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?

[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..

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 ....

[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.

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.

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.

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.