Slashdot Mirror


Military Running a Parallel Earth Simulator

Fantastic Lad writes "The US Department of Defense (DOD) may already be creating a copy of you in an alternate reality. Putting supercomputers to an innovative use, the military is simulating our planet in an effort to predict the outcome of different scenarios. They might run tests to see how long 'you' can go without food or water, or how 'you' will respond to televised propaganda. Billions of nodes are created in the system, intended to reflect every man, woman, and child. 'Called the Sentient World Simulation (SWS), it will be a "synthetic mirror of the real world with automated continuous calibration with respect to current real-world information", according to a concept paper for the project. Simulex is the company developing these systems, and they list pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and defense contractor Lockheed Martin among their private sector clients. The U.S. military is their biggest customer, apparently now running the most complex version of the system. JFCOM-9 is now capable of running real-time simulations for up to 62 nations, including Iraq, Afghanistan, and China. The simulations gobble up breaking news, census data, economic indicators, and climactic events in the real world, along with proprietary information such as military intelligence."

31 of 470 comments (clear)

  1. The political options by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does it have a 'no George Bush' option to see how the world would be doing without him?

    Seriously, I wonder how much the current fiasco in Iraq has to do with the desire for this program. There are probably a lot of people who would like to have been able to say: "Mr. President, our supercomputers say that this is a bad idea."

    It could be used for politics. Imagine someone from Ron Paul's campaign saying: "Our ideas are better, and now we can finally prove it!"

    PS: Hey, Zonk! It is spelled 'parallel'.

    1. Re:The political options by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can see it now:

      • Chance of desired outcome: 21.7%
      • Chance of desired outcome if media claims this system said chance of desired outcome was > 90%: 97.3%
    2. Re:The political options by PDXNerd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For the US military, it will more than likely be used to simulate the economic and political fallout of potential US movement, be it military, political, or financial. What does the world do if the US invades Iran? Engages militants in Africa? "Acquires" even more of the world's precious resources? Which nations will be the loudest enemies? Which will be our friends?
       
      Do you want to play thermonuclear war, etc?

      It's not so much the "prove we are better" aspect, but "how can we stay on top when we decide to throw a little chaos in the mix?". The big dog needs to stay the big dog. Real time intelligence is one thing, but now they have "response forecasting".

    3. Re:The political options by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'd argue that that using prediction markets like the ill-fated Policy Analysis Market work much better for predicting future events. It's really too bad that there was an kneejerk media firestorm in response to the Policy Analysis Market, which killed it off before it could even get started.

    4. Re:The political options by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 5, Funny

      "I know not with what computer WW3 will be simulated, but WW4 will be simulated with sticks and stones."

    5. Re:The political options by jdray · · Score: 4, Funny

      Chance of someone imagining a Beowulf cluster of these: 100.0%

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    6. Re:The political options by EmotionToilet · · Score: 5, Funny

      I hope the simulated me has an iPhone.

    7. Re:The political options by janrinok · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course, on that basis it will depend on how far back in history you want to go. Rather than cling to the help that you provided to Europe during WW2, why not consider how many native Americans might still be alive if you hadn't taken the actions that you did a few hundred years ago.

      It is easy to pick one time in history when events would certainly be on your side, and I'm not contesting that there are not many such times - America has made many valuable contributions to the world - but your 'belief' that your nation is threatened and therefore it demands your intervention in other countries is not viewed by much of the world as being one of your best moves.

      The current threat to US citizens is far greater from car accidents or even natural disasters than it is from terrorism. But the billions that are spent in measures to 'protect' the USA (immigration controls, military intervention, beginning the downward slide by losing sight on one's ideals) could be spent far more wisely and to greater effect without pissing off a huge part of the world. I know that the world is far from perfect but what makes you think that you have the right to dictate how it should be, or even that you are the only one to know how a perfect world should be designed?

      Unfortunately, this is not simply an American thing. Many other countries, for whatever reason, seem to wish to emulate the USA and follow the same path. I'm not America-bashing; my own birthplace was, until a few days ago, happily going the same way. Perhaps there is a change in the air, perhaps not.... But a few terrorist bombs in London will not result in us attacking another country in the near future. We have witnessed first hand terrorism in the UK for many years, long before it threatened the USA. In fact, a large number of your country men seemed to think that it was a good idea to help fund it. Were they also right in what they did, or can you concede that Americans can also make bad decisions like everyone else on this planet?

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    8. Re:The political options by Basehart · · Score: 4, Informative

      Fuck The Black Swan, pick up Asimov's Foundation Series!

  2. Alternate reality... by lelitsch · · Score: 5, Funny

    Where "parallel" is spelled "paralell".

  3. The downside... by ktakki · · Score: 4, Funny

    The downside is that the full version of this simulator will be powered by the electro-chemical activity of six billion human beings.

    Whoa.

    k.

    --
    "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
  4. W.O.P.R. by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 4, Funny

    Called the Sentient World Simulation (SWS)

    They should have called it W.O.P.R.

  5. Paralell...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    New rule: if you can't spell, you can't smoke pot.

    Hand it over, Zonk.

  6. Ultimate Sim City? by g-san · · Score: 4, Funny

    I sure hope it comes complete with options to unleash a tidal wave, hurricane, rioters, and UFOs, just to you know, see what happens.

    1. Re:Ultimate Sim City? by Kesch · · Score: 4, Funny

      Where do you think Katrina came from?

      --
      If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
  7. If they're doing Norway... by jjeffries · · Score: 4, Funny

    I do hope they get the fjords right... lovely crinkly edges...

  8. What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Running from a fight isn't always the right thing to do. And if you think Iraq is a fiasco, look at how many people died from not standing up to Hitler early enough. Hint: it's not measured in thousands, but TENS of MILLIONS.

    Face facts: right now, in Iraq the US is fighting a war against the agents of Iran.

    And the rhetoric coming out of Iran is straight out of Mein Kampf. Except this time around the ubermensch are Islamic, and the subhumans who deserve to die are infidels, "crusaders", and - once again - the Jews. Imagine that.

    Only this time, the megalomaniac will have nukes, and since he's not just a power-hungry despot but a religious fanatic, he won't be afraid to use them. How many UN resolutions do you think it will take to stop Iran's nuclear program?

    So yeah, let's run a simulation where Iran's rulers get their way in the Middle East. How many nukes do you think it'll take them to "wipe Israel off the map"? Hey, that's what they OPENLY SAY they're going to do.

    1. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Planesdragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only this time, the megalomaniac will have nukes, and since he's not just a power-hungry despot but a religious fanatic, he won't be afraid to use them. How many UN resolutions do you think it will take to stop Iran's nuclear program?

      Ignoring your misunderstanding of Iran (it's a democracy that's elected itself a theocracy: "them" is more appropriate), there's a simple answer to your question:

      Zero.

      If Iran gets nukes, and uses said nuclear weapons as you suggest, there will be no more Iran. The President won't even need to go to Congress -- there are extant laws regarding USA's nuclear doctrine, and a surprise attack with a nuclear weapon will result in the world's first, and only, nuclear counterattack. (Why, exactly, do you think Israel doesn't declare its nuclear weapons? Because their real nuclear arsenal is the United States' arsenal. Same deal we have with Japan and Germany.)

      Yes, a bunch of people would die. And the face of world politics would be forever changed. But Iran knows this, the Iranian people and the Iranian government are smart, and they know that the only way they can guarantee the end of their country is to actually nuke Israel. Heck, an Iranian nuclear attack might wind up getting their entire religion declared a criminal conspiracy in the west, which would make the current post-9/11 prejudice look like a walk in the park.

    2. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How many UN resolutions do you think it will take to stop Iran's nuclear program?

      Well we now know the US needs more than 18 UN resolutions and 3 Congressional authorizations in order to go to war. That's what Bush had for Iraq and he sure won't touch Darfur or Iran with one jot less than that.

      Good. Not because I think it's a bad idea to go into Darfur (or Iran for that matter), but because the Iraq war featured the most inept political leadership in US history. If a war is waged in my name, do it right. Overwhelming force from day one. Shoot the looters to maintain order. Write their constitution for them, and make sure it includes provisions to change it to what they want after we leave.

      In general, I have no problems with US military action. Demand tribute for freedom of the seas? Fuck you Tripoli. Blow up our ship, or cut off our Captain's ear? Fuck you Spain. Have land that would make it convinent to have a redundant intercontinental rail-line? Fuck you Mexico.

      That said, please don't make me look stupid for agreeing with you on Iraq. Neither the UN nor any Congressional acts supported us going in, certainly not with the facts the way they were. Hell, Congress even said "If the President tells us the CIA/NSA/FBI/Tweety Bird told him that X is true, he has our permission to invade." And Bush wrote back "The US Congress said in a bill '... X is true'. Therefore I have permission to invade."

      The brinksmanship had worked. The inspectors were happy with their cooperation, and Saddam sent us a 1000+ page document detailing forbidden weapons he had. I don't remember Bush Sr. bombing Moscow once they folded.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? by gilroy · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Blockquoth the poster:

      Running from a fight isn't always the right thing to do. And if you think Iraq is a fiasco, look at how many people died from not standing up to Hitler early enough. Hint: it's not measured in thousands, but TENS of MILLIONS.

      Actually... there is an emerging consensus among historians that Neville Chamberlain quite possibly has gotten a raw deal. Despite the video-friendly meme of returning from Munich waving the paper and saying "Peace in our time", Chamberlain had a pretty good grasp of the diplomatic and military situation. In 1938, the British rearmament had barely begun, the British people were not ready to endure a war, and -- most importantly -- the Chain Home system of radar stations had not yet been deployed. The balance of power was stacked heavily in favor of Germany but it was also clear that, with the Allies finally starting to wake up (and their economies starting to stir), that balance would increasingly tilt toward them. Chamberlain knew that. Hell, even Hitler knew that -- it's why he was pushing so hard for (limited) war in 1938 and why he flew into a rage when Chamberlain "tricked" him into a peace conference.

      So maybe the lesson from history actually is, sometimes, it's a good idea to wait out the situation. Sometimes, time really is on your side... no matter how it looks at the moment.

      Of course, the other lesson of history is, you're gonna get roasted for "appeasement".
  9. Predicted Effect of Iraq Sanctions by MrSteveSD · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Putting supercomputers to an innovative use, the military is simulating our planet in an effort to predict the outcome of different scenarios.

    They've been doing that for a long time with or without computers. For example, during the first gulf war, Iraq's water treatment facilities were deliberately targeted. Later the DIA assessed the effect that sanctions restricting replacement parts and vital chemicals would have on the population.

    Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline. With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations Sanctions to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease.

    So they accurately predicted that Iraqis would die because of the sanctions, and indeed they did, in droves. Denis Halliday who was running the humanitarian operation resigned, calling the sanctions "genocidal". His successor, Hans von Sponeck also resigned and condemned the sanctions and the effect they were having on the people.
  10. good for computer geeks? by amigabill · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe they will share with me the simulation sequence of events that finally get me laid. There could be something useful in all this!

  11. Personally... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... I think this will lead to the opposite.

    "Mr. President, we found a scenario in which Iraq will become th 52nd US State, oil will flow freely, WMDs were found in Saddam's closet, and bin-Laden was found in his bedroom."
    "Excellent! Invade!"

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    1. Re:Personally... by LouisZepher · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Then you must've missed the "psychic elevators" story about a year ago, a poorly-worded article title mentioned "Quantum computer runs faster when off" (being thought of as a Deep Thought reference, thought TFA explains that it meant "quantum off" referring to the atoms. Hell, I've often described Wikipedia to people that haven't used it as: "Wikipedia has supplanted the ordinary encyclopedia as the standard repository of all knowledge and wisdom, thought it contains many omissions and much that is apocryphal (or at least wildly inaccurate)." There's a bunch of stuff out there *now* that fits Hitchhiker"

  12. Re:Which one are we? by Joebert · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How do we know we're not the one's being simulated?

    Find the hottest female you can & grab her ass.

    If she slaps you, you'll know you're alive real quick.
    If she fucks your brains out, you'll know you're alive a little slower, but for a longer period of time.
    If you're a simulation, then you've just got away with grabbing some hotties ass.

    You can't lose.
    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  13. Twelfth Imam by CustomDesigned · · Score: 5, Insightful
    But Iran knows this, the Iranian people and the Iranian government are smart, and they know that the only way they can guarantee the end of their country is to actually nuke Israel.

    Shi'as believe that Muhammad al-Mahdi will reappear when the world has fallen into chaos and civil war emerges between the human race for no reason. (Twelfth Imam) Ahmadinejad is part of an unorthodox group that believes muslims can hasten his coming by deliberately sinking the world into chaos (as opposed to "no reason"). (A nuanced discussion is here.) The publicly announced intention of Iran is to sink the world into chaos so as to usher in a new age.

    Mutually Assured Destruction does not deter such a leader, because mutual destruction is in fact his goal. The job of our government *should* be to confine the destruction to Iran as much as possible. It seems tempting to try and replace Ahmadinejad, but we always seem to screw up and make things worse with such attempts. (See Iraq.)

    1. Re:Twelfth Imam by SerpentMage · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here is where I disagree with you. Did you ever notice that those doing the suicide bomb trips are lower level foot soldiers? When was the last time Osama said, "hey I have an idea I will kill myself and make myself a hero that all will remember?" Answer is never! These leaders are no fools, and they speak the rhetoric for the benefit of the masses. Do you really think that the leaders of Iran want to loose power? Do you really think that the leaders are so convinced of their religion?

      Think hard about this. If you commit a suicide bombing you go to heaven and good things happen. So why would these religious leaders hesitate going to heaven? Ooops I know why because maybe they would have to give up POWER! I knew the rhetoric of Iraq was wrong because these dictators want to keep their power! They have no interest in loosing power.

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
  14. Re:So Chris Carter was right? by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When he made Harsh Realm [imdb.com]? The premise of that show doesn't even make any sense. This guy has to enter a simulation to kill a rogue general who went all Col. Kurtz in it? Well shit, isn't that guy's body sitting in a pod a few rows down? The only possible way where that sort of plot-line could work is if the world is complex enough that massive changes cannot be "hacked" into it but have to be finessed and cajoled. That would be more along the lines of Hitchiker's Guide where the grand experiment cannot be simply rebooted but has to be run out to the end and then you need the cooperation of a sentient mind within the simulation to get the final answer.

    This also hits upon a weakness in the scenario presented in the original Matrix (the sequels are dead to me). If the machines control the world, how can the rebels even exist? Forget about the logic that Agents should have reaperbot aims, they should be able to materialize 15 ton weights and anvils to drop on runners. So, why aren't they?

    The retcon I came up with makes a lot of sense. The machines are like the Japanese of the 80's, not being very good at inventing technology but very, very good at improving it. From this perspective, they never invented the matrix technology, it was probably a military application that got spun off by some start-ups to create live-in MMORPG's. Whatever the reason, the technology existed. The loading construct, the world simulation, all of this is built on top of existing code. I've not done a lot of programming but I've seen scary projects where people have no idea what parts of the code do, they just know it breaks if you touch it. It's left alone like the forest where the bogeyman lives.

    So, how did the war go? Machines fight man, man blackens the sky, mass human die-off, machines struggle to come up with a way to survive. Machines would of course have fusion power so humans are not batteries. Human brains turn out to make great parallel processors, cheaper than trying to do it in silicon. Why do they humans have whole bodies instead of just brains in jars? Because that's what the original technology was designed for and the machines were not able to figure out a way around it. So how are humans able to hack into the system? Because there are holes that even the machines can't figure out how to patch. If Windows is the most complex software project ever, just imagine what code will be like that far in the future. Why are the Agents not able to hit the humans every time they shoot? Jammer software prevents the agents from getting a good fix on where a fast-moving runner is, there's enough imprecision in what they know of as the xyz coordinates that they can miss unless they're close. Why can't the agents make anvils fall out of the sky? Because of anti-cheating code leftover from the original design. The deja vu-causing hacks are time-intensive enough to pull off and can still bug the system, thus they are of limited use. Why is the timeline set in the late 20th century? Why not the 19th century? Why not the 17th or ancient Rome? Maybe that's what the best codebase they had was designed to simulate. The movie never answered whether the entire world was simulated from pole to pole or whether it was just the city they were in. The movie never stated how the timeline was manipulated, just how far the machines ran through the world before resetting the timeline. Did they run through a five year interval and just do a memory reset for everyone in the Matrix? Did they run multiple world instances? None of these questions were answered and they probably would have bogged down the movie if they were.

    Anyway, I'm still laughing at the idea of Harsh Realm, the guy's supposed to spend a season or two hunting down a guy who should be sitting in the VR pod next to him. Reset the damn sim!
    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. Re:My virtual self? by rubycodez · · Score: 4, Funny

    no one would pay the energy bill for a simulation of male humans who mostly sit at their computer either posting on slashdot or downloading pr0n and wanking off. QED, you're all real.

  17. (Second) reality check by Kap'n+Koflach · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The DoD aren't running a real time simulation of the world at the level of individual people. What they can in fact do is analyse broad political and social trends at a fairly coarse 'crowd' level to support the fine grained simulations used to model combat. The simulation might for example show changes in allegiance of Afghan villagers over time depending on how many times they are bombed / given food by NATO troops. The models could support pre-deployment training - e.g. a commnder submits his military plans before he deploys to theatre, the analysts run the sim and then say whether or not his proposed plan will make the locals more or less hostile to his forces, and perhaps suggest hotspot locations where direct conflict can be expected. No commander worth his salt would rely on any of this as an actual prediction of real events, and would be sacked were he to do so.

    The behaviours of actual individuals are subsumed into the larger crowds, although 'warlord' style individuals may be represented from a political perspective. The emphasis is on trends, not predictions of actual individual actions. A good analogy for this is Psychohistory in Asimov's early Foundation novels - and the current sims fall a long way short of the predictive power available to Hari Seldon.