Linux Powers Military UGV

An anonymous reader writes "Linux powers a new autonomous unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) that learns routes by following along behind foot-soldiers, after which it can retrace the route solo, avoiding obstacles. iRobot's "R-Gator" UGV is based on John Deere's 658cc, diesel-powered M-Gator military utility vehicle platform, with control, navigation, and object-avoidance systems based on BlueCat Linux from LynuxWorks. I wonder how Linux idealists feel about their cute little OS being deployed in machinery of war?"

Comments

First Weapons ports

[Anonymous Coward]

I am certain that there are many Linux idealists that will have no problem with their cute little OS being depoloyed in the machinery of war. Many of them will be more than happy to port new weapons to this platform. I suspect that some of the first batch of weapons will include the rocket launcher, the plasma rifle and the BFG2000.

How do they feel?

[dcapel]

I'd rather have linux do something like that, even if I don't agree with the 'that'. I'd rather have tax money saved on something like that, and also it furthers the robotics field from the open source point of view.

And best yet, no blue screen of open fire ;)

Re:How do they feel?

[Wyatt Earp]

As a military historian, I don't think the arguement can be made that "at we are spending absolutely humongous gobs of money on something that, in my view, has zero benefit to the American people" either from a political, military or technology point of view.

I will focus on the technological point of view here because the political and military sides...hell we all know that'll jsut cause yelling :)

Military spending, in the West since 1900 has had positive outcomes technologically in the long run. Yea, poison gas, nuclear bombs, machine guns all killed people. But GPS, centimeter to millimeter wave radar, Doppler radar, composite aircraft materials, advanced avionics, LORAN, battlefield medicine, advanced metalurgy, the Internet, distributed communication networks, accelerated 3D graphics, nuclear power, light weight jet and gas turbines are just some of the technologies either spawned from defense spending or directly from war.

We use this every day, in the early 80s, what spawned the increase in computing power and graphics? It wasn't the hobby PC market and it wasn't the business world, the technologies to ramp up computing power were directly funded by DoD and Intelligence budgets, the KGB Archives talks about this as an example of when the West started to outstrip the USSR/Comintern.

And spending right now for the Global War on Terror is pushing the development of new technologies and more advanced systems. For example, gun shot wounds and injuries in combat. Vietnam pushed the development of the last generation of artificial limbs and this war is pushing the adaptation of new technologies as the standard. There are many more soldiers surviving wounds in Iraq and Afghanistan than in combat in Vietnam or the Second World War, new treatments and techniques are being developed and proven which will also work thier way into civilian medicine just as civilian gunshot treatments worked thier way into military treatments.

It is sad that things like artificial limbs, blood extenders, advanced sensors require military funding to move into a generation, but that is the reality of life. If the Feds say, "we need new artifical limbs for the public", there will be 15 years of talking about before anything moves, like when we started talking about HDTV, but if the DoD needs something, they will throw the money out and something will get done.

As for taking money away from military contractors, it's just another form of State support for engineering and practical sciences, why not spend the money? Without military contractors we'd not have turbofan powered 777s, we'd not have the Interstate Highway System, we'd not have CT scanners.

Re:How do they feel?

[AoT]

The reason to fight a war is that the alternatives are worse.

This is exactly the reason that the idea of a unmanned/robot army is such a horrible thing. It dehumanizes the conflict and makes war less and less of a "worse" choice.

At what point will our robot army get to the point where the people whom we are attacking are essentially in a situation similar to the Terminator or Matrix?

And will the console jockeys recognize the humanity of those they sentence to death?

I do not deny that it is necessary to force to defend that which is good, but I hope you will excuse me if I do not trust the government, any government, to be in charge of a deathless army.

Re:How do they feel?

[JustOK]

Oddly enough, the dolphins use the same points in their argument.

Re:How do they feel?

[killjoe]

"As for taking money away from military contractors, it's just another form of State support for engineering and practical sciences, why not spend the money? Without military contractors we'd not have turbofan powered 777s, we'd not have the Interstate Highway System, we'd not have CT scanners."

So you are saying that if the military didn't exist none of those things would have been invendted by private enterprise.

A dubious claim. Hell for all you know even cooler things could have been invented without the shroud of secrecy.

Re:How do they feel?

[Threni]

Your maths is out. For every person with artificial limbs there's loads more people killed by the `advances` in the fighting of war. I'm not sure how you compare improvements in 3d graphics and metallurgy against deaths/injuries either. Surely you should be comparing deaths with something equally important, but I can't think what that might be.

Re:How do they feel?

[Plunky]

My #1 objection to the current US foreign policy is that we are spending absolutely humongous gobs of money on something that, in my view, has zero benefit to the American people.

Eh?

Just try googling for 'Record Oil Profits' one of these days.. you think that maybe those American People didnt get any benefits?

What about 'Iraq Contracts', hm.. plenty of American People got rich there too..

Re:How do they feel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, in the words of Roberte E. Lee, "It is well that war is so terrible -- otherwise we should grow too fond of it."

Re:How do they feel?

[Dausha]

"So you are saying that if the military didn't exist none of those things would have been invendted by private enterprise."

"A dubious claim. Hell for all you know even cooler things could have been invented without the shroud of secrecy."

Perhaps a dubious claim. However, when you look at the spikes of development that occur during times of war, the claim seems less so. Look at the development of the airplane in the succession of wars. Of course, we mussn't forget the Cold War, which included huge amounts of technological development for the military (including the Space program, which was entirely within the military until NASA, IIRC).

I've read in several places that virtually everything we do in trauma and emergency medicine--from the ambulance to the ER, was based on lessons learned during Vietnam. Although, that Army Captain who killed his family did a lot to pioneer ER protocol.

I'm not discounting the role of civilian improvement upon technology. But, when there's a war governments will pool their resources and pull out all the stops to ensure they are not beaten technologically.

That said, I think the "privitization" of space is for the better because we've reached a point where the pooling of resources is becoming counter productive. I think we need that cycle: pooling of resources during a crisis to beat a problem followed by decentralization for thinking outside the box.

Re:How do they feel?

[swillden]

What you are merely saying is that the military needed those things before private enterprise did. You can rest assured that if and when they are needed private enterprise seems to be able to innovate.

There's a difference, though. Private enterprise is good at innovating on small, relatively inexpensive things, or on things with a clear, short-term ROI. Private enterprise is not good at funding costly, large-scale research into a technology that may very well not pan out. Not that it never happens, but private industry is more conservative about it. In addition, there are directions that private industry will pretty much never go. A fighter jet is an amazing piece of engineering, and all sorts of clever little innovations have come out of the attempt to build ever faster, more maneuverable ones, but private industry simply has no need for such aircraft.

You know the whole mother-of-invention thing.

That's the point, I think. The military needs to push the edge of technology in a way that the private sector rarely does, especially when it's building against another technologically-capable enemy (or potential enemy). There are few "necessities" more compelling than the life-and-death struggle of combat.

my guess would be ....

[ltwally]

"I wonder how Linux idealists feel about their cute little OS being deployed in machinery of war?"

My guess would be: pride. That, and curiousity over anything GPL'd that the military had to give back.

Re:my guess would be ....

[tcjohnson]

"pride" Thank you! Linux is not a "cute little" toy anymore, it's a tool, and it happens to be one especially well-fit for this job. Anything that increases Linux's reputation is good for Linux. And political policy....is just that.

Re:my guess would be ....

[stevesliva]

How 'bout, "It's an operating system, not my grandma."

In other news, the military uses Goodyear tires, and Goodyear tire developers are currently mulling the ethical implications.

Re:my guess would be ....

[kfg]

Pride, no.

I guess I'd feel about the same as I would if I had discovered the laws of motion and used them to explain the motion of the planets, only to find out they were useful to the artillary experts to explain the motion of shells:

"Yeah. So? You want I should feel bad about fire and the wheel too? How about rocks, you want I should feel bad about rocks?"

I didn't build the goddamed thing. I built science. It's not even close to an issue for my conscience.

KFG

Re:my guess would be ....

[pilsner.urquell]

I wonder how Linux idealists feel about their cute little OS being deployed in machinery of war?"

I support the troops and I feel a lot more comfortable having cute little OS in charge that lets say an OS with a questionable reputation.

GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

So long as the respect the license then it's okay.

Doesn't even sound like this thing is made to kill people.

If it was some GNU/Linux based weapon that was programmed to specifically seek out and kill humans then I would have a problem, but the fact that it was using GNU/Linux wouldn't have much to do with why I would object to a machine like that.

Linux is a Kernel

[Anti-Trend]

...not a religion. I am one of the those GNU/Linux advocates, and yet I don't see the big deal about Linux powering military equipment. Something's gonna power it, so in my mind it may as well be Linux. It's just an OS, a tool. And I'd trust Linux with a job of that nature, having been involved with Linux-powered ROVs first-hand.

Re:GPL Implications?

[Jsutton1027w]

Who says that all the software used on this device is open-source? The only thing that it says is that it's Linux-powered (which means that it runs on the Linux kernel). It's entirely possible, that all the software used on this device, save the Kernel, is closed source in nature. And then, the Gov't wouldn't be bound to release any source changes to the non-kernel software on it.

But, even if they do make changes to the kernel, I suspect they have some way of getting around the license.

Re:"Freedom Isn't Free" Software

[dcapel]

From the OSI definition:

"The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research."

Its part of Freedom; freedom to do anything with it they want. Think of it like free will. If a God gave it to people, then they were free to do stuff that he didn't like, but thats part of the package deal.

How does Einstein feel about the bomb?

[Britz]

Well, inventions get used in different ways. Scientists easily dismiss such notions. As would software developers, I suppose. But since the poster touched upon this topic I would really like to know how the Slashdot crowd feels about this issue. Should scientists be more sensetive about possible missuse of their findings?

One argument would be: If I don't figure it out, someone else will come along later on. So by not discovering dangerous stuff it merely prolongs the danger.

A good example would be genetic research, which bears huge potential as well as risks.

IMHO researchers should not stop researching altogether, but be more sensitive and think about possible missuse beforehand. Also they should be much more vocal about the possible dangers that come with using the knowledge they helped to gain.

Re:How does Einstein feel about the bomb?

[lbrandy]

IMHO researchers should not stop researching altogether, but be more sensitive and think about possible missuse beforehand.

I call bullshit. Your view of the world is too simplisitic. Researchers should do research and leave the politics to the politicians. Life is never as simple as you make it out to be. Every single invention of the last 3000 years can be misused in the wrong hands. Working metal created weapons as easily as it created farming tools.

Damn proud

[tsotha]

I wonder how Linux idealists feel about their cute little OS being deployed in machinery of war?

I think it's great. We're talkin' about a frickin' cart here, not Giant Robo, and I'd rather have the Army use Linux than give some contractor 2 billion dollars to develop an operating system from scratch.

The military uses Linux!?! OMG!

[OmegaBlac]

I wonder how Linux idealists feel about their cute little OS being deployed in machinery of war?

Wow talk about a flamebait comment (but this is slashdot though). FOSS entitles everyone to be able to use the software regardless if they are the military, a terrorist group, a hacker, whoever. Linux would not be a truly Free (as in speech) OS if the GPL restricted or forbid its use by the military. For something to be truly free, it must be accessible to everyone. IMO, I think slashdot could do without the lil trollish comments at the end of the summaries--its tiring and childish.

UGV good, DRM bad?

[KNicolson]

So far, the balance of the comments seem to be in favour, or at least neutral to the idea of implementing Linux within a device that will no doubt end up killing a good few people. In contrast, should Linux ever be used for DRMs, which have, as far as I know, not killed anyone, most people here would be up in arms, if the recent story on GPL and the DRM is to be taken as a guide.

Re:UGV good, DRM bad?

[lbrandy]

So far, the balance of the comments seem to be in favour, or at least neutral to the idea of implementing Linux within a device that will no doubt end up killing a good few people.

No, I think you've completely misconstrued the "average" opinion. It has nothing to do with killing people, and "killing people" isn't the metric by which the "freedom" of software is judged... that is an arbitrary line you've drawn because of your own personal political agenda. The linux kernel is about a good, free, operating system. Spiting the freedom, which is the core of the entire project, to promote your personal political agenda is short-sighted. Believing in the true benefits of _free_ software means dealing with the fact that it may be used for things for which you are otherwise opposed. This is pretty similar to defending the right to free speach for those with whom you disagree. The entire benefit of linux is in the inherent freedom, and how that freedom breeds better software. I fail to see how comprimising that for the sake of an unrelated political agenda helps the cause in any meaningful way.

Re:UGV good, DRM bad?

[lasindi]

So far, the balance of the comments seem to be in favour, or at least neutral to the idea of implementing Linux within a device that will no doubt end up killing a good few people. In contrast, should Linux ever be used for DRMs, which have, as far as I know, not killed anyone, most people here would be up in arms, if the recent story on GPL and the DRM is to be taken as a guide.

First of all, basically everyone recognizes the right of the military to use Linux; heck, anyone, whether good or evil, has an equal right to use it. So no one disputes that Linux can be used for DRM (after all, Linux is (and always will be, according to Linus) under GPL 2, not 3).

Second, whether or not you agree with the wars the military is currently fighting, as long as you recognize that military force is necessary in *some* cases and can do in *some* situations, you can see a good use for this technology. On the other hand, many Slashdotters probably see no "good" use for DRM. Personally, I see it as more of a nuisance than anything ethically wrong (you're not forced to use it if you don't want to), but the main point is that it will always be futile. If the data is there, in some form, unless the manufacturer/content provider/software developer is in complete, absolute control of what the user is using to access the data, there will always be some person who cracks the DRM. Unfortunately for the copyright holders, it's a pointless endeavor.

Overall, I see DRM on Linux as making life for us Linux users a little harder and annoying. That said, if some kind of open source DRM is developed so that we can use DRMed media without much hassle, that's great. So in a nutshell, DRM is a waste of time, but DRM development on Linux might mean we have to waste less of our time working around a proprietary DRM.

Re:A military usage of our technology? Oh no!

[TubeSteak]

They'll totally blow a gasket when they find out what the "D" in DARPA stood for.

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

The best defense is a good offense.

Oh?

[MmmmAqua]

I wonder how Linux idealists feel about their cute little OS being deployed in machinery of war?"

Isn't that the point? Free as in speech, not as in beer means that sometimes someone might do something with your creation that you don't like or agree with. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

This looks like a really bad idea.

[GrpA]

Possible problems with this idea.

1) It cannot climb stairs.
2) It cannot traverse rocky or uneven territory (unless there is a flat platform to follow)
3) Sooner or later, a software bug is going to turn "Automous Robotic Follow Mode" into the military version of "Carmageddon" as it runs down the soldiers in front.
4) Enemy soldiers are going to have a convenient aim point for rifle-grenades and similar whenever they hid, because this big ugly robot is going to follow them right up to their hiding place.
5) While attempting to walk silently, Soldiers will be very easy to hear coming, because of this noisy robotic lapdog following them.
6) Exhaust fumes will give it away also.

They could at least give it a plunger and gun, and teach it to say "Exterminate".

Overall, an electric robot might be useful, but this will contribute to casualties. "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes" will be replaced with "until you smell their exhaust fumes"...

GrpA

I say Heck Yeah!!!

[gumby168]

I like feeling the pleasure of knowing that Linux runs on thousands of thousands of servers that run PORN. And I have the great pride in knowing now that Linux is kicking ass in the battleground and protecting my rights to download PORN. And keeping some bunny lovin' desert dweller at bay from taking over our rights from downloadin PORN. Amen and god bless

Feel?

[Tom]

"I wonder how Linux idealists feel about their cute little OS being deployed in machinery of war?"

The same I feel about Linux servers being used for spam: I'd like to slowly disembowl the spammers, but what does the OS (by definition a general-purpose tool) have to do with that?

Idealist aren't necessarily pacifists

[jamej]

Maybe some of our Linux idealist understand some things are worse than war. Just ask some of the poor folks in N. Korea, or some of the folks that survived and are witnesses of the holocost. Linux in defense of human dignity and fredom is beautiful thing.

Re:Dehumanizes war?

[vertinox]

This is exactly the reason that the idea of a unmanned/robot army is such a horrible thing. It dehumanizes the conflict and makes war less and less of a "worse" choice.

Look, last I checked, we don't need robots to dehumanize war.

It doesn't take Strong AI to get the Nationalistic or dogmatic fervor up in which thousands or millions of your own people are screaming at the top of the lungs "Death to the infidels!", "For the motherland/fatherland!" (depending which side you are on), or "Let's napalm those sons of bitches... for FREEDOM!"

I could sit hear all day and list countless examples of how normal people turn into rabid killing machines for the nation or belief and how war doesn't need technology to dehumanize attrocities.

What technology does do is make war more impersonal and amplifies what a small group of people can do to another group. As in... I don't have to get in your face and stab you with sword, but I can shoot a rapid fire machine gun at 300m and kill more men in a second than in a day with a sword. There will probaly always be war as long as man is around. Maybe there will be bits and times of peace, but eventually I'd dar say once man is in the stars and colonized other systems we will see wars out there too.

Robots might even be better than humans. Most war attrocities have occurred when the soldiers on the ground freak out because of war stress or maybe because of retaliation and round up villagers/pows and force them to dig their own graves and then shoot them. The digging the graves is often optional.(see the My Lai Massacre

Heck... Those guys might not even be that stressed out but they might be just pissed off for stories they heard on the war (see Balkan Wars)

Robots won't disobey war cimes orders nor will they have a concious thinking to themselves "gee maybe this is wrong", but as the record stands now, most humans don't seem to have a problem with commiting war crimes either given the right circumstances.

Ethical war condunct is the responbility of the government and those controlling the weapons. If you tell your robots to murder civilians, you are just as guilty as the person who told his human soldiers to murder civilians.

The benefit of robots, is and always will be the saving of lives of "our" fighting men and women. The US military will proceed with this whether we like it or not and the public will support it because it is their sons and daughters that are dying.