are dead...

Re:I was killed by Linux

[saider]

Kinda like the McDonnel-Douglas product survey.

How did you first learn about Linux?
    A) The internet
    B) A Book
    C) At work
    D) Was attacked by one

How was your first experience with Linux?
    A) Wonderful. No problems whatsoever.
    B) Average. Had to rebuild GLIBC for some third party applications.
    C) Bad. There was no Install Wizard to help me.
    D) Awful. Linux maimed me and destroyed my equipment.

Would you consider using Linux for your application?
    A) No, TCO is lower for other systems.
    B) Perhaps, but only after a good test run.
    C) Absolutely. Gotta get me one of those killer penguins.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[hey!]

Well, it's probably best not to let what you call these things limit your thinking about them. Looked at from the other side of the chessboard, many "defensive" systems clearly have offsensive implications. There may be offensive applications for many components (e.g. shooting down satellites). Even if a system is purely defensive in nature, one of the limiting factors in offensive action is the way it exposes you to harm.

This is why many peaceniks are against defensive systems: because they create the illusion that we can attack others with impunity. As we're finding out in Iraq now, it's not enough just to have the military strength for victory. There are bound to be consequences outside your planning framework.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[mmkkbb]

An effective ballistic missle defense system allows the owner to avoid the threat of nuclear annihilation. It woud probably be most effective against a rogue state with few nuclear weapons, or an accidental launch. This worries countries like China and Russia because it upsets the balance of power between the US and other nuclear powers. The US with a missile defense system could attack another nuclear power without the threat of mutually assured destruction.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[portforward]

I know several engineers who work on the missle defense project. They have performed several tests. Basically someone fires a ballastic missle, the radar detects it and the interceptors knock them down.They have had some sucessful tests, although some people question if the tests are realistic.

I tell you though, what these guys can do does almost seem like magic. What they do is really impressive. Kind of like tracking and shooting a bullet out of the air fired from someone elses rifle. The collision speeds are huge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Missile_Defe nse

Re:I was killed by Linux

[jc42]

...oh wait, the Soviets are dead...

Actually, the big surprise in the collapse of the Soviet Union was that the Soviets were not killed. Everyone would have understood if they had been executed, with or without show trials, considering their long and bloody record. But it doesn't seem to have happened. Some of the old CP members have even managed to get elected in their own right since then.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[jc42]

An effective ballistic missle defense system ... woud probably be most effective against a rogue state with few nuclear weapons, ...

Yeah, maybe, but it's not very effective against a bomb delivered via FedEx and triggered via cell phone.

If I were in the business of delivering bombs, that's how I'd do it. Well, ok; maybe not FedEx; I'd ask for bids on the contract. Wouldn't want to waste money on an overly-expensive delivery service. ;-)

Re:I was killed by Linux

[bmh129]

The Soviets and the rest of the communists didn't dissappear. They just changed their name to "social democrat."

Re:I was killed by Linux

[LWATCDR]

So?
1 The USSR fielded and tested satellite killers in the 70s so the ability to take out a satellite is not new.
2 The missile defence system doesn't have to use Linux but wouldn't you prefer it to use an Open Source system to a closes source system?
3 I thought GPL was all about freedom? I have heard all sorts of rants on Slashdot when people where trying to stop PGP because terrorists could use it. A new clause in the GPL you can use it only if we agree with your political aims? The no killing clause... So abortion clinics, Assised suicide advocates, and Pro-Choice groups can not use GPL software?
4 This is a system that if it works will shoot down missiles not kill people. Most of those missiles will be aimed at civilian population centers since they are currently not accurate enough to hit military targets.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[hey!]

What an assinine statement. This was well known, by EVERYONE involved, well before the war started.

Alas, this is 20/20 hindsight. Sure, people paid lip service to this. There was lot of talk of "hard work", but not an inconsiderable amount of verbiage about "low hanging fruit" as well. By in large, most people were deluded as to the extent of our post-war involvement. Present company excepted of course.

If you recall, Mr. Lindsey lost his job a White House economic advisor because he predicted the war would cost in total as much as $200 billion, which we now know to be a gross underestimate. The White House said the war would cost between $50-$60 billion. I think it's fair to say the difference between these estimates is the cost of the aftermath of the initial campaign -- the part that cannot be accomplished with military strength. You can do a 2x2x2 matrix and place yourself in it: for the war then/against the war then. For the war now/against the war now. Underestimated the cost of victory/correctly estimated the cost of victory. I'm against/against/correct. Perhaps you are a for/for/correct, but I think there's quite a few people in the for/against/underestimate box, as well as the for/for/underestimate box.

I don't think we've done a bad job in Iraq, though no doubt things could be better. Remember, it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback.

Indeed. However since I protested the war before we went in, I believe that I have a bit of a right to say "I told you so" to the people who were for it then and against it now. Those people have no right in my opinion to say they were duped. As you say, you'd have to be pretty stupid to think this was going to be easy, and right now it's going very nearly exactly as I expected it would.

Naturally, if you were for it then and are still for it, you might be able to justifiably claim that you knew this all along, that you were a for/for/correct. However, I believe you wouldn't have much company in that box. But you'd have problems establishing your bona fides. Everybody who is for/for wants to say they they knew all along, just as the for/against want to say they underestimated the costs because they were lied to.

BTW, I hope you realize that much of the criticism of postwar Iraq mirrors criticism of postwar Germany after World War II...and look how that turned out. ;-)

Ah, I see. You're suggesting that Iraq is going to end up carved into two or more states who are mortal enemies. That they'll spend decades facing each other over frozen battle lines. That the fate of the region will remain in balance only through a combination of exhaustive militarization on either side of the line with the added threat of global nuclear conflict? I'd say then that you are most prescient.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[hey!]

I believe you are missing the point.

1 The USSR fielded and tested satellite killers in the 70s so the ability to take out a satellite is not new.

Relevant to my point, but not a good counter example. It's always been possible. It's never been practical. Making the impractical practical is one definition of technological advancement. Furthermore, you ignore the strategic implications. If the Soviets attacked our satellites, it would be an act of war. They could not engage in an act of war without risking it going nuclear. However, if you had a missile defense systme you believed in that could also destroy satellites, you could believe it possible to deny the other side the ability to counterattack, either by conventional means (by hampering their communications) or by nuclear strike. You'd be foolish to believe so, but it's foolish to predicate your defense on either the competence or incompetence of your enemy.


2 The missile defence system doesn't have to use Linux but wouldn't you prefer it to use an Open Source system to a closes source system?


Irrelevant to my point. I don't think it makes any difference. The system vendor will get source on this kind of contract if it needs it, along with whatever kind of rights it thinks is necessary. Since it only has one customer to worry about, the OS vendor will be happy.


3 I thought GPL was all about freedom? I have heard all sorts of rants on Slashdot when people where trying to stop PGP because terrorists could use it. A new clause in the GPL you can use it only if we agree with your political aims? The no killing clause... So abortion clinics, Assised suicide advocates, and Pro-Choice groups can not use GPL software?


True but irrelevant.


4 This is a system that if it works will shoot down missiles not kill people. Most of those missiles will be aimed at civilian population centers since they are currently not accurate enough to hit military targets.


Now we're back on track. This is like saying that having your king well protected or not is irrelevant to your ability to capture your opponent's pieces in chess. Naturally a well defended position is easier to attack from. An apparently well defended position is a good way to lose a game through overconfidence. Furthermore in life, the game never stops, nor is it played on a single board by two sides according to strict rules.

No, I don't think such a system automatically and necessarily limits civilian casualties, even on our side, although it clearly does so in some potential scenarios. Technology is a tool, not a solution.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[zippthorne]

Well duh, of course the initial tests aren't realistic. They're initial tests. That'd be like after redstone saying, "Well the tests were interesting, but they still don't prove it's possible to put a man on the moon."

Re:I was killed by Linux

[Rakishi]

From what I remember the system will be small, enough to stop some rougue nuke from say Iran but not enough to stop most of the nukes from even China. Russia has a shit load of nukes and icbms, china has 20 that can reach us (from what I hear they were planning to add more anyway).

Re:I was killed by Linux

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Just like patriot, they shoot stuff out of the sky.

Pretty freaking amazing.

....If and when it actually works

Re:I was killed by Linux

[MarkGriz]

My dad works on this stuff.

Just like patriot, they shoot stuff out of the sky.

Pretty freaking amazing.

Well, hopefully not just like Patriot

Re:I was killed by Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Stingers are the short ranged weapons system for anti-air.

P.A.T.R.I.O.T. is medium range.

T.H.A.A.D. is long range. Out to about 800 miles or so, if I am remembering correctly.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[sickofthisshit]

No, no, no.

You ship the bomb hidden in a shipment of marijuana or cocaine. Those don't get inspected like FedEx packages do.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[jc42]

You might be right. I'll keep that in mind if I'm ever in charge of a bomb-delivery "solution".

Re:I was killed by Linux

[LWATCDR]

"irrelevant to my point, but not a good counter example. It's always been possible. It's never been practical."
They fielded the system. It was in service so it was and is practical.

I do understand that a strong defense can be used as an offensive asset. The Grumman F4F of WWII is a prime example. The Japanese Zero could out turn it, out run it, and out climb it. The F4F only strengths where it could out dive it and had better armor. The F4F had a good record against the Zero because the pilots had a much better chance of getting home.

My main grip is with the whole line of using Linux for this is wrong and needs to be stopped. I hope that THADD has roughly the same military history as the Nike system, B-36, and B-47 did.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[Dun Malg]

Well, hopefully not just like Patriot

Fortunately THAAD is built by Lockheed, whereas the Patriot is built by Raytheon. Raytheon is the classic example of a large, sloppy, wasteful defense contractor that continues to get defense contracts by purchasing its competitors, leaving it the sole source for many types of systems. My father worked for Hughes Aircraft, a Rytheon competitor, for thirty plus years and he repeatedly had to deal with astounding engineering incompetence in Raytheon-supplied subsystems (the DOD forced Hughes to "second source" many parts from Raytheon; smells like graft to me). Imagine his dismay when Raytheon bought Hughes from GM. He retired a year later after watching idiot managers from Raytheon come in and turn the well-run, competent, efficient Hughes Missile Systems Group into a clown factory. Lay-offs for the old timers making too much money, pay cuts for the mid level guys, and lower hiring salaries for new engineers have essentially turned it into a typical Raytheon division.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[gatzke]

And there are some ICBM systems that deal with thousand mile range. Not sure what the acronym is, but they exist and some are deployed in Alaska as we speak.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[hey!]

They fielded the system. It was in service so it was and is practical.

This does not logically follow. Projects are often undertaken for political rather than practical reasons, especially in totitarian states.

My main grip is with the whole line of using Linux for this is wrong and needs to be stopped. I hope that THADD has roughly the same military history as the Nike system, B-36, and B-47 did.

I don't disagree at all with this. I think theater missile defense systems are a good idea; to some degree I'm guilty of overgeneralizing to strategic systems.

Personally I think it's irrelevant what they use for software. My point is that division of weapons systems into offensive ones (which therefore are somehow bad) and defensive (and therefore somehow good) is very fuzzy thinking. Offense and defense are inextricably linked so one cannot examine one without the other.

I'm a ultra-liberal, very anti-war kind of person. I'm the kind of person who thinks that weapons systems concepts do sometimes have moral implications. However, it isn't as simple as defensive is good and offensive is bad. Every weapon system that is deployed will, if used, result in some people losing their lives and other people being saved. In Iraq the precision aerial bombardment technology did not protect innocent civilians from "collateral damage" as advertised. However it may have saved many more lives due to the shortening of the campaign. If you fight a war, which eventually one must, then by all means do it with the maximum lethality to enemy combatants.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[gatzke]

It is not perfect, but the fact that it can be done is amazing.

I would take a 50% effective defense over no defense at all.

With full deployment and multiple levels of defense you could essentially get to near 100% coverage.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[Your Pal Dave]

Yes, it's fortunate THAAD is built by Lockheed...

Re:I was killed by Linux

[iocat]

Right, you're citing wikipedia for unbiased views on a military system?

Re:I was killed by Linux

[E-Rock]

Your opposition to the war in Iraq is moot. Unless you have a time machine it doesn't matter. The question now, is do we cut and run (which we know will end in disaster) or do we finish what we started (even if you think we shouldn't have started anything).

I never did buy the whole WMD thing, I figured if there were really there we could seize an installation and bring in the inspectors, or at least tell the inspectors where to look. Still, I say we stay and finish it right. Our half-assed nature of messing things up and then leaving is what got us islamo-terrorism in the first place. (Of course deciding that totalitarian states were better than communist ones was a bad choice as well.)

Re:I was killed by Linux

[Godeke]

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+defence

Note that this is a legal spelling. Defense (American English) and defence (British English and Canadian English).

Re:I was killed by Linux

[Sylver Dragon]

Lockheed, whereas the Patriot is built by Raytheon. Raytheon is the classic example of a large, sloppy, wasteful defense contractor

Don't let them fool you LM is no better. I used to work with the guys they sent to military bases to install security/access control systems. Most of those folks are really nice guys, but when I was helping one of them troubleshoot a problem on the phone I was sorely wishing they would bring in a trained monkey on the other end of the line, at the very least it would follow directions and not argue with me about a system I knew way more about than the installer I was talking to. I'll give them credit, they knew how to get wires run throughout an installation, but putting them in front of anything more complex than a punch-down block was a sure way to get something fucked up, an even the punch-down block was questionable. And talking one of them through SQL commands on a system which was based around an MSSQL database was about as enjoyable as elective dick surgery without anesthetic.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[Chris Burke]

What an assinine statement. This was well known, by EVERYONE involved, well before the war started.

Then why didn't our worthless defense secretary actually have a plan for the post-military-ass-kicking part of the invasion?

If he knew that the post-invasion would be this difficult, but did not develop a serious plan, then he is negligent. If he didn't know, he is incompetent and less qualified than you or I to hold his post.

I don't think we've done a bad job in Iraq, though no doubt things could be better. Remember, it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback.

Monday morning? What about Saturday Afternoon?! Many of the problems we are having were predicted in advance by established members and ex-members of the military and they were ignored by the administration as being biased and politically motivated. Because of course the admin. isn't...

Saturday
      Asst. Coach: If you don't change your play book, you're going to lose.
      Coach: Everything will be fine. You're only saying that because you don't like me.
Sunday:
      [horrible loss]
Monday:
      Asst. Coach: You should have changed your play book.
      Coach: It's easy to be a Monday Morning Quarterback!

There is nothing more infuriating than hearing people say that the problems and mistakes in Iraq could not have been known in advance and it's all post-facto criticism, because it means they weren't paying attention in the first place.

BTW, I hope you realize that much of the criticism of postwar Iraq mirrors criticism of postwar Germany after World War II...and look how that turned out. ;-)

If more U.S. soldiers had died "post-war" in Germany than "during-war", this point would be meaningful in the slightest. Clearly, we are not "post-war" in Iraq.

And I hope you realize that much of the criticism of during-war Iraq mirrors criticism of during-war Algiers and Vietnam -- and look how those turned out.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[westyx]

I believe you are missing the point.

1 The USSR fielded and tested satellite killers in the 70s so the ability to take out a satellite is not new. Relevant to my point, but not a good counter example. It's always been possible. It's never been practical. Making the impractical practical is one definition of technological advancement. Furthermore, you ignore the strategic implications. If the Soviets attacked our satellites, it would be an act of war. They could not engage in an act of war without risking it going nuclear. However, if you had a missile defense systme you believed in that could also destroy satellites, you could believe it possible to deny the other side the ability to counterattack, either by conventional means (by hampering their communications) or by nuclear strike. You'd be foolish to believe so, but it's foolish to predicate your defense on either the competence or incompetence of your enemy.

Uhm, the US has had anti-satellite capability for a long long time - IIRC, they were launched from fighters, F-14s I think. Due to various treaties I think they were put in storage.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[sickofthisshit]

"Cut and run" vs. "stay the course" is a false dichotomy.

The question is whether what the U.S. is doing in Iraq is helpful to U.S. security overall compared to *all* the possible variations in policy that could be enacted now.

Like *increasing* troops, or changing their strategy/tactics, or just getting the hell out, or whatever.

Of course, dumbshits who weren't willing to answer tough questions before the war are not the most likely to consider tough questions now, so we get "muddle along, while claiming the *next* political milestone will *really* make the difference, and this is all just *great* for the Iraqi people, and, no of course no general is asking for more troops, and anyone who questions us is a liberal revisionist terrorist-appeasing wimp...."

Re:I was killed by Linux

[hey!]

Your opposition to the war in Iraq is moot.

Alas, too true. However, it is not moot with respect to those who supported the war, continue to support the war, but do so by shifting the goalposts. I think it's important to keep an eye on how the goalposts are moved so we can project our future commitments.

Unless you have a time machine it doesn't matter. The question now, is do we cut and run (which we know will end in disaster) or do we finish what we started (even if you think we shouldn't have started anything).

Well, I think it would be good start to divest ourselves of the kind of baggage that political slogans like "cut and run" have. It leads to emotional decision making where rationality is called for.

Reason says that sometimes you can't finish what you started. Sometimes you do have to surrender, because that's the best thing for your country. But even if you don't have to surrender, even if you fully expect to prevail in most of your objectives, it is sometimes necessary to accept tactical retreat and repositioning, particularly when you have placed yourself in a position where the enemy has advantage. This is essentially what Rep. Murtha has proposed: a tactical retreat and repositioning of our forces in such a way they are less exposed and able to respond to the enemy actions with greater agility. For that he's been called a cut-and-runner.

Still, I say we stay and finish it right. Our half-assed nature of messing things up and then leaving is what got us islamo-terrorism in the first place

Agreed. I think we have a moral duty to Iraqis to set things as right as we can possibly make them. But we must be realistic. Opportunities have been missed along the way, repeatedly. You can't keep doing that and not have your options narrow or your costs inflate. When we pull out, there will be civil war in Iraq without a doubt. I think it is tactically possible to avert this, but it won't happen. If the level of sacrifice needed to avert the mess we are in was too high, who knows what it would take now to fix things? Certainly more than we as a country will ever be willing to do in my opinion.

Best to reduce our exposure, and stop trying to pretend the inevitable won't happen. Then do our best to help them pick up the pieces.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[hey!]

Uhm, the US has had anti-satellite capability for a long long time - IIRC, they were launched from fighters, F-14s I think. Due to various treaties I think they were put in storage.

Which is why signatories to those treaties are suspicious about potential dual use technologies.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[Wyatt Earp]

It was the ASAT system launched from F-15s, the Air-Launched Miniature Vehicle (ALMV)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/almv.h tm

The Russians had one too
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/russia/m ini.htm

Theres been a host of other systems that bordered on or had ASAT capabilites over the years.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[flyingsquid]

I don't think we've done a bad job in Iraq

Then you're a drooling, lobotomized idiot.

It is basically impossible to travel anywhere inside the country without body armor and a squad of mercenaries. I mean, look at the threats you have to deal with. Kidnappings by organized crime. Assassinations of intellectuals and government officials. Sunni insurgents. Islamic suicide bombers and mortar attacks. Shiite militias. Guys in Iraqi military uniform, who may be Iraqi military, Shiite militia, or both, hauling people off who later show up dead, with holes in the skull from bullets and power drills. Jumpy marines with M-16s.

That's just the personal safety side of the issue. You've got intermittent power and water, the Sunnis didn't participate in the first round of elections so they are largely left out, the Kurds may split off and form their own state, a bunch of Shiites are trying to set up an Iranian-style theocracy in the South, and corruption in the government. We've gotten rid of Saddam with his torture rooms and death squads, and now we've got a new government with torture rooms and death squads.

If this is success, God help us if we encounter failure. This war may still be winnable. But right now, most signs suggest that we're losing it.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[hackstraw]

Note that this is a legal spelling. Defense (American English) and defence (British English and Canadian English).

My bad. I thought it was a simple typo and I was trying to be funny, but got an Insightful moderation instead. Should probably be flamebate or offtopic.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[MarkGriz]

It is not perfect, but the fact that it can be done is amazing.
I would take a 50% effective defense over no defense at all.
With full deployment and multiple levels of defense you could essentially get to near 100% coverage.

Actually, the Patriot exhibits an increasing failure rate the longer it remains powered on, due to a clock drift problem.
And since Patriot batteries are not set up to protect overlapping areas (you wouldn't want 2 Patriot missles shooting down
the same incoming missile), you essentially would end up with near 0% coverage as time goes on.

There's a pretty thorough analysis of the problem here

Re:I was killed by Linux

[gatzke]

I was talking more about ICBM coverage. Patriot and Thaad are pretty small scale protection, local battlefield area.

ICBM may end up being multi tiered, with orbiting lasers/brilliant pebbles in space, multiple rounds of ground launched ICBM intercept possibly with multiple methods (nuke vs kinetic) plus some air based laser systems as last resort.

Right now, I think only kinetic ground based is online, but the other star wars programs have languished in various stages of development.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[hisstory student]

What a damn shame! and it's an all too common occurance. Our enemies are killing us one company at a time it seems. Pres. Eisenhower warned us, but it's more like he was preaching to the choir, huh.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[kbielefe]

Actually, the main criticism about postwar Iraq is its absence, since fighting is still going on.

What worries me is that the current attitude toward Iraq is a lot more like post-WWI attitudes about Germany than post-WWII. Today, people are war weary and want to avoid as much further interference in the middle east as possible. This is the same attitude that led to the highly popular, but ultimately costly and ineffective, appeasement policies toward Hitler.

Saddam Hussein is not the Hitler of our generation, although he might have been. Our Hitler will be some terrorist or dictator in the near future that will build up weapons of mass destruction unhindered because we don't want another Iraq war.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[sickofthisshit]

But what about the FREEDOM? Don't they have FREEDOM?

Oops, forgot the SARCASM tag.

It is funny that GWB likes to pretend that the Iraqis are just having a rough time comparable to the struggles of the founding fathers in developing the Constitution. Never mind that Alexander Hamilton didn't need an armed escort to travel around New York or Philadelphia at the time. And that the nation was free of foreign occupation by that time.

If one needed an Army convoy to get to Dulles airport, and dozens were dying everyday in D.C. from car bombs, we'd be worried about other stuff than our constitutional liberties, wonderful as those are. And if some other country had caused that problem, we'd be pissed off as hell.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[Da_Biz]

My main grip is with the whole line of using Linux for this is wrong and needs to be stopped.

People periodically say things that are idiotic, or do not converge with my personal views. That is a consequence of the notion of 'free speech.'

Free software is similarly unfettered, and should be viewed solely as a means to an end. If we do not like that end, the matter should be taken up within the context of ethics, not software dissemination philosophies.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[2short]

It would be amazing if it could be done, and I too would at least consider paying for a 50% effective missile defense. But it isn't 50% effective. It's 0% effective. We went ahead and built the part in Alaska at great expense without ever having a successful full scale test. What few tests there have been have been rigged to various degrees, and it has failed most of them anyway. The biggest real world success was shooting down a target missile that was carrying a radio beacon, broadcasting it's position.
I mean no disrespect to the engineers involved; they've done very impressive work. But the task does not appear to be achievable. Unless you consider that the task is to funnel money to specific campaign-contributing contractors & key congression districts. At that task missle defense has been a huge success. Meanwhile, ICBM seems like about the least likely way anyone would try to deliver a bomb to America.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[LWATCDR]

It was the F-15 and it was called ASAT. It was never put into service but just tested. The US also had some very effect anti-satillite system based on the Nike Zeus/Spartan missile and the Thor. Those did actually go into "limited" service. They had some issues with the kill system so it would be unlikely they would have ever been used in anything but an all out war.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[sickofthisshit]

Getting your town gassed by Saddam for political reasons is a totally different threat than "can't drive to the Baghdad airport without a convoy, or without being attacked by a U.S. convoy because I get mistaken for a car bomber." Guess which one pisses off a Baghdad resident more?

Plus, give them time. Once somebody solidifies power enough to eliminate general guerilla conflict, I'm sure they'll bring back the torture chambers and ethnic politics in full force.

And, don't forget to count the civilians killed during the U.S. invasion and occupation. They're just as dead as if Saddam killed them, and just as randomly and unfairly.

Step back for a minute and think what you are claiming. "At least we are not as bad as Saddam was in some dimension." Is "not as bad as Saddam" really how low the bar has been set now?

As for a different plan, perhaps a force more like the 300k troops to maintain order that Shinseki had discussed before he got shitcanned, without the pie-in-the-sky assumption that we'd be greeted with flowers, would have been a good start.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[sickofthisshit]

I don't see "victory" yet. As in "achieve the stated goals." Yes we cleaned up against Saddam's regular forces. Luckily, there weren't any WMD to be used on our troops. Now we're pinned down in urban warfare that is chewing our Army up slowly but surely.

"Not as bad as Vietnam in body count" is not equivalent to "victory."

As for democracy, what's the most stable democratic country in the Middle East, excluding Israel? Why, it's IRAN! Oh, boy. Good thing Iran is not a security threat. Someday, Iraq may be a Middle Eastern democracy, too! Now who's view is distorted?

Re:I was killed by Linux

[E-Rock]

I don't have the time now to make such a thoughful and respectful reply as you did (although I'll leave the respect in).

I see the desire to quit in Iraq to be the typical response of the lazy American public. "It's hard, let's quit." Hopefully I'm wrong.

I don't see our situation as weak and in need of repositioning. Military targets are hard to get to, and the obstrucionist murderers are now mainly killing Iraqis. I don't see how US force repositioning can help them.

I also don't see a civil war as inevitable, that orientation is what really shapes our views. I just think that it'll take the comitminet of US forces for up to 10 years to really stabilize the country.

This wasn't what most people expected. I don't think that anyone who really looked at the issue really saw this as a 1-3 year mission. The American public should be pissed at ALL of Congress over this horrible mistake.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[E-Rock]

Sadam had fake elections too, that didn't make Iraq a Democracy. When you have an un-elected board that trims and picks those who are allowed to run (including the omission of many incumbants) it's a sham, not Democracy.

You have to go North to Turkey to find the closest Democracy in the region.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[Glock27]

In Iraq the precision aerial bombardment technology did not protect innocent civilians from "collateral damage" as advertised.

LOL! You are totally clueless.

Do you have any idea how many civilians would have died in Baghdad alone if precision guided weapons *hadn't* been used?!? It would probably have been 100x more.

Precision munitions saved many, many civilian lives. That isn't the same thing as saying "No civilians were killed".

Re:I was killed by Linux

[sickofthisshit]

I put Turkey in the Near East; basically, Europe. But, I'll admit it is more democratic than Iran. Lebanon is a more ambiguous case.

Still, Iran is not a single-party sham like Baathist Iraq. Yes, it is seriously flawed, especially by Western standards, but their recently-elected president (and his predecessor) were elected in basically freely contested elections. You think Ahmadinejad was not democratically elected? Yet certainly he is not pursuing policies that are favorable to the U.S.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[R3d M3rcury]

"I hope you realize that much of the criticism of postwar Iraq mirrors criticism of postwar Germany after World War II...and look how that turned out."

You know, I'm really sick of the World War II comparison. I'm not a historian and even I know it's bullshit.

First, in the Japan case, we kept the Emperor around. The Emperor of Japan, at the time, was the absolute power to the Japanese. If the emperor said, "Cooperate with the Americans", the people cooperated. If the emperor said, "We're now a democracy. Go vote," people went and voted. If the emperor said "Hop on one foot for the day," people hopped on one foot. You did what the emperor said.

Second, in the Germany case, you had a country that already had a democratic history. The people of Germany essentially elected Hitler as dictator. When the War was over, they had experience and trust in a democratic system. The people of Iraq have no such history. Also, the rebuilding of Germany was sort of the first steps of the Cold War--we had to show the people of the world that America, Freedom, Mom, Apple Pie, etc. were better than those godless commies. Again, the idea was to win the hearts of minds of the people of Germany. There was no such plan in place in Iraq.

Then there's the whole "rebuilding" thing. Who do you think rebuilt Germany? The answer, of course, is Germans via money provided by the US's Marshall Plan. In the end, you had German companies who owned their own assets. Who is rebuilding Iraq? Halliburton. And what do you have in the end? US Ownership of Iraq's assets.

"If Iraq doesn't have a democratic form of government in five years, THEN we'll talk about failed US policy..."

Ah, yes. A "democratic form of government."

Remember, Iraq had a democratic form of government before this. They had elections. Hussein won them--usually by large margins.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[Dun Malg]

The THAAD Radar is built by Raytheon, but the whole THAAD program is done by LM. BTW, I am a Raytheon software engineer on the Radar... Look for some press releases on the Radar itself, it is one fine piece of work, if I do say so.

You mean built by the Raytheon radar division in El Segundo, CA? The one that used to be Hughes Radar Systems Group? I will concede that Raytheon has a better track record with radar.

And I would have to through your trash comments out the window.

Trash comments? I'm relating the experiences of a former employee! Since you obviously don't work for what used to be the Hughes Missile Systems Group, I don't see how you can judge it to be trash. I heard stories about Raytheon consistently for twenty years. How long have you worked for Raytheon? How much exposure to the company beyond your small part have you had?

BTW it's "throw", not "through".

Re:I was killed by Linux

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Honestly, and this is in no way a troll, there are so many acronyms in your post that I'm not quite sure whether you're serious or just poking fun.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[Hognoxious]

Plus, give them time. Once somebody solidifies power enough to eliminate general guerilla conflict, I'm sure they'll bring back the torture chambers and ethnic politics in full force.

Isn't in a bit racist to assume that non-whites will automatically form a repressive an undemocratic form of government?

Re:I was killed by Linux

[sickofthisshit]

Who said it was because they weren't white?

Isn't it a bit naive to believe that America can invade and dismantle a country, and democracy will just sprout up like a weed out of the rubble, although the country had never any experience with democracy or democratic institutions, and has been scarred by *decades* of brutal dictatorship along ethnic lines, and we have insufficient soldiers to maintain basic order?

Don't come back at me with "Hitler's Germany." Germany had multiple advantages that Iraq does not have

1) at least a history of the Weimar republic, dysfunctional as it was. Hitler had only been in power for 12 years.
2) a central part in the culture of the Enlightenment, great universities, and a tradition of first class technical and industrial development
3) "occupiers" who were culturally and religiously compatible with German norms
4) had become a country on its own, not from external forces, without a past of colonial subjugation.
5) No guerilla aftermath; occupation which was overwhelming in its presence, yet, in the Western sector, generous with reconstruction efforts.
6) A commitment from the U.S. and allies sufficient to maintain forces there for 50 years.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[hey!]

LOL! You are totally clueless.

LOL! You shoot from the hip too much. ;-)

Do you have any idea how many civilians would have died in Baghdad alone if precision guided weapons *hadn't* been used?!? It would probably have been 100x more.

Naturally. But while they are a great improvement, they still didn't work as well as advertised. Remember there were adminsitration officials talking about a "humane" war. And in relative terms the aerial phase of the Iraqi campaign may have been the most humane campaign ever conducted. But strict honesty, the kind that is employed in the field of science for example as opposed to politics, would admit that even a highly precise aerial bombardment campaign is not humane or harmless.

Precision munitions saved many, many civilian lives. That isn't the same thing as saying "No civilians were killed".

Indeed. Because you and I are having an honest discussion of this, we can both agree that this is so. I think we can both agree that since the Iraqis had deliberately situated military installations in close proximity to civilians, it's a very good thing we used precision munitions. I think we can both agree that it probably saved an enormous number of lives. I think we might disagree on whether it's a good idea then to make a great point of how are campaign was "humane". I also think it is extremely harmful to exaggerate the real world performance of systems, excellent thought it may be, because it depends so much on the higly fallible intelligence and target selection process. At the very least this convinces people that the inevitable civilian casualties are deliberate -- as in the Chinese embassy incident.

My basic point, which you did not address, is that even if one hundred times the civilians had been killed, it's important to remember that civilians will be killed in every phase of the war. Therefore it's very important to win quickly, because unending war means unending civilian casualties.

What I've been arguing against is the view that weapons system "A" is an unmitigated good because it is purely defensive. Or that weapons system "B" that blows people to bits or burns them horribly to death is inherently more evil because it makes us feel bad. Because if A is used to get into a war or to prolong a war, it will result in people being blown up or burned. If B is used to shorten a war, it will save people net. What I detest about this notion is that it stems from the wishful thinking that we can fight an absolutely humane and just war, and that giving into that romantic notion means that we won't get it over as quickly as possible.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[Glock27]

You know, I'm really sick of the World War II comparison. I'm not a historian and even I know it's bullshit.

Well, that's an impressive argument. :-P

First, in the Japan case, we kept the Emperor around. The Emperor of Japan, at the time, was the absolute power to the Japanese. If the emperor said, "Cooperate with the Americans", the people cooperated. If the emperor said, "We're now a democracy. Go vote," people went and voted. If the emperor said "Hop on one foot for the day," people hopped on one foot. You did what the emperor said.

Yes, I'd agree that Japan is not a good analogy...and it's also one I didn't use. Next strawman please.

Second, in the Germany case, you had a country that already had a democratic history. The people of Germany essentially elected Hitler as dictator. When the War was over, they had experience and trust in a democratic system.

Horsepucky. The German people had a terrible time under their "democratic" government. That's WHY they brought Hitler to power.

The people of Iraq have no such history.

Below you point out that Hussein was elected... Which is it?

Also, the rebuilding of Germany was sort of the first steps of the Cold War--we had to show the people of the world that America, Freedom, Mom, Apple Pie, etc. were better than those godless commies. Again, the idea was to win the hearts of minds of the people of Germany. There was no such plan in place in Iraq.

Also nonsense. We have a very large rebuilding plan in Iraq, designed to do EXACTLY what you suggest. It hasn't gone as well as hoped, mainly due to security issues.

However, the factor that you're conveniently ignoring that makes Iraq a much *easier* proposition than Germany in the long run, is the proliferation of Western culture and technology through the media. From what I hear the typical Iraqi teenager in Baghdad today is sporting a rapper T-shirt and talking on a cell phone. Satellite TV dishes are everywhere. McDonalds franchises can't be far behind. ;-)

Every government in the area is terrified of the effect of Western media on its citizens - and Iraq is now thoroughly immersed in it.

Things are actually looking quite good, depending on how things go through December 15. I'm highly optimistic.

Then there's the whole "rebuilding" thing. Who do you think rebuilt Germany? The answer, of course, is Germans via money provided by the US's Marshall Plan. In the end, you had German companies who owned their own assets. Who is rebuilding Iraq? Halliburton. And what do you have in the end? US Ownership of Iraq's assets.

Horsecrap again. The US can't afford to come out of this looking "imperialistic", so sadly enough we're absorbing the cost ourselves (well some is being borne by our allies, but not much). US companies won't end up owning much in Iraq, though there well may be some "sweetheart deals". I don't see a problem with that - better us than Germany, France or China.

The other thing you're missing is that Germany was quite poor at the end of WWII, while Iraq has vast petroleum wealth. Iraq won't need nearly as much help to succeed, it just needs a working government, industrious citizens, and a modicum of security.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[R3d M3rcury]

"Horsepucky. The German people had a terrible time under their 'democratic' government. That's WHY they brought Hitler to power."

The German people had a terrible time under their democratic government mostly due to rampant inflation brought on by repaying their war debts. They brought Hitler to power basically because they were sick of it.

"Below you point out that Hussein was elected... Which is it?"

Sorry. I was being a tad facetious. Iraq "elections" were not private and if you didn't vote for Hussein there was a good chance that you would have trouble later on. So pretty much everyone voted for Hussein so that they didn't have to worry about being shot.

"We have a very large rebuilding plan in Iraq, designed to do EXACTLY what you suggest. It hasn't gone as well as hoped, mainly due to security issues. [...] The US can't afford to come out of this looking 'imperialistic', so sadly enough we're absorbing the cost ourselves (well some is being borne by our allies, but not much). US companies won't end up owning much in Iraq, though there well may be some "sweetheart deals". I don't see a problem with that - better us than Germany, France or China."

Here's where we disagree.

Consider the Marshall Plan, again. We essentially gave money to German companies to rebuild. Take an example like BMW. With America's help, BMW became a leading auto manufacturer in the world and improved Germany's economy.

If we did what we're doing in Iraq with Germany, we would have payed GM to build an auto-plant in Germany and ask them to hire German workers. Sure, Germans would have gotten a salary out of it, but it wouldn't have made Germany into an economic powerhouse. The money that was made selling GM cars would have left the country.

The entertaining part of your quote are phrases like "Sadly enough." Your theory is that because the US liberated Iraq, Iraqis should allow us to set up their government so that it's beneficial to the US and US corporations? It's good for the US to be imperialistic, as long as we don't look too imperialistic?

Gee, and I'm sure you can't understand why the rebuilding hasn't gone "as well as hoped."

Re:I was killed by Linux

[Hognoxious]

Nobody said "because", imbecile. But, fucktard, it's a fact that the population of Iraq are not what would be considered (by anyone who wasn't a cretin like you) as white. Numbnuts.

Re:I was killed by Linux

[sickofthisshit]

Let's recap:

I feel Iraqis are unlikely to succeed in developing a stable multi-ethnic democracy with effective protection for civil rights anytime soon.

I know Iraqis are not ethnically what most people would consider white. I also think this has absolutely nothing to do with the first statement, or my reasons for believing it to be true.

Hope you don't totally miss the point of this post.

w00t!

[Penguin Follower]

I hadn't heard of RedHawk Linux until this news blurb, so at first I thought I had read it as "RedHat" and just about choked on my coffee!

Re:w00t!

[Anonymous Coward]

RedHawk Linux is used in some high-end applications. It is provided by Concurrent, a company which also offers several different hardware solutions that work with the Linux offering.

Re:w00t!

[wde]

Our group has one of the Concurrent "iHawk" systems on order. They're pretty sweet. Essentially, RedHawk is a Concurrent-licensed version of Montevista's HardHat Linux modified to have its scheduler driven by a Concurrent-custom hardware interrupt card (the "RCIM"). You program your interrupt frequency, tie your task to be driven by the card, and determinism goes through the roof. The computer itself is COTS server-grade stuff. Presently Concurrent is using Dells I believe.

Re:w00t!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You program your interrupt frequency, tie your task to be driven by the card, and determinism goes through the roof.

What if your program needs to do I/O? He has to hit the kernel for that, won't that just blow any sort of guarantees for a timeline? Aren't there a bunch of locks that may or may not be locked already through any system call that will do I/O?

Re:w00t!

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

I hadn't heard of RedHawk either, but I just figured they selected it 'cos it had a better "military" name.... I mean, lets face it, Breezy Badger was never going to be used.
or Horay Hedgehog.
Yellow Dog - nope.
Debian - Ian and Debbie's OS? Not quite up there on the old threat level really!

Doom 3

[Reducer2001]

Linux was able to ensure the high frame rates

It looks like the military gets better frame rates running Doom 3 under Linux also. :)

Re:Doom 3

[GPSguy]

Well... I know a guy, in the US Army, working toward his PhD, using Unreal Tournament to help model crowd dynamics for his dissertation. The end-of-the-day test and eval sessions were a hoot!

Someone give these guys a Nobel Peace prize !

[Thomas Miconi]

Now managing, configuring and upgrading missile system will be so complicated and time-consuming that missile-based wars will become essentially impossible ! Three cheers for Lockheed-Martin and Linus !

Re:Someone give these guys a Nobel Peace prize !

[Concerned Onlooker]

Are you kidding? Missile defense will be incredibly easy. After all, the headline says we will have Linux for Missile Defense, so:

cd /NorthAmericanAirSpace
rm *.missile

Easy, no?

Free (not as in free beer) War

[lisboa]

I don't like the idea of seeing free software (thus free knowledge) being used in war. Anyone with me?

Re:Free (not as in free beer) War

[LiquidCoooled]

Unfortunately you cannot have free software if you place arbitary restrictions upon who can use it or what it can be used for.
Its an embedded Operating system for use in a monitor and control system - not unlike the automatic cars we just cheered on around the desert or the bots on mars, just because it may have several tonnes of high explosives taped to its back doesn't make it any different.

Re:Free (not as in free beer) War

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldn't be "free knowledge" then, would it? In restricting the GPL/BSD whatever for certain uses, the basic fundamental freedoms in the spirit of those licences would disappear. Don't like it? Publish your work under a different licence!!!

Re:Free (not as in free beer) War

[advocate_one]

tough titty... this is "freedom 0" in action here... the fundamental freedom to use the software for any purpose, including missile warheads and baby-mulching machines

Re:Free (not as in free beer) War

[pato101]

I understand your point; but, hmm, do you actually prefer corporation sotware instead?

Re:Free (not as in free beer) War

[SatanicPuppy]

Nope. Actually, I'm the opposite. OSS allows serious code audits and customization that is very useful for the military, and I don't know why they would use anything else.

While I think the current war is a huge fiasco, I'm a big proponent of a strong military. The rule of thumb will always be: if you don't have it, someone else will.

Re:Free (not as in free beer) War

[OwlWhacker]

Some people don't like metal being used in bullets.

Re:Free (not as in free beer) War

[truedfx]

Unfortunately you cannot have free software if you place arbitary restrictions upon who can use it or what it can be used for.

Unfortunately? I'm certainly glad I'm not told to only use Linux in approved manners. I doubt I'd even run it otherwise.

Re:Free (not as in free beer) War

[TapeCutter]

Throwing rocks is "free knowlage", war is simply sophisticated rock throwing, Linux is just another rock that happened to be handy. The problems is not the abudance of rocks, it's the frequency and velocity of the throw compounded by the random process of target selection.

Re:Free (not as in free beer) War

[LiquidCoooled]

Yes unfortunately.

I may not like what people have to say and I can be openly critical to their subject matter, but I will defend your right to say whatever they have to.

Just because people are free to speak does not mean I or anyone else has to listen.

disclaimer: I am not American, I technically do not have freedom of speech.

Re:Free (not as in free beer) War

[CowboyBob500]

I'm with you, and if I held any copyright/licensing power over anything in RedHawk Linux, I'd be withdrawing Lockheed's license to use it in the same way that Fyodor revoked SCO's license for NMap.

Bob

Re:Free (not as in free beer) War

[truedfx]

Assuming that you treat speech and "free-as-in-speech software" the same, I don't see it. If you support others' rights to say what you disagree with, that makes it fortunate, not unfortunate, that they're allowed to speak. All it makes unfortunate is that they actually do speak.

Re:Free (not as in free beer) War

[hey!]

I don't like the idea of seeing free software (thus free knowledge) being used in war. Anyone with me?

Only to the degree that I don't like the idea of any technology being used in war, or any people being harmed as a result of war.

However, as of today there is no practical solution to the generalized problem of war that does not include actually fighting one somewhere in the decision tree. Within that hopefully narrow scope of contingencies, it behooves us to fight the war effectively and finish it quickly. In the run up to Iraq, my hawkish friends thought that somehow our precision military technology would allow us to prosecute a new kind of "humane" war. I thought this was an infantile militarist fantasy, in which we could throw our military might around but still be "good guys". While I agree it's a good thing that our technology reduces "collateral damage" (innocent people harmed), I think it's much more important that this technology allows us to get it over with quickly.

War is in my view always a calamity. A longer war is necessarily a greater calamity.

Re:Free (not as in free beer) War

[LiquidCoooled]

I happen to agree with the original poster in his war use stance however there is nothing which can be done without losing the very important freedom.

It is unfortunate that questions such as these should even come up. As a modern global society, the world would be a better place without hatred and war.

Re:Free (not as in free beer) War

[radja]

I call bullshit. you're not allowed to kill someone with a hammer, but that doesn't make you less free. in fact, it makes you MORE free because it disallows others to kill you with a hammer.

Re:Free (not as in free beer) War

[truedfx]

Okay, so by how I'm reading your posts, now you've said that freedom is very important (in that message), and that it's unfortunate we have it (in your message before that). That makes no sense, so could you please explain yourself, preferably more directly? That way, if I'm misunderstanding you, I don't again.

Re:Free (not as in free beer) War

[LiquidCoooled]

No, you have made a mistake.

There is no particular law which says "You cannot kill somebody with a hammer".

The weapon of choice could be anything from a hammer to a feather to a piano, the act of killing with intent is the illegal part.

If the law specified each illegal weapon we would be up shit street.

Re:Free (not as in free beer) War

[LiquidCoooled]

I never meant it was unfortunate we had freedoms.
I meant it was unfortunate that his POV couldn't be applied.

I was trying to be diplomatic to him since he didn't seem to understand that free software meant free usage - for good or bad.

I do not believe I have backtracked upon what I said - that freedoms are important and if the freedom to say something is there, then I also have the freedom to complain - but I would not stop anybody from speaking, nor do I have to listen to what they say.
You have (by my own ramblings most likely) simply misinterpreted my meaning, for that I apologise.

Re:Free (not as in free beer) War

[truedfx]

Ah, okay, just a bunch of misunderstandings :) All I meant (and hopefully said) originally was that having that freedom is fortunate. Thanks for clearing things up.

Re:Free (not as in free beer) War

[CowboyBob500]

I don't license my stuff with the GPL. I use the Apache license, and there's nothing preventing Apache licensed stuff ending up in a Linux distribution.

Bob

Re:Free (not as in free beer) War

[Digital Vomit]

I agree. We should only allow for-profit software (thus enabling war profiteering) for use in war. It's the American Way(tm), after all.

Re:Free (not as in free beer) War

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Congress will pass such a law.

Forget that, they only pass laws making already illegal things illegal with a given technology when it involves the Internet and/or "intellectual property".

To all the naysayers...

[porkThreeWays]

There was this story on slashdot a couple of months ago and was detracted by many as opterons being out of place in the real time market. I guess we see it does have use =P

Re:To all the naysayers...

[lbrandy]

There was this story on slashdot a couple of months ago and was detracted by many as opterons being out of place in the real time market. I guess we see it does have use =P

This is not "real-time" application. This is hardware-in-the-loop simiulation. Moreover, not only is Linux inappropriate for real-time primary defense system.. it is generally strictly prohibited (almost uniformly) by military specification because it is not a true real time operating system. Back at the old job, VxWorks variants were most common.

Re:To all the naysayers...

[Glock27]

This is not "real-time" application. This is hardware-in-the-loop simiulation.

HIL simulations are hard realtime applications. Do you even know what the definition of "hard realtime" is? In a nutshell it's "If a task fails to run at it's scheduled time, it's a fatal error.". Soft realtime means it's not a 'fatal' error if the task schedule isn't met (i.e. a dropped frame in a game).

Moreover, not only is Linux inappropriate for real-time primary defense system..

Baloney.

it is generally strictly prohibited (almost uniformly) by military specification because it is not a true real time operating system. Back at the old job, VxWorks [xs4all.nl] variants were most common.

Also not true. Linux (with an appropriately modified kernel) is in fact a "true" realtime OS. Here's a list of military projects using Lynuxworks (only one flavor out of several).

This page has a good description of the Lynuxworks product, along with some RT certification information.

WindRiver is also offering Linux, though I see their version isn't RT capable. Guess they still haven't figured out that vxWorks is on the way out...

(BTW, I'm a certified vxWorks developer myself...)

new su rules

[know1]

ok you have probably been given normal speech by your administrator

1 Respect the privacy of others
2 With great power comes great responsability
3 Don't push the big red button!

lets just hope they don't set passwd as p455w0rd

Re:new su rules

[lutchann]

lets just hope they don't set passwd as p455w0rd

Hmm, that wouldn't be anything like setting the Minuteman launch codes to 00000000, would it?

Re:new su rules

[flood6]

Hmm, that wouldn't be anything like setting the Minuteman launch codes to 00000000 [cdi.org], would it?

Those rednecks in lawnchairs have launch codes?

RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux will be used to *test* the system not run it.

"Lockheed Martin will use RedHawk real-time Linux in hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) simulation testing of strategic missile defense subsystems. HIL simulation is a critical product development process that provides for thorough testing of components in a virtual environment in which other subsystems are replaced by mathematical models."

Re:RTFA

[know1]

"Linux will be used to *test* the system not run it."
oh yeah, as soon as they get down to the real work it'll be straight onto windows server 2003

Re:RTFA

[hache_the_boss]

The whole program is about a test for their product... so if Linux is selected for the test, it means is the preferred system for it.

Besides, wouldn't be the best idea to test a weapon on Linux, and then run the production on Windows/Solaris/HPUX/etc? wouldn't it?

Cheers!

Re:RTFA

[FuzzyDustBall]

Being that I have to work with LM every day, I would like to tell you how they make any choice. 1. Find the most logical aproach quicly throw this one out its to logical others may be able to come and steel it. 2. Find the cheapest aproach throw this out we cant make money on cheap. 3. Find the most difficult and awkward way of designing the product so that it will take 20 times the budget and time to make work then require a 5 thousand man staff of LM employees to operate and maintain because of its complexity.

Other factors

[vmxeo]

"Lockheed Martin selected RedHawk for the THAAD program due to the precision and guaranteed response time of Concurrent's RedHawk Linux real-time operating system.

That, and the fact that the Windows-based missle kept blowing up mid-flight...

Re:Other factors

[grokster]

That, and the fact that the Windows-based missle kept blowing up mid-flight...

The famous Blue Sky of Death!

Re:Other factors

[penguinoid]

That, and the fact that the Windows-based missle kept blowing up mid-flight...

I thought interceptor missiles were supposed to crash?

First Target

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Linux can now really start targeting Redmond...

Unlimited Budget and picks Linux...Wow!

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

The Defense Department has a more or less unlimited budget (they could have specified any OS they wanted) and they still chose Linux over the competition. Now THAT'S cool.

Re:Unlimited Budget and picks Linux...Wow!

[somersault]

Almost sounds like you're saying there was any other choice? :p

Re:Unlimited Budget and picks Linux...Wow!

[Kadin2048]

Actually, this isn't the DoD, it's Lockheed Martin, a private company which does business as a government contractor. Although I claim no knowledge of their finances, I'm willing to bet however that their budget is definitely not "unlimited," although it might be large compared to what you and I are used to. Especially if they are on a fixed-price contract, where their total revenue has been specified in advance, the employees are probably under a lot of pressure to keep costs down since every dollar they spend eats into their profit.

I think in this case though there wasn't much competition, at least of the Linux/Windows variety, since Windows doesn't really do real-time applications very well apparently. I'm not actually sure what the other options would have been besides Linux for a project like this: I can only assume that there are some highly proprietary, niche-market OSes for this sort of thing, but that in general the COTS field is pretty limited.

Re:Unlimited Budget and picks Linux...Wow!

[EraserMouseMan]

So what would the competition be? Some sort of WindRiver product? Or another flavor of real-time Unix. I don't believe Mac or Windows sells a real-time OS.

Go, Tux, go in your little toboggan!

[AEton]

Only you can stop the incoming missiles, Tux Racer!

Re:Go, Tux, go in your little toboggan!

[typicallyterrific]

Why tux racer? Let's play thermonuclear war!

Re:Feel any good for building weapons?

[Decaff]

All the people who contributed to the Linux project can now assume that they have taken part in building weapons that kill real people.

No they shouldn't, as what is the alternative? To design an OS that can't handle high-performance real-time systems? The same sort of systems are used in situations which protect life, such as commercial aircraft.

The GPL is for

Re:Feel any good for building weapons?

[ettlz]

Don't be stupid. The GPL states that Linux may be used for any purpose the user sees fit. That can be good or bad. Things to note:

1. People do bad things using Linux on a daily basis including cracking, handling violent or child pornography, sending spam, and writing unpleasant messages to people.
2. War happens so get over it. Kernels don't make war, human nature and the tendency of agressors to wind up in positions of power do. If Linux provides better accuracy that allows us to moderate destruction and keep it to strategic targets, then that is a good thing.

You really cannot be serious "all the people who ... have taken part in building weapons that kill". They didn't build weapons, they built general purpose software. They can have completely clear consciences about this. Don't let one application of this software politicise Linux or the Free Software movement in this way.

TROLL ALERT

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent post is a troll. The realtime kernel Lockheed Martin is using WAS designed as a true realtime OS in the likes of QNX. It is different than the vanilla Linux kernel you're running on your desktop and has advanced QoS and realtime features that they required.

Hitch your wagon to a star

[paranerd]

I love to hear good news concerning linux but...

Concurrent is not a star I would want to hitch my wagon to.

Remember they are the wonderful company that screwed up Hubble.

One day

[squoozer]

I realize it's a bit of a liberal type thing to say (therefore by current thinking I must be a terrorist) but I hope one day we grow up as a race and stop trying to kill one another.

If nothing else it is just such a stupid, pointless, waste of resources.

Re:One day

[YrWrstNtmr]

One day we will. Unfortunately, not anytime soon.

Re:One day

[finkployd]

It is certainly not popular to point out, but war is generally what advances civilization in terms of discovery, invention, etc. Historically at least, killing others and keeping yourself from being killed has been the primary motivating factor in becoming better, smarter, and stronger.

Not that I am advocating war, and certainly not the current farce.

Finkployd

Re:One day

[Vo0k]

unless we nuke or otherwise genocide ourselves first, that is.

Re:One day

[Firethorn]

I realize it's a bit of a liberal type thing to say (therefore by current thinking I must be a terrorist) but I hope one day we grow up as a race and stop trying to kill one another.

If nothing else it is just such a stupid, pointless, waste of resources.

It's not that liberal. Most conservatives think the same way. It's just that they think that violence is still going to be part of the equation for the forseeable future, and that it's best if the good guys(us) are better at it than the bad guys(the terrorists). The more the better. You don't want an even fight in war.

And before people start jumping on Bush bashing... I'll point out that many conservatives are pissed at Bush for being too liberal. They consider the whole Iraq/WMD issue to only be one of many reasons for going in. It took five years for them to pressure him into increasing border security(maybe). Look at the screams that erupted when he nominated Miers.
*note: I'm not a republican, I'm a libertarian with some conservative tendencies.

Re:One day

[squoozer]

Wow, modded off topic in about 10 seconds flat. That must be a new record or something.

Certainly not getting killed is a very good motivating factor to develop new technology but I'm not sure that is the sole reason for the spikes in creativity. More accuratly I think we could see the same spikes in creativity without the need to go to war.

Eh? I hear you say. Well look at it like this. The people that take a country to war are normally loud mouths. Most of the time they bang on about going to war and making money. When they get their way and end up at war they start spouting about needing new and better weapons. Money and or resources get diverted to research and new things emerge. They used the war as an excuse to divert the money / resources. The war didn't cause the innovation the resources did. Ergo we could create that spike in innovation by diverting money any time we wanted and, better than that, we wouldn't have to bear the cost of the war either meaning that the boom in innovation could last longer.

Perhaps war is the only motivatign factor big enough to make most people pull their heads out of their collective back sides.

Re:One day

[finkployd]

I completely agree we COULD have these spikes in innovation, I'm just not sure we WOULD.

And anymore, I'm not positive anything can pull people's heads out of their asses. We seems perfectly content to let the world go nuts as long as they keep the reality tv shows coming :(

Finkployd

Re:One day

[Lord Ender]

To say that "war" causes scientific advancement is a gross oversimplification to the point of being wrong.

It is true to say that war has been a great motivator for research spending. But today, you will find that proffit is probably a larger motivation for research spending than war is (especially with drug, energy, and communicaton companies to name a few)

Re:One day

[vertinox]

but I hope one day we grow up as a race and stop trying to kill one another.

Not going to happen with a political solution. Only a technical solution will prevent people from killing each other.

And only the technological singularity can provide that. Think a Matrix type solution where everyone is physically separated from each other and can only communicate to each other online.

And then we have questions about free will. If you can't kill anyone then you don't have free will in the matter so what then? Kind of Clockwork Orangish. Perhaps killing can be simulated in virtual reality... Hell we already do that already.

Re:One day

[morgdx]

You're absolutely right. I was just thinking this myself this morning while I ironed my NBC shirt on my armour plated heat seeking stealth ironing board.

Re:One day

[prurientknave]

That's a logical fallacy that imbues scientists with the power to make discoveries and advances on demand. Technological advances occur based on the availability of scientists, raw materials, pre-cursor technologies and excess wealth to piss down many avenues of fruitless research so that one day the right solution 'may' be found. Once these technologies are discovered it may take some time for them to find uses in various aspects of a society's life including war. For example flight wasn't initially invented in search of war and neither was the phonograph/grammaphone invented in order to distribute music records to the masses.

When wars occur over the usual squabbles over limited resources advanced civilizations usually overcome less advanced civilizations. That is, it's best to think of technology's use in war as one thinks of evolution: the zebra didn't will itself to grow a longer neck over many generations but just that the zebras with longer necks ended up eating more and producing more offspring.

The rise and fall of human societies are governed by the same evolutionary processes as those that govern microbial societies.

Re:One day

[flyinwhitey]

"When wars occur over the usual squabbles over limited resources advanced civilizations usually overcome less advanced civilizations."

Then why did the Allies defeat the Germans?

Well? Since you'll probably get it wrong, here's why. All of the things you claim ar enecessary for advancement

"availability of scientists, raw materials, pre-cursor technologies and excess wealth"

were forced into use during the war. This led to immense technological advancement, pretty much on demand (or as close as you can get in science) despite your erroneous claims to the contrary.

War causes increased spending and requires dedication of resources. Why you fail to see it I can't imagine, but why you fail to ADMIT it is plainly obvious.

Re:One day

[legirons]

"It is certainly not popular to point out, but war is generally what advances civilization in terms of discovery, invention, etc."

That's why some of the African countries in the middle of civil war, are amongst the poorest people on earth, begging on our TV screens for food and medicine?

Just because a country is at war, doesn't mean their defence contractors have billions of dollars of surplus money to spend like some more local countries at war.

Re:One day

[penguinoid]

I hope one day we grow up as a race and stop trying to kill one another.

If nothing else it is just such a stupid, pointless, waste of resources.

Hey, you think natural selection is a waste of resources? I'm sure that there's a few legitimate reasons to go to war as well, and seems to have done somewhat to spread some cultures (anglo-saxon, anyone?). And as other posters pointed out, war tends to cause a lot of resources to be invested in science, which results in scientific advancement. Not sure where the money would have gone otherwise, though.

--
Make love not war -- rape and pillage!

Re:One day

[prurientknave]

count the number of allies, the number of tons of resources they had access to, the number of people they had access to and the relative land areas they controlled and their distance from the axis powers. Now do the same for the axis powers. The axis powers had far fewer resources , people and were not even in striking distance of USA, Canada and South America while both sides were even in terms of technological advancement. Once the war started america entered unscathed by the devastation in much of europe and also possessed native reservoirs of oil in the midwest which germany did not have access to. No stellar advancements were made in this era. The technologies used in that war were refinements that had been in development ever since the end of world war I. Germany ultimately failed after they ran out of fuel oil for their blitzkriegs when then they were stone walled by the russians with a great loss of personnel on both sides.

It is quite obvious you are unfamiliar with the details of the war and of the major turning points that led to the defeat of the axis powers.

Technology did not win ww2 in europe and new technology was not produced on demand. A few nacent inventions were refined over the course of the war and put into use as time and resources permitted.

You are free to believe in the myth of heroic scientists who can save a nation with just in time inventions and discoveries, it has however, nothing to do with the facts.

Re:One day

[finkployd]

It is quite obvious you are unfamiliar with the details of the war and of the major turning points that led to the defeat of the axis powers.

I however am quite familiar with them.

Technology did not win ww2 in europe and new technology was not produced on demand. A few nacent inventions were refined over the course of the war and put into use as time and resources permitted.

Cryptography won the war basically. More accurately cryptoanalysis. If you want to get really technical the Poles won the war. As more information is declassified about just what was being done with Ultra it becomes pretty clear that was deciding factor in not only most major engagements, but the overall war plan of the allies. Granted, we do not know what would have happened if the Allies were fighting blind, it is possible they would have made the same tactical decisions and the outcome would have been the same, but that does not seem likely. There is always disagreement as to the final impact of intelligence in WWII, I happen to believe it was of pretty significant importance.

The technologies used in that war were refinements that had been in development ever since the end of world war I.

Literally all advancement in just about anything can be described this way. Certainly the war did not magically cause miracle advancements, but it kicked into high gear a lot of promising work that bore fruit much faster than it otherwise would have. The Atomic Bomb (leading to tons of nuclear research), early computer technology, radar, jet aircraft, etc. were all basically products of WWII. Going back further than WWII, you see that war (or more accurately survival) has been a primary catalyst for advancement in many fields.

Germany ultimately failed after they ran out of fuel oil for their blitzkriegs when then they were stone walled by the russians with a great loss of personnel on both sides.

Germany's resource problems did not really emerge until well after they had lost on several fronts in Europe, including Africa, Italy, and much of France. They didn't really have a problem until late in 44, leading to their abandonment of the Russian front (effectively) and focus on capturing Allied resources in their ill fated final offensive (battle of the bulge)

Finkployd

Re:One day

[prurientknave]

Allied cryptanalysis techniques involved finding both the enigma machine and the code sheets from a submarine and collections from other human intelligence assets. This let them have full access to german military communications. humint and dumb luck are hardly astounding technological advances on demand. The atom bomb's initial idea was circulated since about 1910 the problem was a lack of refined uranium and lack of political will to fund such a test before the war. The war added the missing ingredients but the refinements came too late to be used in the actual war in europe and was only used as a field test on a broken oriental enemy that had already been firebombed into oblivion.

Re:Feel any good for building weapons?

[KiloByte]

Right... but somehow, I'm afraid of hippies shouting "make bzImage not war".

Still important however

[porkThreeWays]

This is still important however. From their wording it looks like they will be replicating hardware via "mathematical models". I think it shows a lot in that linux can provide a real time software drop in for various missile guidance hardware.

Obligatory RMSism

[Anonymous Coward]

It's GNU/THAAD, stupid!

Does this mean that...

[jonwil]

You are entitled to the source code to the missiles that just landed on your head under the terms of the GPL?

Re:Does this mean that...

[Theolojin]

You are entitled to the source code to the missiles that just landed on your head under the terms of the GPL?

Yes; a CD with the source code will be included with each missile.

Re:Does this mean that...

[Glock27]

You are entitled to the source code to the missiles that just landed on your head under the terms of the GPL?

Not only that, you get free hardware! lol

Re:Does this mean that...

[legirons]

You are entitled to the source code to the missiles that just landed on your head under the terms of the GPL?

Uh, copyright law in general doesn't apply to people creating things for the government|military (any government|military) -- even GPL.

Plenty of people have been screwed by believing that the US government adhered to the Berne convention -- surely your GPL claim is even less significant than all those other *US, commercial* inventors that the federal government has ripped-off so recently?

Wrong again

[NineNine]

Actually, it's just handling a simulation. You really should read the fucking article. Hell, just skim it, at least.

Re:Wrong again

[Decaff]

Actually, it's just handling a simulation. You really should read the fucking article. Hell, just skim it, at least.

Whether or not it is a simulation is irrelevant. That simulation is still part of the process of building and testing weapons.

Re:que the microsoft crash jokes

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny because you're the only one here so far that has even mentioned Windows.

Yeah, but it's still a stupid waste of money

[Reality Master 201]

Can we stop fighting the Cold War?

Missle defense is a waste of money. Apart from the fact that the progress on the systems hasn't gone well after this many billions of dollars, the usefulness of a boost phase missle defense system is questionable at best. It won't stop attacks from what is now the most likely vector - terrorist attack via smuggled weapons.

Many people bring up Iran or North Korea as possible threats. Perhaps, but apart from the fact that they're years away from having missles that can hit the US, the more sensible tack would be to build a launch phase system that could be parked near a threat country. The system would be easier to construct given the shorter range for the interceptors to travel to target, the targets are moving more slowly, and there are fewer targets since any MIRVs haven't reached the point where they independently target. It'd be smaller and cheaper, and much more practical to do that.

Of course, then, we wouldn't be able to pay out so much money in corporate welfare to defense contractors.

Re:Yeah, but it's still a stupid waste of money

[(H)elix1]

Missle defense is a waste of money.

Who else is going to pay for this type of pure research? Most shareholders and other commercial ventures will avoid R&D that does not have a short term ROI. The problem the military contractors are trying to solve are hard - essentially shooting down a bullet with another - and if you look beyond the star wars hype, it would be good to have some of those technology bits that will come out of this. The military is willing to pay an astronomical sum to keep an advantage over their opponent, so the money will be spent regardless. At least with the defense contractors, it is more of an engineering exercise than market driven fluff. Not that it is a huge solace.

I look at this research and see a better gyroscope. Look at the ring laser gyroscope technology that started as military kit, then worked its way into commercial aircraft. I would love for this to become such commodity stuff that I could put it cheaply into a homebuilt aircraft. Here is to hoping, anyhow...

Re:Yeah, but it's still a stupid waste of money

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

The best defense is a good offense.

"Many people bring up Iran or North Korea as possible threats. Perhaps, but apart from the fact that they're years away from having missles that can hit the US, the more sensible tack would be to build a launch phase system that could be parked near a threat country."

I say "nuke 'em now before they become a true threat" - it's always easier to get foregivness than permission...

just kidding in case there is anyone still using a browser that doesn't render [sarcasm] tags.

Re:Yeah, but it's still a stupid waste of money

[general_re]

Apart from the fact that the progress on the systems hasn't gone well after this many billions of dollars, the usefulness of a boost phase missle defense system is questionable at best.

This isn't a boost-phase system.

The system would be easier to construct given the shorter range for the interceptors to travel to target, the targets are moving more slowly, and there are fewer targets since any MIRVs haven't reached the point where they independently target.

This is a theater-defense system - it's a high-altitude defense against ballistic missiles such as Scuds and the like. It's not designed as a defense against strategic weapons.

Really, your complaint makes almost no sense at all - whatever weapon you're objecting to, it isn't THAAD.

Re:Yeah, but it's still a stupid waste of money

[kaiser423]

Huh, it's odd that you're attacking the THAAD system. It's probably one of the more useful systems in the whole MDA (Missile Defense Agency) program. I can see people whining about some of the other interception schemes, but THAAD can be very, very useful.

For example, say China is threatening Taiwan. Say North Korea is threatening Japan (or some other country). Take an Aegis group out there, fully armed with THAAD systems, and park it in the ocean between the two. Now, we can sit there and try to force talks, because with that fleet in the ocean, we can guarantee (to some amount of reliability) that the fight can't escalate TOO far. At least the smaller side doesn't have to immediately capitulate to threats via nukes.

Basically, the THAAD system is a mobile THEATER based defense system. It's meant for diffusing extremely tense situations between two nearby countries. It's a very useful capability to have -- immediate de-escalation since the biggest threats are now mitigated.

Complain about MDA all you want, but the THAAD system would find it's usefulness proven even without the current political climate, and without Bush's current push for missile defense. It's just plain useful to have.

Re:Yeah, but it's still a stupid waste of money

[Kadin2048]

You do realize I hope that this system, THAAD, is a theater missile-defense system, not a global "Star Wars" hemisphere-defense one.

It's designed to protect strategic assets from medium range, single warhead ballistic missiles, which are exactly the thing that China, N. Korea, and other ex-Soviet client states have in spades (and are significantly easier to put together than an ICBM). The intended use is to place them as a spot defense over a high-value target, as the farthest reaches of a layered system that includes short-range defenses like Patriot, etc.

This is not an ICBM shield for the U.S. in the manner that I think you are thinking it is, that would really have any effect in the event of a global thermonuclear war. The preventative measure against that is still MAD. However when you step down from that scenario (and terrorism), the next most likely case of a nuclear weapon being used against us is with a theater ballistic missile against a strategic target like a foreign city, aircraft carrier, or air base. In a situation like that, a defensive system like this makes a lot more sense.

Re:Yeah, but it's still a stupid waste of money

[amightywind]

Missle defense is a waste of money. Apart from the fact that the progress on the systems hasn't gone well after this many billions of dollars, the usefulness of a boost phase missle defense system is questionable at best. It won't stop attacks from what is now the most likely vector - terrorist attack via smuggled weapons.

Boost phase missile defense will discourage Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and others from even trying to develop strategic nuclear weapons. It is also indispensable considering the ever increasing role of tactical misslles on today's battlefield.

Many people bring up Iran or North Korea as possible threats. Perhaps, but apart from the fact that they're years away from having missles that can hit the US,

Mr. Kim has already lobbed a missle over Japan. He can already reach the Aleutians. Why not deal with the gathering threat?

the more sensible tack would be to build a launch phase system that could be parked near a threat country. The system would be easier to construct given the shorter range for the interceptors to travel to target, the targets are moving more slowly, and there are fewer targets since any MIRVs haven't reached the point where they independently target. It'd be smaller and cheaper, and much more practical to do that.

I agree with this. Patriot batteries already provide this kind of defense. You can bet they are already deployed in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan given their proximity to the crazy Mr. Kim and a bellicose China.

Re:Yeah, but it's still a stupid waste of money

[fritzoid]

This is a tactical weapon you idiot. It would defend a carrier task force, a convoy, a beach landing or some choke point. It is the perfect weapon to defend your son when every shit 3rd world dictator has a few nuclear weapons 20 years from now. Oh thats right, the EU will talk them out of nukes and anyway all wars can be avoided with proper (EU like) diplomacy.

Re:Yeah, but it's still a stupid waste of money

[bleckywelcky]

THAAD isn't boost phase - it's terminal phase.

Re:Yeah, but it's still a stupid waste of money

[vertinox]

Missle defense is a waste of money.

I bet the Dinosaurs said the same thing.

Re:Yeah, but it's still a stupid waste of money

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

I could put it cheaply into a homebuilt aircraft.

Now if we could only have homebuilt aircraft.

Re:Yeah, but it's still a stupid waste of money

[sexylicious]

You do realize that there is a 5 or 10 year lead time for development of some of these things, right? You can't just go to Radio Shack, get parts, put them together, and expect them to have a 100% success rate. You're retarded for thinking that the US can just magically create a missile defense system after it's needed.

I would rather have something that is being worked on now to counter those future threats, than hear a sonic boom and look up only to see a bright flash and wonder where the missile defense was...

More info on RedHawk?

[acordes]

Does anyone have any more information on RedHawk Linux? I went to their website and it appears they modified the stock Linux kernel to make it hard realtime. I'm a little skeptical after following kernel developments over the years. Even with the preemptible kernel patch, Linux is still nowhere close to being able to claim hard realtime response. Any ideas on how RedHawk is able to make these claims?

Re:More info on RedHawk?

[TrekkieGod]

Well, if you're interested on hard real-time simulations in general, check these guys out: RTAI. They've been around for a long time too, so you shouldn't be so scheptical of the linux kernel being modified to be hard real-time.

It's free (as in freedom AND beer), and it works pretty well, especially with I/O cards that are supported by comedi drivers, which are designed with real-time use in mind.

We use them for our real-time HIL simulations at my department, and we're happy with the results.

Re:More info on RedHawk?

[mcb]

I used to work for Concurrent (admittably just their Video on Demand division, we developed the systems used by ~50% of the country under Comcast, Time Warner, etc.).

Essentially the Realtime division of the company has been developing realtime operating systems for decades, and one of their biggest customers is the US military using the systems for flight simulators. I don't know any specifics on Redhawk, but I can say without a doubt that they know what they're doing and have a lot of history.

HWIL = Hardware In the Loop

[everphilski]

Hardware In the Loop testing is where a missile is put basically in a 3 axis gyroscope mount so it is able to maneuver freely. In front of it is put a projection screen where RADAR images are being projected. The seeker on the missile then sends a signal to the fins to move but instead of moving fins that signal is hijacked and an algorithm figures out how the missile would have rotated in space and instead rotates the gimbal (the gyro mount) instead. A computer program tracks how the missile would have really moved in space. A RTOS comes in handy for these kinds of simulations. HWIL testing is an important step between pure software simulation and firing the actual beast because you can start to see lags in the system and test indvidual subsystems non-destructively without ever firing a missile.

-everphilski-

Re:HWIL = Hardware In the Loop

[gatkinso]

Sort of... but the componants under test are sitting in a rack or on a bench - not in a complete assembly.

Re:HWIL = Hardware In the Loop

[florescent_beige]

Gosh.

...a missile is put basically in a 3 axis gyroscope mount...

The THAAD missile it 20 ft long and weights a ton, putting it in a gymbal would be expensive and pointless because...

...projection screen where RADAR images are being projected...

This is wrong on so many levels. First of all, how does one "project" a radar "image"? Second of all, the THAAD radar is ground-based, not part of the missile. The vehicle is steered to the projected intercept point by commands from the ground. The kill vehicle steers itself to the intercept with an IR seeker.

Maybe the KV hardware test article is gymbal mounted but again, how does one "project" an IR "image" on a "screen"?

...sends a signal to the fins...

THAAD is exoatmospheric. Fins would be useless. It uses vectored thrust.

...A computer program tracks how the missile would have really moved in space...

See now, if you are modeling the dynamics of the vehicle, why bother actually physically moving it? In this case, you aren't testing the vehicle dymanics, you are imposing them, the only purpose of which would be to exersize the seeker mechanisms (of which the missile has none.) Why not simply vary the seeker's simulated target signal (what you call an "image" projected on a "screen" but which is probaby purely electronic)?

Modded +5. Lordy.

Re:HWIL = Hardware In the Loop

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

First of all, how does one "project" a radar "image"?

That's classified.

Re:HWIL = Hardware In the Loop

[Sinical]

I make HILs.

You don't need the whole missile. You need the guidance electronics and the seeker. I've seen THAAD's HIL.

Yes, you absolutely can project IR imagery. Look for the word "mirror". You can make mirrors that are RADAR transparent. I've seen them.

I don't the details of THAAD, but for the lower stages (since they simulate from launch), you intercept fin commands and use that information within a simulation to calculate updated attitude and position information. This is then used in returning data to the missile (altering IR imagery, etc.).

For the upper stage, they can detect the commands to set off the little "poppers", and they jitter the image with a high-speed mirror. They adjust the position, too.

For my missile, we don't feel a HIL is necessary: we will inject everything, including the video, and fully simulate the inertial measurement unit (IMU). But what if the Army wants to take a missile out of its container and test it? You can't tell them to take the whole damn thing apart, but you can usually get them to take the motor off. Then it goes in the table. It's not strictly necessary, since you can provide modes and still simulate everything, but they have millions of dollars and it gives them warm fuzzies, and they are the customer.

For THAAD, they may have rate sensors on their seeker that need to be fooled by putting them on a table. They may want to combine real and synthesized IMU data (real data for rates, synthesized data for unsimulatable acceleration (gravity, thrust)). Javelin and AIM-9x have to do this for various reasons: I'm not sure of them all. I think Javelin has *no* IMU: because it's lock-on before launch, you can figure out how you're moving based on how the seeker gimbals are pointed. Something like that.

You do HIL tests to make sure things work. For the early models, you want to make damn sure your seeker is good before you shoot off a $1 million missle in a test that costs $30 million (range time is *damn* expensive, and THAAD can only use White Sands cuz they shoot so far). In general, including as much of the flight hardware as you can is good. If you can't mount the CAS on the 3-axis (or whatever: I've seen up to 5-axis (3 for missile, 2 for target (no roll)) table, then you can put it on the floor in a test fixture and apply torques to the fins to simulate pressures and stresses. Depends upon what your requirements are.

In general, though, you use what we call a CIL: Computer-in-the-loop. No seeker: imagery is all injected, no IMU: all simulated, etc. This is purely for flight software and electronics hardware check out. I make these, too.

Re:Feel any good for building weapons?

[zerocool^]

And the tree-huggers reminding us to all "make clean"...

Now if they shoot a missile...

[Vo0k]

If they shoot such a missile at my rocket, I may demand them to send me the source code. After all, they just distributed open source software. All over the area...

Embedded vs. Server

[Glove d'OJ]

Um, isn't Redhawk an embedded OS? That is, it may be suitable for non-disk based applications such as missle parts, testing of the same, etc., but not for web servers. Yes, there are many "web server in a matchbox" toys out there, but for a corporate website, I would not imagine that an embedded OS would be the best choice.

It's the "best tool for the job" theory vs. OS zealotry.

Or am I missing something?

Re:Embedded vs. Server

[Glove d'OJ]

I apologize that you misunderstood my clearly phrased question, my dear Anonymous Coward.

If a company makes a technology product that is not a good choice for web-server use, is it wise to bash them for not using it for theor corporate web-server? These folks may make a darned good real-time Linux distro, but should they necessarily use it for their corporate website? If a company makes an internet-connected refrigerator, should that run their corporate website? Should a car-computer manufacturer run their website from their parking lot?

I suppose that I should give you credit for posting A/C. Were I to want to post something *that* stupid, I would probably go the A/C route as well.

wwjd? jwrtfm!

Open Source == Profit!

[darekana]

Wow, think of the savings for the American tax payer!

Oh wait...

Votre SIG n'impressionne personne.

[crovira]

Vous n'accordez pas vos verbes.

Re:But what if...

[amliebsch]

What if the system were to fail?

What the - you sound like George McFly. "What if the system were to fail? I just don't think I could handle that kind of rejection!"

"To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing."
- Elbert Hubbard

Re:RedRum Linux

[ettlz]

Sorry, but that one just kills me... (RedRum! RedRum! RedRum!)

Have you been hacking the Shargar microkernel or something?

This is to prevent a hot war with China.

[Flying pig]

That the long term threat will be China, and your close launch system will not apply.

Mod this how you like or not at all, but when a competitor arises for a dominant superpower, the result is war. The Soviet Union never really competed with the US where it counted; the theatre wars in Afghanistan and Vietnam did not threaten the US (and Europe) the way Chinese power and hegemony over the Far East will. I am sure that the planners in the Pentagon have been replaying WW3 for years, and this program is part of what has come out of that.

Re:This is to prevent a hot war with China.

[Waffle Iron]

That the long term threat will be China, and your close launch system will not apply.

Trying to build a missile defense system to counter China is futile. China has the resources to build enough ICBMs to overwhelm any possible missile defense, and we're sending them $Billions more resources every quarter in exchange for trinkets.

Given that it costs orders of magnitude more to defend against an ICBM as it does to build one, they would ultimately win any ICBM defense arms race. Not to mention that countermeasures against the defense system are trivial, it's questionable if these systems even work properly without countermeasures, and it would only take a handful of intercept failures to cause devastating damage to the US. All such a deployment would do is prompt China to crank out more nukes. We would not be one iota safer than we are today after that happens.

Re:This is to prevent a hot war with China.

[AJWM]

Given that it costs orders of magnitude more to defend against an ICBM as it does to build one,

That's far from a given. There are many ways to interfere with an ICBM attack, THAAD is just one, and is one of the last resorts if other methods (airborne laser attack on the ICBM booster, coast-phase interception, etc) let something through.

The point, though, is that it messes up the attacker's planning. He can no longer count on every ICBM (less normal malfunctions) getting through, he has to figure that only some percentage will get through, and some targets may not be hit at all. This raises the stakes considerably -- a knock-out first strike becomes impossible, unless one is willing to spend the money on enough more ICBMs (or to toughen them up to resist counter attack) to again give the attacker overwhelming odds.

Not to mention that countermeasures against the defense system are trivial,

Right, don't mention that, because it isn't true. That canard was trotted out in the 80s, and some of the suggestions were positively ludicrous. (For example, it was suggested that defending against boost-phase laser attack was simply a matter of "spinning the booster". Consider the dynamics of a rapidly rotating cylinder of liquid fuel (as were Soviet ICBM boosters) on top of normal launch stresses. No laser required, the thing would probably disintegrate of its own accord. Decoys? Yes, please! To fool modern sensor technology, the decoy has to be roughly the same shape and mass as a real warhead -- so every decoy launched is one less real warhead for a given launch capacity.)

The cold-war defeat of the Soviet Union was exactly for this reason: they couldn't afford the spending to maintain their ICBM force at their desired threat level in the face of the various defensive strategies.

Now, you have a valid point with "we're sending them $Billions more resources every quarter in exchange for trinkets", which certainly wasn't the case with the Soviet Union. We could hope that this raises the standard of living of the Chinese to the point where they feel they have too much to lose themselves to start a war, but given the totalitarian government, there's no guarantee. Meanwhile, given a choice, try to avoid buying Chinese goods. (Yeah, good luck.)

Re:This is to prevent a hot war with China.

[Waffle Iron]

This raises the stakes considerably -- a knock-out first strike becomes impossible

China doesn't currently have a first strike capability anyway. Why drive them towards that direction? With their current posture, all they need is for some percentage to get through to deter us from doing an Iraq on them.

Right, don't mention that, because it isn't true.

It is true. There are literally hundreds of possible easy-to-implement countermeasures, and we have no idea what combination they might try. These missile defenses don't properly work today even under the laboratory conditions they're tested under, much less in the real world with evasive features tacked on.

The cold-war defeat of the Soviet Union was exactly for this reason: they couldn't afford the spending to maintain their ICBM force at their desired threat level in the face of the various defensive strategies.

The USSR couldn't afford their own missile shield, which would have been ridiculously expensive. We couldn't have afforded it either. China is not going to be making a missile shield for the same reasons I stated above. All they have to do is crank out some more missiles, which are relatively cheap. The current situation is not like the old cold war.

Re:This is to prevent a hot war with China.

[AJWM]

There are literally hundreds of possible easy-to-implement countermeasures,

Describe ten, along with an assessment of their impact on both the launch vehicle and the defensive systems. Come on, if they're easy to implement I'm sure that will be easy to do. I'm only asking for less than 5% of what you're claiming ("hundreds" implies at least 200).

Re:This is to prevent a hot war with China.

[Waffle Iron]

1. Launch a couple of extra nukes and explode them in the ionosphere just ahead of the real missiles. There won't be time to intercept them before they go off. It will be kind of hard to operate radars with all the plasma disruption. Handling this scenario can't be tested for, and any good engineer knows that something that's not tested isn't likely to work.

2. Give the warhead heat shields a good liquid nitrogen wash just before launch. They'll be a just a little hard to spot with infrared sensors. By the time they hit the atmosphere and warm up again, you're going to have just a minute or two before it reaches the target. Little impact on launch system other than a little plumbing.

3. Toss a few dozen flares out with the warhead. More problems with infrared sensors. Flares weigh almost nothing.

4. Cold gas thrusters constantly jostle the warhead back and forth randomly by a few yards. Kinetic interceptors wouldn't have much chance. It's a little bit of engineering, but it's standard spacecraft technology.

5. Release a bright cloud of vapor or dust around the warhead. It will be hard to pinpoint in the glare. Not much harder to implement than strapping an aerosol can onto the payload.

6. Spin the warhead around a small counterweight on a long tether. Once again, hard to hit. Harder to implement, but it's been done with satellites.

7. Inflatable decoys. Simple to implement.

8. Real decoy missiles with inert warheads, with identical mass and external materials as actual warheads. Relatively expensive, but much cheaper than adding more interceptors and command structure on the defense side.

9. Strobelights and radar transmitters on the warheads broadcast noise signals. Likely mess up delicate tracking systems designed to look for feeble signals.

10. Lots of cheap decoy rockets that simulate only the boost phase of real rockets. Defense systems would have a lot of sorting out to do before trying to locate the actual targets.

I could go on and on. How about you prove that not a single one of these or any combination of them would impact the effectiveness of the defense systems?

Re:This is to prevent a hot war with China.

[AJWM]

Those are pretty damn funny! I note you didn't discuss the effect on the launch vehicle, i.e. the engineering effort to get some of your gizmos to actually work.

And none of your techniques (save the last, sort of) address boost-phase intercept (eg by airborne laser or orbital-based kinetic interceptor.)

1 - That will nicely fry the rest of the attacking missile fleet electronics and the neutron pulses may well mess up the fissionables in them. You basically have the attackers do a self-inflicted Spartan/Sprint (look 'em up) defense on themselves.

2 - Warhead heat shields fail from thermal shock, warheads disintegrate on reentry. And, lookdown sensors from satellites see very obvious cold spots against the warm background of Earth and relay the coordinates. And, the LN2 plumbing (and LN reserve) reduce the payload, thus range, of the LV.

3 - Again, multiple sensors in different locations have no problem differentiating flares from RVs, and the weight of the flares and ejection mechanism reduce payload/range. Flares do NOT weigh "almost nothing", neither does the ejection mechanism. If they do weigh almost nothing, they'll lag behind the RV as soon as it hits upper atmo.

4 - Only "a little bit of engineering". Clearly you're no engineer. It adds weight (reducing range and payload), it really messes up targeting (oh well, if the nuke targetted for Los Angeles detonates in Death Valley, no big deal). Some of the designed and tested kinetic interceptors deploy to a rather large structure a lot bigger than "a few yards".

5 - Clouds in vacuum disperse pretty damn quickly, both from internal and sunlight pressure. And the denser LV will soon leave the cloud behind in the extreme upper atmo. Besides, the cloud disperses predictably, so we just have a bigger target for the interceptor to aim for the center of. (If the cloud is dispersed directionally, again you've messed up the warhead trajectory and targetting.)

6 - Now that really messes up the targetting, especially if the tether breaks (or is broken by the interceptor). Deploying it is no engineering triviality in the few minutes of ballistic coast that the warhead has, either.

7 - Inflatable decoys are trivial to differentiate from the real thing, even if you manage to give them the same thermal characteristics (careful choice of materials, paint, etc) they react differently to sunlight pressure, atmospheric drag (even very tenuous), or being pinged by a laser beam.

8 - An intercontinental missile is always going to be more expensive than a much smaller interceptor. You need to add in launch and command infrastructure on the attacking side, too. If you go the cheap route and base your decoys at obviously non-nuclear missile launch facilities (consider the relative security and command and control infrastructures), then the defender can ignore missiles tracked as launched from those sites.

9 - Yes please! That greatly simplifies the interceptor's job -- just home in on the strobe lights and radar transmitters.

10 - Again, rockets launched from known decoy sites can be ignored. If you want to convincingly make a decoy site look like the real thing, it's going to cost as much as making the real thing.

Nobody is claiming that a missile defense would be 100% effective -- any more than a bulletproof vest is 100% effective. But if someone is going to be shooting at you, you'd probably want one. Further, protective gear (or missile shields) are effective against accidents or single (or few) shot attacks.

Nothing is going to significantly protect against an all-out attack (although the severity can be reduced), the only hope there is to discourage the attack from being launched in the first place. This is much easier to do if the attacker knows that a significant portion of the attacking missiles won't make it to their targets, and that he cannot prevent a certain, devastating retaliation. Ultimately the potential attacker has to be convinced that he has more to lose than to gain by attacking.

Re:This is to prevent a hot war with China.

[Waffle Iron]

Blah blah blah. As I said, the defense system probably doesn't work anyway. There is little evidence that the tests done so far haven't been rigged, and many of those haven't worked. All it would take is the tiniest change to make ensure that it doesn't work at all. Few of your assertions about handling the countermeasures have been or ever will be tested in the real world.

Much of your objection is "it would make the payload heavier". So what? They'll build bigger missiles or lighter warheads. You assume a static situation; that's not the case. Our potential adversaries will adapt as fast as we can sink money into this giant black hole.

This really is nothing more than the latest in a long line of US technological bluffs that included the SAGE air defense network and the original SDI. Each has been extremely expensive and would never work in actual combat conditions, but just by letting the world see us spending so much money, we hope that they're bamboozled into thinking that we're building something that actually does something.

This is much easier to do if the attacker knows that a significant portion of the attacking missiles won't make it to their targets, and that he cannot prevent a certain, devastating retaliation.

We were talking about China and other small countries here. They're already going to get certain, devastating retaliation if they try to launch any missiles. They already know, as you've admitted, that at least some fraction of the missiles are going to get through. The best way for them to increase that number is to just build more nukes, and that's exactly what's going to happen each time we increase defensive deployments. And we won't even feel any safer, because no matter how much handwaving you do, we can never be really certain that they haven't put effective countermeasures into their missiles.

Re:This is to prevent a hot war with China.

[AJWM]

SDI worked, it defeated the Soviet Union. That was all it was intended to do. For all the risk that nuke wielding terrorist nations, and even China, might pose, that's a tiny percentage of the thousands of nukes that the USSR had ready to go. (Sure, Russia still has plenty of those, but they are far less likely to use them. We're not exactly worried about Britain or France's nukes, either.)

They'll build bigger missiles or lighter warheads. ... The best way for them to increase that number is to just build more nukes,

All those approaches cost money. Lots of it. Nuclear and missile technology is expensive, especially if you want it to work when and only when desired. It also takes time to develop and deploy. Buying time is worth doing, because the rules of the game may suddenly change (as witness the USSR in the fall of 1991).

As for whether it would "really" work if push came to shove, that's irrelevant. As Sun Tzu tells us, defeat occurs in the mind of the enemy. If he believes the defense may work well enough to spoil his offense, he will not launch it. If he doesn't believe that and launches an attack, then even if the defense turns out to be an amazingly 99% effective (nothing is 100%) we have a mess on our hands. (And the enemy is toast.)

The Linux Supervillain is not pleased

[kyle90]

This is why they're running linux, methinks: http://ubergeek.tv/article.php?pid=54

Re:Feel any good for building weapons?

[dcavanaugh]

It's not like they were going to scrap the missile defense system just because there was no Linux OS.

There are always other choices. If Lockheed has a contract, they are damn certain to build a missile defense system. Would you feel any better if they spent millions of taxpayer dollars to build an OS from scratch -- probably crapware from land of offshore/outsourced bargain buddies?

Who needs a missile defense system that gets infected with the Sony rootkit just because someone popped a music CD into the drive?

Yes! Best thread ever!

[lbrandy]

1. Combine a major company using Linux for all it's excellent benefits with an obvious usage of war....
2. Slap on that flamesuit and logical-fallacy-inducing tinfoil hat
3. Watch the collective mind of slashdot swirl around these conflicting emotions
(4. Profit.)

This is gonna keep me entertained all day...

Re:Feel any good for building weapons?

[ascii]

Taking your stance is like saying that the inventor of the hammer contributed to violence and killings.

Or even that the inventor of the teddybear contributed to murders which involved said teddy.

Please stop being such a moron.

Awesome!

[bigsexyjoe]

As we all know, an OS has to be involved in crimes against humanity to be taken seriously.

Er, Um, do we want to link Linux to a real luser?

[Ancient_Hacker]

THAAD is not exactly a real winner. Pls see : Looooser

It's been in the works for over a decade now, with no deployment in sight.

Cannot find the kernel source

[arclynx]

I've tried browsing their FTP server, but cannot find any source code for the kernel. Are they closing the source to a GPL software?

Re:Cannot find the kernel source

[Keichann]

Don't worry yourself, I'm sure the PATRIOT act has them covered.

Pick a group...

[Glove d'OJ]

That would not be a good thing. Let's see where it would lead...

#1 : All military contractors and personnel would suddenly stop contributing to any OSS efforts.
#2 : Any non-popular group would then be given a "free for non-(non-popular group) use" statement / clause.

Fundamentalist Christians could be placing a "free for non-gay use" clause in their releases. African Americans could place a "free for non-white use", Lesbian Americans a "free for non-straight use," and Left-Handed-Americans a "free for non-right-hand use" clause.

Slippery slope, my friends. Free is free.

Oh, and wouldn't you prefer the finite number of tax dollars available to be spent as wisely as possible? Sorry... I forgot that Anonymous Cowards typically don't pay taxes.

Re:Pick a group...

[Kadin2048]

Exactly -- I was going to say the same thing, but you beat me to it.

The flip side to having Free software is that you have to be prepared to let some people that you might not exactly like or agree with use your work. On the other hand, people who might not like you very much have to do the same.

The community would really be shooting itself in the foot if they put some sort of clause like that into OSS licenses, because basically it would be throwing away all the millions of dollars of R&D money that government contractors can and do put into software development, and which might trickle down into OSS projects. Plus, there are a lot of companies out there that you wouldn't think would be affected, that might shy away from OSS after a restriction like that was added, just because they don't want to limit their future business. IBM, for instance, probably wouldn't want to write itself out of the defense sector because some hippies thought it would be cool to ban military uses of Linux, and they're one of the biggest contributors. The NSA, if I remember correctly, has a secure distribution of Linux that's provided some useful things back to the community, and you'd be throwing that away as well. With the exception of RedHat and a few other Linux-only shops, a lot of money comes from companies that sill have proprietary OS options sitting around. If they start to feel that Linux is a hindrance instead of an advantage, there's nothing stopping them from going back and pulling the plug on their OSS ventures.

Overall, it's a foolish and dangerous idea to consider such limitations in licensing, and I think it's important that we put that idea down quickly before it gains any mindshare. It would quite literally be the end of the corporate deep-pocket support of Linux that we've enjoyed until today.

Re:Pick a group...

[Forbman]

Overall, it's a foolish and dangerous idea to consider such limitations in licensing,

But what about the little blurb in the Java license that says, essentially, to not use Java for critical systems like nuclear reactor controllers, medical XRay machines, etc.?

Re:Pick a group...

[Glock27]

But what about the little blurb in the Java license that says, essentially, to not use Java for critical systems like nuclear reactor controllers, medical XRay machines, etc.?

That is a liability disclaimer, so if you use Java for something it wasn't designed for, Sun doesn't get sued. Also, Sun would like to sell you an RT version of Java instead. ;-)

RT Java is currently being used in one of the major military autonomous aircraft programs. There was a blurb about it at Javalobby.

Re:Pick a group...

[Glove d'OJ]

There is a message above about ties to what you describe as "a mechanism of legalized killing." Certain contributors such as IBM, etc., may not want to play in the OSS arena if segments start to get excluded.

The military is not a true "thing" in and of itself. Our military / armed forces are a set of people with given goals and directions. While you may disagree with some of the political goals executed as a whole, let's remember that a military unit is composed of specific individuals.

Legalized killing? Again, a matter of perspective. There are, however, actual people involved at all levels that may contribute to the OSS effort in general.

On a side note, if you want to use /. to wax rhetoric or as your personal soap box, please at least do so with an account name so that discussion can occur. How can I take any credence or place value -- why should one even waste time -- arguing with an Anonymous Coward?

Re:Pick a group...

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

if you use Java for something it wasn't designed for,

Like anything where speed or reliability is important.

Parked where?

[YrWrstNtmr]

more sensible tack would be to build a launch phase system that could be parked near a threat country.

In light of continually shifting politics, would you want one of your primary weapons systems be completely dependant on the good will of another country to let it be based there?

Re:que the microsoft crash jokes

[moro_666]

who gives a damn {censored} about windows anyway ?

i still think we'd be better off if this would run solaris or a *bsd derivate. linux is fun but is it mature enough to be the thing ?

maybe a linux kernel 2.2 box would be good...

Linux not just for Steve the supervillian

[saha]

Linux not just for Steve the supervillian (Flash animation). We've known all along Linux is not just for THAAD missles, but also for powering a beowulf cluster of atomic supermen, orbiting brain lasers, genetical engineered cybergoats, henchmen with bad teeth and gorgeous fembots...

This is better than the Swedish military using Windows NT 4.0 to power their warship a year.

Re:Linux not just for Steve the supervillian

[ThJ]

The Swedish? Oh, come on, these are the same guys who look at a traffic signal and go "works" ... "dun' work" ... "works" ... "dun' work" ...

Re:the right tool for the job?

[slavemowgli]

Ah, yes... of course you know better. That's why you're an AC on Slashdot, and the people who made this decision are just engineers working at Lockheed-Martin. This'll show them!

Re:Feel any good for building weapons?

[hedleyroos]

Retard.

And you also have blood on your hands since a portion your tax-money goes into weapons research. Unless you're Swiss...

Re:But what if...

[maxwell demon]

"Well, the used kernel actually was a wimp, so when the missile came, it just started to panic. Next time, use a fearless kernel instead."

Not quite the interface I had in mind...

[meringuoid]

Welcome to Hunt the Terrorist

The Terrorist lives in a cave of 20 rooms. Each room has 3 tunnels
leading to other rooms. (Look at a dodecahedron to see how this works
- if you don't know what a dodecahedron is, ask someone.)

Hazards:

explosive mines - Two rooms have explosive mines in them. If you go
there, you are blown up by the mine (and lose!)

Super Copters - Two other rooms have super Copters. If you go there, a Copter
grabs you and takes you to some other room at random. (Which might be
troublesome.)

Terrorist:

The Terrorist is not bothered by the hazards (he has sucker feet and is
too big for a Copter to lift.) Usually he is asleep. Two things wake
him up: your entering his room or your shooting an missile.

If the Terrorist wakes, he sometimes runs to the next room. If you
happen to be in the same room with him, you lose.

You:

Each turn you may move or shoot a crooked missile.

Move: You can move one room (through one tunnel.)

missile: You have 5 missiles. You lose when you run out. Each missile can
be shot from 1 to 5 rooms away. You aim by telling the computer the
room #'s you want the missile to go to. If the missile can't go that way,
it moves at random to the next room.

If the missile hits the Terrorist, you win. If the missile hits you, you
lose.

Warnings:

When you are one room away from Terrorist or hazard.

The computer says:

Terrorist - I smell a Terrorist
Copter - Copters Nearby
mine - I feel a draft

Re:Feel any good for building weapons?

[Soybean47]

Actually, this isn't a WMD, it's a missile defense system, which stops missiles from killing people.

The missiles, being launched by evil people, probably run Windows. That's because Linux is free, and as we all know, these people hate freedom.

I have tested it for you !

[Jacquouille]

I can tell you that the killall command is very powerful on this system.

Bill...

[Elitist_Phoenix]

Hey Bill all your base are belong to us!

Re:the right tool for the job?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Linux isn't really a realtime OS.

You are wrong. Linux is a hard realtime OS (and you can get soft realtime without making a big effort) when you have the right hardware and the right scheduler. This Linux OS has independent timers and a special scheduling system, which makes it run realtime with granularity of microseconds in the simulation. Now you will ask how I know that... Ill tell ya, I work with this product, as a control engineer, and help desk for this product.

The difference of this version Lockheed purchased is that its not an Operating System, but a full HIL/MIL (hardware in the loop, man in the loop) system, which means the software, the computer, special acquisition I/O cards, the special timer system AND a special set of realtime debugging tools that are the hottest thing available. I could try to explain you what these tools are all about, but i) people would tell Im doin marketing bla bla bla and ii) I doubt you understand industrial simulation, so I must assume you are some student repeating like a parrot that QNX this, vxworks that. But just to prove Im not lying, these tools are able to hot patch a running code without stopping the process (when you have the source available, in C, C++, Fortran and ADA), kernel intrumentation, graphical view from the scheduler taks, execution time of process and syscall, cpu isolation to run a dedicated simulation in a certain cpu, you can monitor critcal vars and setpoints in a GUI, so you can run the simulation and check they are never out of the sweetspot, running distributed simulations in high speed deterministical networks, etc, etc.

But goin back to the topic, these debugging tools are amazing and a great add-on to the package. Im not surprised of the choice, the product is very good. And its something the RTLinux (from FSM Labs) and Wind River versions (of Linux - ya, they are doing linux too, or even its VxWorks doesnt have).

The reason Linux is not so popular is that these guys are really really traditional people, and they dont change very often their tools, its hard to break the stablishment. In the other hand, some simulations users loves using Linux in their simulation systems. Others are using other solutions for years, and dont feel the need of changing them, no matter how painful it is to run old/legacy applications.

So just to finish my point. This is a full simulation system that can do the job even better than other proprietary solutions, and with a better cost-benefit. Its not "clever trick". The people who make this product are not newbies (they are playing this games for decades, check their history), neither their users. They didnt pick up this solution because they are cheap, or they look beautiful, or they like tux. They picked because its the finest one available.

>Something that was...well, designed to do RT, and designed so you can easily take >out all the stuff you're not using (think less room for bugs).

You can do that with Linux OS. FSM Labs has versions that can boot in 300 miliseconds to full operational status and as small as some kbytes. If you use google a little, you will find some harcore realtime systems with linux

> I haven't even thought about mission critical yet!
> I love Linux as much as the next geek, but tools for jobs folks.

You obviously does not work with that.

May be closer than you think

[Voltageaav]

In 1998 the Commission to assess the ballistic missile threat to the United States gave this report. There is evidence that North Korea is working hard on the Taepo Dong 2 (TD-2) ballistic missile. The status of the system's development cannot be determined precisely. Nevertheless, the ballistic missile test infrastructure in North Korea is well developed. Once the system is assessed to be ready, a test flight could be conducted within six months of a decision to do so. If North Korea judged the test to be a success, the TD-2 could be deployed rapidly. It is unlikely the U.S. would know of such a decision much before the missile was launched. This missile could reach major cities and military bases in Alaska and the smaller, westernmost islands in the Hawaiian chain. Light-weight variations of the TD-2 could fly as far as 10,000 km, placing at risk western U.S. territory in an arc extending northwest from Phoenix, Arizona, to Madison, Wisconsin. These variants of the TD-2 would require additional time to develop and would likely require an additional flight test. I'd also like to point out that was 7 years ago. http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/missile/rumsfeld/exe csum.htm

Re:the right tool for the job?

[Vo0k]

but it wasn't built for RT from the ground up.

And that's why it won here.
This distro IS true Realtime OS, with kernel modified to work in realtime. In this it's equal with all the other available RTOSes, or even a bit below, because the support for realtime operation is young and not fully-featured. But while other RTOSes focused on adding more features, making it more stable and such, while neglecting actual efficiency, plain vanilla linux was developed to be a speed monster, with all that extra schedulers, optimizations, support for custom architectures, SMP and all the stuff that just made it a very FAST OS. Then the RealTime extension was added.

Make no mistake, Realtime doesn't mean fast. On normal systems, no matter how much CPU power, you can't guarantee some thread won't be stalled for longer than X miliseconds. On RTOS, given certain hardware speed and certain software load you can -guarantee- some threads will be given time within some fixed time. Often longer than they usually get on non-RTOS, but never longer than certain X miliseconds.
Now thing is, how much can the X be, and what does it depend on? Well, certainly on amount of $$$ you put in the hardware, more CPU power = more spare CPU power that can be given sooner. So theoretically: Give enough CPU power, have arbitrarily short guaranted response time, down to time of one loop over the kernel procedures. In reality: You have just as much hardware, and the kernel of the RTOS eats up most of the resources, and due to all the failsafe checks, runs quite slowly in fact. True, at a constant safe pace that allows for granted 20 frames per second of input sensors analysis. But if you want 30, sorry, it starts crubmling, CPU overloaded, failsafes launched, frames lost. As long as you tell it to grab 20 frames a second, it won't fail, ever, no matter what though (as opposed to non-RTOS, which may lose a few frames just because it needed to swap out some memory or run a cron job in the background).
All RTOSes do this. x MIPS, y RAM, m miliseconds for response, n miliseconds when the thread must finish or it will be forced to finish. Plus costs, reliablity and all the standard issues with any generic OS.

Now, given certain speed of hardware, what speed can you guarantee? Depends on the OS, and the faster the OS, the better the speed. And while Linux is really very fast, others aren't so. Writing a system that GUARANTEES 50 fps instead of 20 fps is damn hard. But writing a normal system that does 90fps on the average, without lowest speed guarantee? Well, possible, not so hard. Just keep it optimal. Then throw in the extra bits that make it a RTOS, and you notice that even after the RTOS overhead it never gets below 70fps. Check most pessimistic scenarios and you see it will never drop below 50fps.

Does this mean...

[bigdreamer]

we should fear the penguins now?

Re:Does this mean...

[DevNova]

I haven't seen it yet, but as a movie title, March of the Penguins makes much more sense now!

Re:que the microsoft crash jokes

[markandrew]

what, you mean the onboard missile control system does use windows?!

buffer overflow

[confusedwiseman]

I think that they are really missing pure entertainment that they could be providing us. I would love to hear Bush trying to explain how we bombed a country because of a RPC/buffer overflow problem.

from the defying-all-rules-of-government-spending

[massysett]

Ha, make no mistake, if the government can spend $100 on a toilet seat, I'm sure it can spend big bucks for Linux too, GPL notwithstanding.

THAAD

[Karrde712]

First point. THAAD is actually "Terminal High Altitude Area Defense" and is being developed concurrently between Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.

I worked on the THAAD project for Raytheon from 1999-2000. Here is the unclassified description of how it functions:

Upon radar detection of an incoming missile (such as a SCUD) the THAAD missile is launched against it. Unlike earlier technologies for missile defense (such as the PATRIOT*), the THAAD missile does not contain any explosive warhead, instead using the available space and weight for a more sophisticated guidance system. The THAAD warhead contains an active guidance system that will seek the incoming missile and collide with it, destroying the incoming missile with its own warhead.

Earlier technologies relied on a wide-area warhead that would be detonated once the missile was within a certain diameter about the target, relying on the concussion wave and shrapnel to destroy the missile. This was unsatisfactory as in some circumstances the missile would destroy only the target's propulsion system and allow the undamaged warhead to fall to the ground, resulting in collateral damage.

*The PATRIOT missile was not designed as an anti-missile weapon, it was in fact designed as an anti-aircraft weapon, but was retasked during Operation: Desert Storm to shoot down SCUD missiles. It was considered very impressive that it worked at all, considering it was designed for use against much slower-moving targets.

Re:THAAD

[bclark]

I was an intern at Lockheed last summer. I got a quick unclassified tour of the THAAD facility, it was very cool stuff. This story made me laugh a little bit though, since I asked them if it was a good idea to run Windows, like they were on the mock-up consoles they showed me. Guess they changed their minds :)

Theo saw it coming.....

[conteXXt]

This is a quote from OpenBSD founder Theo de Raadt that sums up nicely the policy of OpenBSD:

        "...software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia."

Baby mulching machines. I have always loved that.

Actually, it's already there

[Majin Bubu]

The US Navy actually has a close-to-launch-point ABM system, it's called SM-3, or Standard 3. It's called by specifically selected and refurbished AEGIS cruisers / destroyers, and it's designed to be "parked" close to the launching nation, in order to perform interception in the boost phase. It has already had six successful tests, out of seven (which is a very good success rate in this business).

Will They Also Be Using...

[Skjellifetti]

an open source version of Missle Command in their system?

Who were the competing bidders?

[jc42]

Only RedHawk Linux was able to ensure the high frame rates required ...

My first thought on reading that "Only" was: What other systems was it compared with? Who were the other bidders on the contract? Did all the available RT systems fail the contest with linux? That's a bit hard to believe.

So I read TFA looking for the answer. No clues. Then I noticed the "Concurrent" logo at the top.

This is nothing more than a press release by the vendor. As far as I can tell, it was a no-bid contract. Any information otherwise? What other systems were tested? What were the timing numbers?

I hope it doesn't run like their website

[gelfling]

Which sux vis a vis performance.

Windows is better for a Missle system

[www.sorehands.com]

Windows already includes BSOD functionality.

Not necessarily a violation

[Kadin2048]

Yeah I was looking at the same thing also. They have some OSS stuff there for download (and helpful instructions in case you want to upload your changes -- I mean who wouldn't want to contribute at no charge to their friendly local defense contractor?) but no source.

This by itself doesn't mean anything though. Remember that the GPL doesn't require you to make your code available online to just anyone, it just says that you have to distribute it along with the software. So it could be something as simple as a /src directory on systems they sell, or on the CDs or however they distribute it.

They can't prohibit you from buying the product and redistributing the source code, but it doesn't mean they have to go out of their way to make it particularly easy for you to do so. The only real way to tell if they're breaking the license would be for somebody to buy RedHawk Linux in whatever form is closest to a "retail box" and see if it comes with source, or a written offer to provide it. I believe those are the requirements of the GPL.

If it shoots down another missile...

[Gruneun]

I have a feeling there's a DMCA lawsuit in their future.

Atari

[Tighe_L]

I think that the Atari 2600 was the best for Missile Defense.

GPL

[everphilski]

Apparently you dont understand the GPL

-everphilski-

Microsoft FUD

[ranton]

I can see it now, Microsoft will use this against the Linux community. When the missile defence system still doesnt work in another decade, this time it will be all linux's fault.

Oblig Simpsons

[everphilski]

homer: Stupid RMS!

-everphilski-

The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[s20451]

For those who oppose missile defence, I ask: The only other thing protecting you from nuclear attack is the fact that the United States is willing to commit an act of genocide to avenge your death. Does that make you sleep better at night? Especially since this does not protect you against mistakes, malfunctions, or insanity.

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[hey!]

For those who oppose missile defence, I ask: The only other thing protecting you from nuclear attack is the fact that the United States is willing to commit an act of genocide to avenge your death. Does that make you sleep better at night?

Well, it's a very nice sounding argument, but very poorly thought out in my opinion. The question then is not do I sleep soundly when the only thing that keeps nuclear armageddon in check is mutually assured destruction? The question is am I justified in sleeping more soundly after we deloy a missile defense system? I think it is all to common to examine only one side of the coin -- the intended outcome -- and not the other.

The way the missile defense would work in an idealized world is that (1) it would operate well enough to significantly reduce damage, (2) enemies would not adjust their tactics to avoid the systems strengths and target its weaknesses and (3) our leaders would not place undue faith in the system's ability to protect us from the consequences of their actions.

Now, suppose that another hypothetical world that (1) the system while somewhat effective nonetheless lets enough through to do severe damage (2) enemies adjust their technologyt o reduce the system's effectiveness or choose other delivery systems such as cruise missiles launched from off our coasts or shipping container bombs and (3) our leaders act as if the system is a complete and flawless defense despite the prior two points.

Now, should I sleep better at night in that hypothetical world?

Especially since this does not protect you against mistakes, malfunctions, or insanity.

I think this is a reasonable target for technological counter measures, provided we don't delude ourselves, which we're all to prone to do.

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[sickofthisshit]

Strawman argument. Missile defense is not protecting us against any of those things in a realistic sense.

Missile defense has not proved anything near the ability to prevent an attack by multiple advanced missiles, particularly those which would use even relatively simple anti-simulation decoy techniques.

For the newbies to missile defense, "decoys" are typically large mylar balloons which inflate in space to create radar targets as large or larger than a warhead. They are extremely cheap and light, so anybody able to make an ICBM can afford to put many decoys in their missiles. "Anti-simulation" means you put the warhead in a balloon, or in some other way make it look very similar to the cheap, plentiful decoys.

Now your putative missile defense system has to somehow deal with dozens of things that all look like cheap decoys, but only a handful are actually warheads.

The missile defense folks will hem and haw about how their system is not meant to deal with a sophisticated enemy, which is code for "we think North Korea can't really make fancy warheads that maneuver like we think Soviet warheads can" but ignoring the fact that mylar balloons are not sophisticated. Or that it is only meant to handle single isolated launches, like might occur by "accident." Or they'll say they are only deploying the system to provide the opportunity for more realistic testing. Or that they really need a launch-phase system (before the decoys get a chance to deploy), which needs to be very near the launch site, so you need to post sailors or soldiers very near North Korea (because you can't get close enough to China or Russia's launch sites without invading their territory) whenever you think a launch is probable, and keep them ready enough to respond in minutes.

As opposed to sitting around in Alaska waiting for a single warhead, with at most a few decoys, to come sailing up from North Korea, and hoping that North Korean missile designers never heard of mylar balloons. Then you get to see if the *many* billions of dollars we've spent on this system pay off or not.

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[s20451]

I agree, I don't think the problem of intercepting the missiles in space will be solved until the kill devices become as cheap and easy to launch as the decoys, which will probably not be for decades.

However, with existing technology it is trivial to distinguish real vehicles from decoys in the upper atmosphere, say 50 km up, because the light decoys will fall behind the heavy warhead. The energies and distances in this phase of flight mean that successful interception would still destroy the warhead without harming anything on the ground. This is the kind of environment that the article is talking about.

And, sure, missile defence has issues -- it is a fundamentally difficult problem. But I don't see an alternative. I find MAD extremely distasteful, and there have been enough near misses to discredit it as a permanent solution. Disarmament is probably hopeless: the past 15 years have seen unprecedented peace among nuclear-armed nations, yet proliferation is getting worse.

The problems take time and effort to solve, which is why I advocate missile defence research. I do agree that many current implementations suck, but this does not imply that the idea is impossible.

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[s20451]

I agree that point (3) is a problem. Points (1) and (2) are technological issues that can be solved with time.

I think the "cruise missiles and container bombs" argument makes no sense, because these two delivery systems do not have the same potential as ICBMs. A cruise missile is basically a jet aircraft, and we already know how to shoot those down. They also take a relatively long time (i.e., hours) to arrive at their target, giving plenty of warning. As for container bombs, you could use them to attack a city, but you could never get one close enough to a hardened military installation to do significant damage. It would be an effective tool for terrorists, but totally worthless as a military strike. And it would be almost impossible to co-ordinate more than a few simultaneous container-bomb attacks.

By contrast, ICBMs can be used to attack any target in the world, take around 45 minutes from launch to impact, can be used in co-ordinated attacks of unlimited size, and cannot be stopped with existing technology.

The promise of missile defence is to make massive nuclear attack obsolete as a weapon of war. I think that is a worthwhile goal.

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[hey!]

The promise of missile defence is to make massive nuclear attack obsolete as a weapon of war. I think that is a worthwhile goal.

Yes, I agree it is a worthwhile goal. However I don't think we'll see it my lifetime.

I think the "cruise missiles and container bombs" argument makes no sense, because these two delivery systems do not have the same potential as ICBMs.

Remember, most of the US lives within twenty miles or so of the coast. Consider the Katrina situation. Imagine how much worse a small Hiroshima sized bomb would have been. Consider the following list of cities:

Miami
Tampa
New Orleans
Houston
San Diego
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Boston
New York
Philadelphia
Baltimore
Washington DC

All of these cities are ports that are vulnerable to a container bomb, or they are close enough that an incoming freighter could launch a cruise missile attack with only a few minutes notice. Although missiles could be shot down, it is unlikely. Launched from within fifty miles or so of their target, the missiles are likely to arrive in less than ten minutes, and may not even be detectable. It is also possible that they could be delivered in automated aircraft which are indistinguishable from civilian aviation.

I'm assuming the midwest would be safe because it would not be risky to deliver a bomb via the St. Lawrence Seaway. Other cities with international airports might be vulnerable if control is not effective at the departing port.

Hit one of the cities on this list and you've dealth the country blow far more severe than 9/11 or Katrina. Hit two or more and the blow might be critical. Hit three well chosen cities from this list and it's very possible you won't have to worry about hitting hardened military targets -- American society might well collapse.

By contrast, ICBMs can be used to attack any target in the world, take around 45 minutes from launch to impact, can be used in co-ordinated attacks of unlimited size, and cannot be stopped with existing technology.

A hawk may dive at 200MPH from high above, but an owl dropping from ten feet above at 35MPH is a more fearsome predator. The reason is stealth. The prey doesn't have much time to react to the sound of the diving hawk, but the owl kills before it is perceived at all.

And the kind of attack scale ICBMS are capable of are overkill. The only argument for this capacity because they target hardened military installations. A mere handful of cities is all that is needed to cripple this country. Certainly it would not be difficult to attack six or seven major cities within the course of a few minutes using low tech delivery systems under the guise of normal international trade.

What I'm saying is that once the genie is out of the bottle, there is no technical fix.

The cornerstones of homeland defense really ought to be international cooperation on law enforcement, customs and nuclear non-proliferation. I realize that as rugged individualists, this is distasteful.

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[sickofthisshit]

"Upper atmosphere" is terminal phase, meaning your interceptors need to act even faster, and must be located even nearer the target.

In any case, you have to look at the cost-effectiveness of any scheme against other competing schemes and threats. Ballistic missile threats from organized militaries seem much less important to me than other delivery mechanisms potentially used by terrorists, included state-sponsored ones. The countermeasures against those include non-proliferation, securing of nuclear materials, more intelligence gathering, and effective action against terrorist groups. All of which are much cheaper than massive hardware development.

Yes, research is useful. But research down avenues that have poor performance even if they are successful is wasteful compared to investing in approaches which have more chance of success.

Spending billions so that we can actually pour concrete in Alaska to base a non-proven system doesn't really count as "research" either.

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[flyingsquid]

For those who oppose missile defence, I ask: The only other thing protecting you from nuclear attack is the fact that the United States is willing to commit an act of genocide to avenge your death. Does that make you sleep better at night? Especially since this does not protect you against mistakes, malfunctions, or insanity.

That's an idiotic argument. Nuclear weapons aren't the only deterrents; you've also got the massive conventional arsenal of the United States military- tomahawks, laser-guided bombs, fuel-air explosives, you name it. Plus, if anyone ordered a pre-emptive attack, they would also have to deal with the possibility of allied nations like Britain declaring war on them. Finally, you've got the economic argument. Most nations benefit from trade with the United States. China, for instance, probably isn't going to nuke us as long as we continue to buy billions of dollars of their imports.

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[sickofthisshit]

Massive nuclear attack *is* obsolete, and can't be prevented with practical missile defenses anyway. Which is why NMD advocates talk about defending against *small* ballistic missile attacks.

ICBMs are expensive and leave an obvious return address for retaliation. A *small* attack is not likely to be used against hardened military targets, but against soft targets, and typically civilian ones. Container bombs are cheaper and more effective ways for an adversary to accomplish terrorist goals, and actually *launching* a small attack means the deterrent aspect has already failed.

North Korea does not have long-range missiles and nukes to actually use them except in some last-gasp scenario. They have them to deter U.S. military action by adding risk and uncertainty to U.S. plans. Spending many bilions of dollars for an ineffective defense which will likely never be used is a total crock, especially when all military plans against North Korea suck anyhow.

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[s20451]

Your argument is based on the premise that if a few American cities were attacked by nuclear weapons, civilization would collapse and the military would be neutralized. I think this is unlikely. Experience from World War 2 has shown that nations can absorb horrific damage without collapsing, and still retain most of their military strength. Also, if you look here (using 0.02 megatons for a Hiroshima-sized weapon) and compare it to this, you will find that the damage inflicted by Katrina is about the same, or greater.

Container bombs can also be stopped by intelligence. If the government is tipped off to expect a container bomb, the navy can be used to hold and inspect all ships to find the weapon(s). There will be some economic stress, but the attack will have been thwarted.

What I'm saying is that a government that is serious about conducting a nuclear war will use ICBMs in large numbers. For a state (even in the guise of state terrorism) to use a container bomb against a handful of US cities, leaving the military intact, would be suicidal. This is why missile defence is important.

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[s20451]

I never specified that the act of genocide did not include conventional weapons. So you are confirming my argument.

Also, are you saying that because the US is friendly with nuclear-armed nations today, that it will be friendly with them forever?

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[hey!]

. Experience from World War 2 has shown that nations can absorb horrific damage without collapsing, and still retain most of their military strength.

It's a good point. However I think there are key distinctions to be made.

(1) The economies of these countries were on a war time footing. Everything that was destroyed that was essential to the war effort had to be replaced. Therefore there was a clear productive focus; war stimulates the economy. If the enemy blows up bridges, you already have programs to recycle the scrap into more bridges in place. If the enemy disrupts your communiccations, you have alternate channels. If the enemy destroys some of your distribution systems, you have rationing in place. In the case I'm positing we would not be on a war footing at all, and none of these adaptations would be in place, so the chaos in each city would be New Orleans many times over, multiplied by the number of cities.

(2) The damage to the infrastructure in past wars was over months or even years, giving the government and industry time to adapt. I'm talking about doing as much as was done to Germany in WW2 and in some ways possibly more, but happening in the space of a few hours.

(3) Our enemy may not be identifiable or provide us with a clear target to focus on. There is no enemy to drive into the sea, no Hun fatherland to conquer. We might not even know who hit us. We may have no idea whether we continue to be vulnerable or not.

(4) Our economy is more dependent on agility and communication than the mid 20th century economy. We don't do much manufacturing and we do a lot of communication. We're more highly dependent on international trade. When we do manufacture things we're more likely to eschew inventories and vertical integration in favor of elaborate coordination with suppliers. All of which says that disruption of supplies and communications are many times more damaging to us.

I'm not saying it is impossible for civilization to survive a massive sneak nuclear attack. But I don't think anything says our civilization has to be immortal.

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[sd_diamond]

I agree that point (3) is a problem. Points (1) and (2) are technological issues that can be solved with time.

(1) perhaps, but not (2). Adversaries will always adjust tactics to route around defensive systems. The very best that anyone can hope to accomplish with a missile defense system is to make ICBMs obsolete as a delivery method for nuclear weapons. In which case, someone wishing to launch a nuclear attack will just find a better way to deliver the warheads -- whether with earth-hugging stealth cruise missiles, or by smuggling them across the border on ships, trucks, and airplanes.

If anything, 9/11 proved that big, fancy, expensive SDI systems are even more pointless today than they were in the '80s.

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[bemenaker]

I totally agree with what you said here. N. Korea's search for nukes is strictly a bargaining tool, and a fail safe. If you take us out, we will make it very painful to you. N. Korea would absolutely NEVER fire a nuke at the US. Why would they, the standard response to that is for us to nuke them flat, and we can, and we will. This whole missle defense shield is a way that the war hawks in DC want to try to tip the bargaining scales back in the US's favor.

For as horrible as Bush is in global politics, this one almost looks like a smart move, until you realize that the whole plan is a smoke screen. Right now, 3 ICBM's makes the system worthless. Actually, two would, the system is statistically inaccurrate enough that one of two would get through.

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[sickofthisshit]

Yeah, I was very imprecise in my description. I should have said "re-entry vehicles" instead of warheads too.

But antisimulation works in the IR too, with a little heater, or playing games with emissivities. North Korea has all the time in the world to think up tricks, and your IR sensing solution has to cover the whole range of possible tricks. We can't really know how North Korea's decoys are going to differ from antisimulated warheads. Brighter? Dimmer? All the precision in the world doesn't help when you don't even know the right sign. Keep in mind the decoys and targets in the tests so far have been deliberately made to look different.

All these solutions work great when you know what is being thrown at you. When your first time looking at the North Korean re-entry vehicles and decoys is on game day, then my confidence in any solution gets a lot shakier.

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[r00t]

This "can't be prevented with practical missile defenses anyway" idea is either wrong or missing the point.

Suppose that, in any given year, international relations (diplomacy, non-proliferation treaty, trade, cultural export) is 99% effective. Suppose that an anti-ICBM system is only 50% effective. Well, the defence is 99.5% effective if you have both!

This isn't all that different from protecting a Windows computer network from attack. You don't rely on the firewall alone. You don't rely on Windows update alone. You don't rely on anit-virus software alone. No, you use all the tools you can come up with, even though none of them are perfect.

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[r00t]

I agree that "the cornerstones of homeland defense really ought to be international cooperation on law enforcement, customs and nuclear non-proliferation", and in no way find it distasteful.

This does not mean that technical solutions should be ignored.

A technical solution that fails half the time is a technical solution that succeeds half of the time. If you are a pessimist, it is easier to notice the potential for failure. Hey, the glass is half full!

Actually, it's better than that. If a technical solution would succeed 50% of the time, it will also discourage attack. So the effective success rate is much higher that the success rate seen when we assume that the attack will be made.

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[s20451]

If you take us out, we will make it very painful to you. N. Korea would absolutely NEVER fire a nuke at the US. Why would they, the standard response to that is for us to nuke them flat, and we can, and we will.

Are you sure? In Europe during the Cold War, senior NATO officers operated on the policy of "use it or lose it" -- if their position was about to be overrun, and their nukes captured, they were expected to launch. Surely this logic would also appeal to North Korean officers.

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[sickofthisshit]

Diplomacy is practically free. Missile defense is fucking EXPENSIVE, you dimwit.

Plus, your 50% is highly optimistic. Pardon me if I don't feel it is a good idea to spend hundreds of billions of dollars for that extra 0.5% in protection, diverting money from dealing with REAL threats.

NOBODY believes a *massive* (did you miss that word?) attack can be prevented by a practical ABM system. That's the whole reason people abandoned the Star Wars model and came back with a scaled down system to protect against a *limited* attack.

Windows computer viruses are a present REALITY. ICBM attacks are a worst-case POSSIBILITY. The Soviet Union with thousands of ICBMs never attacked, despite our lack of ABM defenses. Funny, huh?

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[sickofthisshit]

You are positing a U.S. offensive against North Korea, then. The scenario was "the U.S. is just minding its business when North Korea decides to launch a nuke." *I* specifically excluded "last-gasp" anyway.

Even if they did launch during a U.S offensive, it would almost certainly be against U.S. bases in Japan, just as the U.S. would have used them against Warsaw Pact forces and the logistic chain behind them. Hitting U.S. territory would be absolutely pointless, and do nothing. Hitting military forces while they are attacking is completely within the rules of war, and might have a slight chance of preventing utter defeat.

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[r00t]

Diplomacy isn't even remotely cheap. Check out our "foreign aid" budget. That's only part of the cost of diplomacy.

Missile defence isn't quite expensive as it looks, at least if you consider the whole economy. It's like sending people to the Moon. All sorts of high-tech inventions happen.

I believe a *massive* attack can be prevented by a practical ABM system because:

• the attack might not happen if the ABM system is deployed
• the attack might be moderate once the ABM system takes out some of the warheads

Quit living in a dream world. Nuclear war will happen again, eventually. Our defences will fail some of the time. Would you like the average frequency of failure to be once every 80 years or once every 400 years? Would you like small failures, with a few cities winding up like New Orleans, or big failures with every part of the country looking like that?

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[CommieOverlord]

The promise of missile defence is to make massive nuclear attack obsolete as a weapon of war. I think that is a worthwhile goal.

Uh, no. If the US developed successful and then released the technical details so that other countries could build missile defence systems, THEN that would show that MD would make nuclear attacks obsolete.

If only country has missile defence it increases the risk of war and thusly nuclear war.

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[mpe]

For the newbies to missile defense, "decoys" are typically large mylar balloons which inflate in space to create radar targets as large or larger than a warhead. They are extremely cheap and light, so anybody able to make an ICBM can afford to put many decoys in their missiles. "Anti-simulation" means you put the warhead in a balloon, or in some other way make it look very similar to the cheap, plentiful decoys.

There are also other things you can use to make seeing where the actual warheads are. e.g. strips of foil. Even lumps of concrete designed to survive reentry. The most difficult part of making a working ICBM is the rocket. Even countries with lots of experience in handling rockets cannot get them to function with the kind of reliability typical of other vehicles.

Or that they really need a launch-phase system (before the decoys get a chance to deploy), which needs to be very near the launch site, so you need to post sailors or soldiers very near North Korea (because you can't get close enough to China or Russia's launch sites without invading their territory) whenever you think a launch is probable, and keep them ready enough to respond in minutes.

Most likely this would equate to keeping a fleet of ships near to somewhere which might be a threat. Capable not only of shooting down an ICBM, but also able to defend itself against attack. Since any country capable of launching an ICBM undoubtedly also has the ability to carry out much shorter range attacks against land or sea.
An ABM system is also utterly useless against the threat of someone smuggling a nuclear weapon into your country and delivering it using a truck. Which is considerably cheaper, much more stealty and has more chance of actually getting to the target than sticking it atop a large quantity of explosive.

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[mpe]

Ballistic missile threats from organized militaries seem much less important to me than other delivery mechanisms potentially used by terrorists, included state-sponsored ones. The countermeasures against those include non-proliferation, securing of nuclear materials, more intelligence gathering,

Including "Human Intelligence" even some good old fashioned "Detective Work".

and effective action against terrorist groups.

Which includes dealing with percieved injustices which mean willing recruits.

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[mpe]

I think the "cruise missiles and container bombs" argument makes no sense, because these two delivery systems do not have the same potential as ICBMs. A cruise missile is basically a jet aircraft, and we already know how to shoot those down.

The US failed to do this with some big airliners are few years back. If in someone were to use an aircraft as an improvised nuclear cruise missile they could use a light aircraft. Rather harder to spot and a small jet typically has much better performance than an airliner.

As for container bombs, you could use them to attack a city, but you could never get one close enough to a hardened military installation to do significant damage. It would be an effective tool for terrorists, but totally worthless as a military strike. And it would be almost impossible to co-ordinate more than a few simultaneous container-bomb attacks.

Even a few such attacks would be serious. Even many potential military targets are fairly soft. Whilst fences and guardposts may prevent people and vehicles entering they arn't going to stop a bomb going off just outside.

By contrast, ICBMs can be used to attack any target in the world, take around 45 minutes from launch to impact,

It has the rather big drawback of giving 45 minutes warning, not very useful if the intent is to do something like killing lots of political leaders at once.

can be used in co-ordinated attacks of unlimited size

Assuming to have large number of rockets to hand.

Re:The alternative: Mutual assured destruction

[mpe]

Launched from within fifty miles or so of their target, the missiles are likely to arrive in less than ten minutes, and may not even be detectable. It is also possible that they could be delivered in automated aircraft which are indistinguishable from civilian aviation.

Even actually be a civilian airliner. Finding a suicide pilot is unlikely to be too much of a problem for any military or paramilitary... September the 11th showed that a scheduled airliner can be way off course before alarm bells start ringing. Anyone capable of planning an attack using their own aircraft can probably file a flight plan.

I'm assuming the midwest would be safe because it would not be risky to deliver a bomb via the St. Lawrence Seaway.

Probably not a good assumption. If you can get a bomb into a container port it probably isn't that much harder to get the container onto a truck. Where it can literally go anywhere there is a road.

RedHawk Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Linux for neocons?

mod parent up

[antifret]

Hear hear. Trying to stop ICBMs is a mug's game. It's my understanding the last ABM waste of money (SDI) was more to bankrupt the Soviet Union in competition than to actually ever deliver a working system. Nothing has changed except China's probably in a better position than the Russkis ever were to keep pace (if not surpass) economically.

Re:que the microsoft crash jokes

[bleckywelcky]

Well, of course. No one spends $billions on a new missile system without writing the control routines from the ground up. They don't skimp by heading over to freshmeat.org to look for someone who has already written an IMU routine. However, the ground support equipment might very well use Linux. I wouldn't be too surprised to hear that.

Guns don't kill people...

[slowhand]

Guns don't kill people. Linux does!

Does the Constitution of the United States guarantee the right to keep and bear Linux?

Stability & Speed a Key in Defense Systems

[trygstad]

People can debate the morality of this all day without really accomplishing anything, but as someone who operated technically sophisticated weapons systems, I can speak from experience as to the value of having an OS that is rock-stable and fast. As a long-time anti-submarine warfare helicopter pilot, the last thing I want ever want to see on my center console screen would be a blue screen of death, because in a shooting war, the "death" part might be far more literal than figurative. The morality of the use of technologies for war is a debate for politicians and academics; for those who are at the cutting edge of the spear--who are all volunteers and are there defending your right to even have this debate--the only thing that really matters about a technology is does it work now, and will it work without fail every time it is needed. Personally I'd go with Linux with a great deal of confidence. And if the political will of a nation is going to ask some citizens to lay their lives on the line to protect the bulk of the people, don't those folks on the cutting edge deserve to have the very best tools to do their job?

Frames. State of the art real-time. NOT!!!

[kt0157]

Jeez. After DECADES of research (much sponsored by the USN) into real-time scheduling we get real-time Linux running "frames". Also known as "a big loop of code run as fast as possible". Makes me want to retch.

K.

Re:Feel any good for building weapons?

[jc42]

... like saying that the inventor of the hammer contributed to violence and killings.

This has been a constant objection to all advances in knowledge throughout hiistory. It's hard to think of any technical advance that can't be used for both bad and good.

And strictly speaking, it wasn't really the inventor of the hammer that enabled more killings. Rather, the "basic research" that led to better hard-material devices (chipped flint, forged metals, etc.) led to the artisans makng both better tools and better weapons. Some of them (blades, hammers) could be immediately used for both good and bad purposes. Try building your hut or grinding your grain or carving up your deer without a good hammer or quern or knife.

Now that so much of our technology includes software, it's not surprising that the same principle applies. Anyone working on low-level software (OS kernels, runtime libraries, comm systems, whatever) will inevitably find it used for both bad and good. Many of us who foisted the Internet on the world are not at all surprised to see it spin off viruses, phishing, and RIAA lawsuits against children and grandmothers. In fact, we discussed such things long before they arose, but we didn't ever find a way to prevent them.

The problem is that, like knives or hammers or gunpowder, software really can't distinguish bad from good. That can't be done with any of our current technology. We have to use social methods for handling bad/good distinctions.

We won't stop killing by taking away bombs or guns or knives or OS kernels; we can only do it by taking away the social and political structures that support and encourage the killers.

(I can hear people around the world mutter "starting with the current US government". ;-)

Time to panic!

[karniv0re]

...
Loading kernel/fs/MissileDefense/MissileDefense.o
kmod: failed to exec /sbin/modprobe -s -k block-major-8, errno = 2
MissileDefense: Cannot open root device "mda3" or 08:03
Please append a correct "MissileDefense=" boot option
Kernel panic: MissileDefense: UNable to mount MissileDefense fs on 08:03

Excellent idea!!

[sucker_muts]

Let's put code in the kernel that know the route to Redmond and fires all rockets at Microsoft automatically.

This needs to be covered up fairly good, however. Take that, Bill Gates! :-D :-D

Way Back When

[jmichaelg]

I worked on an air defense system back in the 70's. It was built for the King of Morroco so he could show off to the other despots in North Africa. It wasn't as if Morocco was seriously threatened by anyone but I guess that having been overrun by the Germans, French and the occasional American task force rescuing a Greek who claimed to be an American, the king was a little concerned. The system consisted of two radars parked on a couple of mountaintops talking to a single cpu which updated a couple of consoles and huge wall screen. Whereas the consoles got the standard cryptic designators for each plane, the wall screen got elaborate detailed descriptions since they were for the king to read. The cpu was the fastest cpu of the time, a 16 mhz behemoth that filled a room.

The guy I reported to was one of the smartest people I've ever met and fortunately for the project, he was responsible for the software. He'd come into our offices (the only people that worked in cubicles back then were HP employees) and see how we were doing. He'd frequently find us waiting on a compile as the machine was hard pressed to have 30 or so developers using a single computer to compile with. It began to bother him quite a bit because he'd read the design spec which called for the system to handle a couple of 1000 radar returns each minute. As he was technically capable, he sat down one day and wrote a radar simulator that fed radar packets to a "processor." All the processor did was count the number of packets it received and all the radar simulator did was send empty packets. Not a very complicated piece of software but it was enough to show the hardware wasn't going to meet the spec. It couldn't do that simple task, let alone process the packets, draw positions on the controller screens etc.

He wrote a memo and sent it up the chain. A week passed and no response so he wrote another memo saying the same thing but he changed the memo title. The new title was "I know you're out there - I can hear you breathing." That got his bosses moving and the problem was addressed.

NMCI

[truckaxle]

I am sorry if you work for the Navy all your solutions that are to be connected to the network have to comply with the same hardware/software that sits on the sectaries desk - this is the result of one of the biggist and stupidest IT contracts ever - NMCI. The Navy still has not pulled its collective head out of its ass and dealt with multi-platform most appropiate solutions.

In fact, the Navy have even given ownership of its entire network physical plant to a contractor!!!! So if new leadership wakes up and realizes it was all a bad move there is no easy way out because they would have to buy back its own network.

No way...

[sean.peters]

apt-get install global-thermonuclear-war

Sean

not suprising

[pantalanaga11]

Defense contractors use Linux all over the place in military hardware. For example the latest generation of military radios run linux. Linux would be used more except the pesky NSA has a hard time signing off on its security.

Tux, you warmonger!

[Shakes268]

The new Linux logo = penguin riding a missile with a smile on his face. "Somebody set us up the bomb!"

GPL?

[TheLink]

If they've made a version of the linux kernel, how would we get a version of it?

Oh nooooooooo!

[IdleTime]

So rather than a BSOD, we will now see the following:

"Hi! This is your friendly missile targeting software ver 0.13-alpha
(c) J. L. Y. Bean, 302 BigMack Drive, Obesity
Released under GPL blaaah....
This version requires you to update the kernel to version 2.6.18-rc2 or higher and to upgrade Gnome to 2.12 or higher.
Please rerun the targeting software after the update. Have a nice day!"

Sounds promising!

Upgrade

[toy4two]

So they finally replaced the Atari 2600 Missle Command app?

I grew the food to feed a warmonger!

[Chris Burke]

Food which not only fed and fueled the cruel brain of the warmonger, but also empowered his soldiers to perform the killing acts! Lord forgive me for my crimes!

In the future, I hope we will all restrict access to food only to those who would use the calories for peaceful purposes. Before you ask, starving people who I consider potentially violent is in fact peaceful.

In other words, nice post.

I'm not surprized at all

[ChrisA90278]

I used one of the "real-time modified" linux kernels in my work too. I can see why LM selected it. For those who don't understand "real time" is does not mean "runs fast" it means that if I need a task to run once every 100 miliseconds it does just that. If you are doing something like controling a radar transmitter you need _exact_ timming. For jobs like running a web browser a real-time OS may seem unresponsive and "not smooth" They will likely need access to the kernel source code if they are fielding a military system. These systems have long (25 years plus) lifetimes and you need the ability to repair the OS 20 years from now. I used a real time Linux inside an astronomical CCD camera to generate the waveforms that shift the charges acros the rows and out to the amps and digitiziers. the camera moved relative to the target and the charge was shifted in sync with the moving image. Linuix was great. The hard real time stuff could be done with interrupts disabled inside a kernel level driver and the data was written to disk by a user land process. Standard tols and debugers could be used to develope the camera controller. I'm not surprized at all that LM went this way. But the "Linux" they are using is NOT the "linux" you see when you get Ret Hat or Debian.

Re:Hitch your wagon to a star (OCLI)

[paranerd]

In 1985 Perkin-Elmer spun off thier computer division and renamed it to Concurrent Computer Corporation.

According to Wikipedia:

The commission blamed the failings primarily on Perkin-Elmer. Relations between NASA and the optics company had been severely strained during the telescope construction due to frequent schedule slippage and cost overruns. NASA found that Perkin-Elmer had not regarded the telescope mirror as a crucial part of their business and were also secure in the knowledge that NASA could not take its business elsewhere once the polishing had begun. While the commission heavily criticised Perkin-Elmer for these managerial failings, NASA was also criticised for not picking up on the quality control shortcomings such as relying totally on test results from a single instrument.

OK, let's be fair

[fujiman]

Since some people seem to think a military is not necessary, indeed EVIL, why don't we just remove the military from society. Yeah, and while we're at it, remove military-developed technology like sonar, radar, the interne

Hardware In the Loop: Been There

[cmholm]

The parent for this thread probably doesn't have any first hand experience with HWIL, but s/he has the basic ideas down. Lemme hit the previous bullets:

Gyroscopic mount: typically, the seeker for the missile (radar, ir, video, whatever) in question is mounted on the gimbals. The rest of the guidance section is in a nearby rack. The reactions of the rest of the missile (fins, motor, body) is simulated in the kinematic codes running on the HWIL simulation computer(s).

Projection screen: a jargon problem. For Radar: an array of radio frequency feed horns are mounted on a wide hemispheric frame about 50 to 100 feet in front of the seeker, which is at the focal point of their output. By varying the frequency, power, and polarity of the energy from each feed horn, one or more targets can be represented. The simulation computer usually takes care of the radar pulse delay to represent range. Simulated changes in target angle are handled by moving the seeker on it's gimbals.

IR projection: a "hot" video display, to my experience using an led array no bigger than a laptop display a few feet in front of the seeker. Video: to my experience, either a large front or rear video projection system, or a tv display a few feet in front of the seeker.

Fins/vectored thrust: in a HWIL system, the aerodynamic controls are usually simulated. The control computer intercepts the commands from the guidance section, and feeds them into the kinematic software for use in the virtual environment.

Movement in 3D space: Why move the seeker at all? Because it's cheaper than moving the display mechanism (whether radar, ir, or video). The seeker is built to withstand intense shock and vibration, small, and usually weighs anywhere from a few tens to hundreds of pounds. The display system is usually custom built, touchy, and too unwieldy to move in angle or rate in degrees per second needed to represent how a target might present itself. Depending on the scenario, the simulated target may well start 'waaaaaaay off to the side of the seeker's POV. So, throw the seeker on gimbals and move it.

Before moving into an expensive HWIL lab, the guidance software, or guidance computer and s/w, will have been put thru it's paces on a computer-in-the-loop simulation, where nothing moves except logic states. HWIL is the final stage of integration testing before trying the whole missile out on a test range.

Just between you, me, and the lamp post, I believe Lockeed won the THAAD contract on price, and the Army has been paying the price for what, twelve years? If (my previous employer) had won this, I assert we'd have a deployable system by now.

Re:Hardware In the Loop: Been There

[cmholm]

But your assertion that your employer would have had a deployable system by now is unfounded.

Yep, you've hit it right on the nose. All I had was a gut feeling (back in the day) that LM bit off more than it could chew, and a case of sour grapes to gnaw on.

NORAD on W2K

[Horatio_Hellpop]

I belive the NORAD computers are still using Windows 2000 Pro ... scary thought ...

Re:NORAD on W2K

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean they got rid of Joshua?

Re:NORAD on W2K

[JhohannaVH]

Ney. Only the clients ever did, if that. NORAD was completely built on IRIX - which I believe they converted to Solaris - this was LOOOONG after I left the state. I worked on the Loral project, and the whole thing was run off a huge bank of SGI Crimson's at least as late as 1997. But no, there's no F'in *way* that the systems could run on Windows - and this coming from a QA person at the code level. If you can tell me how this system could possibly run on Windows, I'll give you a cookie! :P

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/au-18/au18004c .htm

Did I mention that I'm hellaterrified of the information that I was able to pull up while looking up to confirm that they are still on IRIX??????

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/facility/cmc.htm

While I could not find any information on what they are actually running today (that would be *bad*) It looks like some systems are using HP-UX, too. But that will have to go away, since HP let that go down the pipes. Bastards.

But suffice it to say, there's no way in hades that NORAD systems could be running on W2k, it just couldn't handle it. Again, there's the possibility of the clients doing it, but not the backend systems. :)

Jho

Term limits

[Kevin Burtch]

I don't advocate war either but I do advocate term limits for politicians.

Then this should scare the hell out of you.

I used google so you can see how many references there are... for those too lazy to click the above link: Hoyer, Berman, Sensenbrenner, Sabo, and Pallone are "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution." (Presidential Tenure)!

layered defence

[r00t]

All layers, and I really do mean all layers, are flawed. It is incredibly irresponsible to skip a few layers. The layers include...

• nuclear non-proliferation treaty
• economic cooperation (carrot)
• economic non-cooperation (stick)
• cultural export
• implied threat of nuclear return fire
• diplomacy, including explicit threats
• intercept of suspicious boats and trucks near borders
• intercept of ICBMs at launch (sabotage, airborne laser)
• intercept of ICBMs in space (smart rocks, X-ray laser)
• intercept of warheads reentering (radar-controlled heavy machine gun)
• bomb shelter, good building codes, iodine and calcium supplements

It looks like you want to rely on the first few layers alone. Note that the first 4 have already failed several times. No thanks dude, I'll have all the other layers too please.

Re:layered defence

[sickofthisshit]

Ah, yes. And I'd like a pony.

How many hundreds of billions of dollars are you willing to add to the defense budget to get all of those things to "work?" Even if they are never used? Or don't really work but give you a warm fuzzy feeling anyway?

Also, your definition of "failure" subtly shifts from "somebody gets a nuke" to "somebody's nuke detonates nearby." Yes, Kim Jong Il probably has nukes (no thanks to a na-na-na-I-can't-hear-you diplomatic strategy). Have those nukes killed you?

Re:layered defence

[C 12]

The way I see it, the Federal gov't should only really be spending in vital infrastructure and Defense. We are in the worst possible position in this world, in that we are envied.

Re:layered defence

[mpe]

How many hundreds of billions of dollars are you willing to add to the defense budget to get all of those things to "work?" Even if they are never used? Or don't really work but give you a warm fuzzy feeling anyway?

Which also means that you have several billions of dollars less to spend on other things. Including addressing more likely risks than someone launching a nuclear tipped ICBM at the US.

Re:layered defence

[mpe]

The way I see it, the Federal gov't should only really be spending in vital infrastructure and Defense.

It probaly wouldn't work if the US Government were to actually spend more on the former.

We are in the worst possible position in this world, in that we are envied.

Actually no, in plenty of parts of the world the US is disliked for it's foreign policy (which includes, but isn't limited to things like attacking countries which havn't any hope of being able to defend themselves) as well as being laughed at for things like the inability to cope with Hurricane Katrina (or its aftermarth).

Re:layered defence

[C 12]

One can be disliked and envied at the same time. In fact, they often go together.

the few remaining layers have saved me, so far

[r00t]

Kim Jong Il seems to be stopped primarily by the threat of return fire. I think he likes to keep his comfy palace.

Not every troublesome leader would be stopped. Someday, perhaps Kim Jong Il (with fading mental health?) will not be stopped by that layer.

North Korea isn't the only place to gain nuclear weapons, but fortuanately the "cultural export" and "economic cooperation" layers work damn well against places like India.

Also, watch out with your "work" definition. A layer that works 15% of the time is still useful. It beats having nothing. Don't dismiss something just because it isn't 100% perfect all the time under all conditions. If we could have such a perfect defence, we sure wouldn't need multiple layers! The whole point of a layered defence is to provide excellent protection despite our inability to create any one perfect defence.

Re:the few remaining layers have saved me, so far

[sickofthisshit]

B.S.

Kim Jong Il, if anything, is HELPED by the threat posed by the U.S. It justifies his militaristic regime. You probably think Castro is going to fall any day now because of the U.S. sanctions.

Plus, you TOTALLY ignored the cost aspect. Yeah, it would be nice to have a missile defense capability, if it cost nothing. And then, I might not care that it doesn't work.

I can go wrap my house in tissue paper to make an *in*effective defense against nuclear attack. And it would be cheap. But I still don't do it because it would be stupid. If I had to spend billions of dollars to get gold-plated tissue paper, it would be even more stupid.

Re:But what if...

[Hektor_Troy]

"To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing."
- Elbert HubbardI tried that. My mom ruined that idea ...

"Why don't you talk to me? Why haven't you taken out the trash? Why don't you have a job yet?"

Yep, same people

[r00t]

Harris Computer Systems was split from Harris. They were given one year to change their name to something that didn't include "Harris". They merged with Concurrent to get a new name.

Re:Where can I download it

[grolschie]

I had a look through the vendors website - I can't see anywhere that I can download the distribution from.

Does this mean that they are violating the GPL - and if so can they be sued (selling to the military makes them a rich target) ;-)

Nope. Anyone who they sell/give/distribute the GPL software to must be able to receive the GPL source code at no/minimal cost, should they want it. It does not mean that the software or source code has to be made publically available for all and sundry, who never obtained GPL software from them. They are in their rights to make available CDs of the source code to customers who obtained the software, should they choose to want the code, instead of public download. What the customers do with the code from there is up to them, as long as they in turn honour the GPL obligations.

Re:the right tool for the job?

[cpeterso]

yes, but Linux's fonts look like crap (even in space).

You should read the Rama series

[Mr2cents]

I recently read the "Rama" series by Arthur C. Clarke (later books together with Gentry Lee). There was a species, I'm not telling wich one in order not to spoil too much, but they had an interesting war policy. When they entered a war, the society was drastically transformed, and *every* individual involved in the war effort was automatically sheduled for termination (aka death) as soon as the war ended. This included their leaders. They immediatly started producing large amounts of offspring to replace them. There were two reasons. The first was that the individuals confronted with war would be emotionally unstable from the horrors of war, and could not adapt to civil life afterwards. The second was that war is an extreme solution, and their leaders would not begin a war needlessly because it meant they would die no matter the outcome.

It was a really cool part of the series, the species would first allow the agressors to bomb them without retaliation while sending multiple messages saying that they didn't realized who they were messing with and that they'd better stop now. Then after the final ultimatum, they were remorseless and would kill nearly everyone in one big blow.

I liked their attitude :-).

PS: The episode is in the final part, Rama Reveiled, so you'll need some time. Also, the ending isn't that spectacular, imho, but still I enjoyed reading it.

Windows = PEACE

[maxrate]

Proof that Microsoft is a peaceful organization - they have built into the Windows OS anti-war technology by means of unstability.

thanks for thinking of mother earth MS!

Re:the right tool for the job?

[uxo]

"You are wrong. Linux is a hard realtime OS..."

I think you are mistaken. According to the FSM Labs web page (emphasis added by me):

"...RTLinuxPro is a tested and validated, hard real-time, POSIX operating system that runs embedded Linux as an application platform."

POSIX is used "...for real-time...", with "...full access to Linux for non-real-time programs." (emphasis mine)

Re:Er, Um, do we want to link Linux to a real luse

[gatkinso]

The author is "sort of" right. THAAD was floundering badly in the 90's and was completely restructured in 1996. The battle management and sensors were fine, but the interceptor was a flop and completely redesigned.

He speaks of the old system, you of the new. The only thing in common between the two systems is the acronym, but even the first Word in it has changed.

Not to worry, the THAAD interceptor will probably be replaced with the SM-3 (the missile that the Aegis BMD system is based on). However the radars and C3BM will remain the same.

Re:Feel any good for building weapons?

[legirons]

People do bad things using Linux on a daily basis including cracking, handling violent or child pornography

This is a taboo now, just liek child porn was? The UK law isn't even passed yet, and it's already forbidden to show cartoon characters hitting one another.

Slashdot: Just another culture war

[TheNarrator]

Amazingly free software has avoided becoming overtly politicized! Probably because software developers are a lot more intelligent than the average "movement".

When I say politicized, here's the long academic, but very interesting explanation of what I'm talking about:

Why everything everywhere all the time must be political.

The short explanation is this:

I was once on a electronic music mailing list dedicated to the subgenre of electronic music known as "Trance". This is just electronic music but more repetitive. Electronic music of this subgenre in general does not have lyrics.

Anyway, the Iraq war was starting and some guy came on the list and said "If you're really a 'Trancer' and believe in the trance music spirit you'll come to my anti-Iraq war protest".

I replied back that if ALL I really cared about was trance music than I would be for Nuking Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia and putting the entire middle east under the domination of Israel as Israel has some of the best trance music in the world and raves, techno music, dancing, hallucinogenic drugs etc are treated far more severely in these Islamic countries than in Israel.

Anyway, invevitably every single movement of any size is at least attempted to be co-opted somehow into the left wing political coalition, no matter how tenuous the link between the left's ideology and the aims of the movement they are attempting to assimilate.

Re:Feel any good for building weapons?

[ettlz]

OK, clumsy syntax. I could have instead put, "manipulation, handling and distribution of media for the purposes of erotic entertainment whose production necessitates deliberate violence and/or damage to human wellbeing", etc.

A GNU Logo?

[Ghent96]

I was inspired to artistry whilest reading this article: http://www.chadland.com/images/penguin_wmd.jpg

Linux crashes?

[penguinoid]

Are they implying that linux crashes more than windows?

Re:Feel any good for building weapons?

[mark_hill97]

What in the world do smelly hippes know about clean? ;)

Linux and Star Wars...

[healyje]

One stands a half-decent chance at mounting an active defense to protect us despite obvious weaknesses; the other is riddled with technology, design, and implementation holes and is easily overwhelmed by a multiplicity of means. Which is which...?

Most important question

[Omega Blue]

I went to Concurrent's website and couldn't find any free Linux distro to download.

Aren't they violating the GPL?

Space Weaponization

[Lord Flipper]

Now there's something to be proud of!!!

Mod Parent Up!

[JhohannaVH]

Hear frickin' HEAR!!!! I couldn't agree more with your reasoning and logic. :D

Screaming in the Night

[JhohannaVH]

(when you have the source available, in C, C++, Fortran and ADA),

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Could you please go pick up my inner child at the day care center? You scared her back into infancy!!!!

Holy SHIT! I never thought I'd see those all used together like that every again after I left NORAD and College!!!!! ADA is the *whole* reason that I never could program. CTU pushed us from BASIC -> Turbo Pascal -> ADA -> C -> C++ (can you tell how long ago this is yet?). I got *so* lost in ADA I've never been able to write anything other than scripts. :( What's really sad is that my instructor worked at the same company I did, and he couldn't even understand most of what he was teaching. *feh*

Must be a military application! :P

Jho

missile defense

[Con to the Spiracy]

Ideologically at least, I support the idea of national missile defense. But one has to look at this from a cost-benefit angle. A system that could probably stop ICBMs would be worth spending quite a lot on (though not necessarily any obscene amount of money). A system that can maybe stop ICBMs under ideal conditions will probably not stop them in real life. It's still worth a lot, but not billions and billions. This is money that could be much better spent actually protecting America. For example, what's to stop somebody from landing a nuke on our shores in a small boat? How many thousands of times less would it cost to patrol our shores effectively than fuel some military-industrial boondoggle?