Slashdot Mirror


CIA Drones May Have Used Illegal, Inaccurate Code

skids writes "Coders hate having to rush code out the door before it's ready. They also hate it when the customer starts making unreasonable demands. What they hate even more is when the customer reverse engineers the product and starts selling their own inferior product. But what really ticks them off is when that buggy, knockoff product might be used by targeting systems in military unmanned drone attacks, and the bugs introduce location errors of up to 13 meters. That's what purportedly happened to software developer IISi, based on an ongoing boardroom/courtroom drama that will leave any hard-pressed coder appreciating just how much worse his job could get. The saddest part? The CIA assumed the bug was a feature. The tinfoil-hat-inducing part? The alleged perpetrators just got bought by IBM."

68 of 279 comments (clear)

  1. I think i understand by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 5, Funny

    "The CIA assumed the bug was a feature." Are CIA agents being issued iPhones, by any chance?

  2. Why is the CIA attacking anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The CIA is involved in the collection and analysis of foreign data.

    Building an attack drone is, let's say, missing the mark.

    1. Re:Why is the CIA attacking anything? by Spazntwich · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe they need to analyze the effect of high-speed projectiles on foreigners.

    2. Re:Why is the CIA attacking anything? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Funny

      The CIA is involved in the collection and analysis of foreign data.

      Building an attack drone is, let's say, missing the mark.

      You don't understand. Sometimes the foreign data they need to collect and analyze (mostly just analyze) is in a hardened bunker, or warehouse, or mud compound. They can't just land the drone and drive it into the mud compound very well, can they? The easiest way to expose the data they need to analyze is to remove the roof of the building. This allows the drone to take pictures of whatever used to be in the building, without landing, so that they can analyze it.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re:Why is the CIA attacking anything? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Informative

      Truman did it. CIA was founded on September 18, 1947.

      Now CIA doing stuff like this, that's legal as of 2004 when National Clandestine Service was started, which is a descendant of Directorate of Plans and Directorate of Operations.

      CIA Special Operations Group and Special Activities Division are supposedly as good as Delta and SEAL Team Six

    4. Re:Why is the CIA attacking anything? by o2sd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually I have, and the general conclusion around the world (outside the US) is that CIA stands for CAN'T IDENTIFY ANYTHING.

      --
      - Nothing to see hear.
  3. Wow. by rcb1974 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Out of all the hardware that is controlled by software, I would have thought drone software would be the most scrutinized. Unbelievable. Even more reason why we should not arm robots (even remote human operated ones) with weapons such as Hellfire missiles.

    1. Re:Wow. by Firemouth · · Score: 5, Funny

      Out of all the hardware that is controlled by software, I would have thought drone software would be the most scrutinized. Unbelievable. Even more reason why we should not arm robots (even remote human operated ones) with weapons such as Hellfire missiles.

      On the contrary, this is the reason why we should arm robots with BIGGER weapons! One's that it won't make a difference if you're off by 13 meters...

    2. Re:Wow. by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's amazing that drone hardware is fairly well designed, but its software design and implementation is so slapdash. Just last year, it was revealed that the Drones broadcasted its video feed in unencrypted form and was being used by militants to spy on us.

      http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/121709-drone-intercept-encryption.html

      --
      My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
    3. Re:Wow. by grub · · Score: 2, Funny


      One's that it won't make a difference if you're off by 13 meters...

      Nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    4. Re:Wow. by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 5, Funny

      The bad news: If you use nukes, then coders will get even more lazy and feel they don't have to use asserts and end up being so off that the drones nuke New Jersey instead of Afghanistan.

      The good news: Such as catastrophe just be enough to take Jersey Shore off the air.

    5. Re:Wow. by srussia · · Score: 4, Funny

      Out of all the hardware that is controlled by software, I would have thought drone software would be the most scrutinized. Unbelievable. Even more reason why we should not arm robots (even remote human operated ones) with weapons such as Hellfire missiles.

      On the contrary, this is the reason why we should arm robots with BIGGER weapons! One's that it won't make a difference if you're off by 13 meters...

      Leave the weapon out altogether, just include a divide-by-zero error in the code!

      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
    6. Re:Wow. by blair1q · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're fired.

    7. Re:Wow. by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wonder if there is any real problem.
      And before anyone gets all bent hear me out and I mean from a tactical point of view.
      Does it matter if the the drone ends up 13 meters away from a check point?
      When using a Hellfire the operator will manually point the camera/laser at the target and fire the missile.
      It really doesn't matter because there is a man in the using a laser designator.

      If the Drone is dropping JDams then there may be a problem.
      I believe there are two modes. One where the drone/pane uses it's video/laser systerm to pick the target.
      This is the most accurate because it is a differential system. The plane tells the bomb to hit the target x meters away in y direction from where the GPS says we are now.

      The other mode is a blind drop where the JDam goes to a preset area.

      So no Hellfire missiles will work just fine. JDAMS may be an issue but I are they using them in the pre-programmed mode much? I can not see a good reason why when using a drone.

      Oh and as to not arming robots? Too late really. We have been doing it for ever 100 years now.
      The Torpedo is a Robot. The first ones where really steampunk killing robots. Suicidal ones to be sure but still robots.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    8. Re:Wow. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Funny

      Rumor has it that Jersey Shore is offensive to Americans.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    9. Re:Wow. by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 4, Informative

      Spying isn't limited to looking at the enemy's base. The patrol patterns of the drones, for instance, tells insurgents where US army forces are looking at. This allows them to move to new locations or hide if they notice the drones moving towards familiar territory.

      --
      My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
    10. Re:Wow. by blair1q · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, people who actually know how to use asserts are quite rare. 99% of people use them incorrectly, causing more problems than they solve. If you put an assert in a piece of code you've instrumented temporarily to do some debugging, I won't mind. But if that crap ends up in the release db, I'm going to walk you to the door. For three reasons:

      1. You shouldn't trust that all code will be compiled with -NDEBUG for release. Mistakes happen in makefiles, especially on large projects with iffy design documentation.

      2. Most people don't do anything resembling safe and graceful when using an assert, because why should they?

      3. If there's a part of the code you think needs an assert, then I ask why do you think that? Why can't you take action to recover from it? Or put in some sort of exception handling that can do something safe and graceful, that the user can recover from intelligently, and that may also retain some information we can use to characterize the problem?

      And remember, this is an embedded system. The BSOD is not an option, nor usually is any sort of text output, which is all assert can give you.

      Asserts have one valid use: to wrap something you know you haven't completed and that you know (or are hoping) will break. And if you're releasing stuff you know will break I don't want to pay you.

    11. Re:Wow. by xianthax · · Score: 4, Informative

      i don't think you understood the article or didn't read it.

      The software wasn't the guidance system for the drone, control it in anyway, or even run on the drone itself. Its running in some data center some where tracking where people are when they use a cell phone or an ATM, etc.

      Its just a mapping package for laying out data thats correlated to geography, its just "google earth - government edition".

      I doubt the 13m really mattered, your not getting 13m accuracy anyway when tracking a cell phone via tower transitions.

      The CIA was using it to find potential targets so they could send a drone toward them, they'd have to get more specific information as to the exact target location elsewhere.

    12. Re:Wow. by blair1q · · Score: 2, Insightful

      asserts are for preventing programming errors

      Correct. They are a development tool. There is no reason to have one remaining in embedded code that is declared to be releasable (and you're lazy if you do it in desktop code, too).

      If you can grep "assert" in your code, you have work left to do.

    13. Re:Wow. by BigFootApe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm guessing this is adaptable to alternative sensor platforms, not just cell towers. If they want that kind of accuracy from the SIGINT/DF hardware, they can probably get it. The problem is that they might not have a handle on the systematic errors being introduced into their targeting.

      For example, say they slave the on station Predator optics to data from this software so they can pick up a guy in a town and follow him to wherever he's going. Everything is peachy, because they know there was nobody within 10m (but there were people 12m away) and the system's supposed to be accurate to 5m (or whatever). They have a good fix. CIA decides to make him an ex-person and maybe kills the wrong guy.

      I hope this doesn't happen. I hope there are redundant checks within such a program to keep these things from happening. Maybe he has to make two phone calls. Who knows? The original contractor didn't know specifically how their software would be used. They wanted to ensure that the new hardware would match the old based on their regression testing so that as much as humanly possible, there would be no surprises.

    14. Re:Wow. by Szechuan+Vanilla · · Score: 2, Informative

      The other problem is that so many think that documentation is unnecessary. And if it is done at all, 80% of the time it's slapdash at the last minute and often after the developers are gone.

      How do I know? I started as a software engineer and have been writing tech docs for over 20 years. I can't tell you how many times all I had was a design spec (un-updated since the start of the project), the final product, and nowhere near enough time to document a huge product.

      Don't blame me if your tech docs suck. I keep getting laid off or harassed out when I try to do it right (it costs money and time, and they don't like that).

      PS If you want to find out the TRUTH about your HW and SW products, read all the appendices at the rear of the doc. That's where we wily old pros stick the data you need but that marketing, development, etc don't want you to know.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    15. Re:Wow. by russotto · · Score: 4, Informative

      Asserts have one valid use: to wrap something you know you haven't completed and that you know (or are hoping) will break. And if you're releasing stuff you know will break I don't want to pay you.

      An assertion failure means something went wrong that, in the normal operation of the system, could not go wrong. The most likely reason for this is of course a programming error, but there are others: some memory got corrupted, your CPU is malfunctioning, some peripheral is malfunctioning, or some other similar sort of thing. This makes handling assertion failures tricky because you can't assume the state of the system is sane. When I did embedded stuff, assert failures would act similarly to watchdog failures -- the system would disable all interrupts, try to write the assertion code to non-volatile RAM, then reboot. For our application it made sense to do this. For other applications something different might need to be done. But the point is that an assert failure is different than an ordinary error. You can't simply handle the error condition; the whole system state could be bad. You might want to shut the system down completely (e.g. if there's a backup which will take over). You might want to attempt to completely reset your state. Or you might just want to report the condition (somehow) and continue as if nothing happened until someone intervenes. But in any case, assertions have their place.

    16. Re:Wow. by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      True, but the error is additive, and any other errors in the pipeline stack up.

      Pretend for a minute that the munition has a 6 meter kill zone. Say you have a tracking tech that's accurate to 10 meters. Likely anyone in that +/- 10m area is going to be very sorry even if they don't get dead right away.

      Now, introduce another 10 meter inaccuracy. This means that you can be anywhere from bullseye to 20 meters away. The odds have suddenly gone from "most likely dead" to "more likely unharmed" - not a desired result! This is a recipe for failed strikes and collateral damage.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  4. Salesmen promising too much by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Funny

    And sub contractor steadfastly saying that they can't deliver production ready software in the given time fame.

    Where have I heard that before? .. ah yes .. the current death march project that I am in the middle of!

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  5. Off by 13 meters? by mandark1967 · · Score: 5, Funny

    No one will ever need more than 13 meters accuracy.

    --
    Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
    1. Re:Off by 13 meters? by geminidomino · · Score: 3, Funny

      Fuck You!

      -Signed,
      Princess Leia

      AMEN Brother!
      -Signed,
      The Womp Rats

  6. Re:Not *that* big of a deal. by Tsunayoshi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Unless you're in the house 13 meters down the street from the real target :)

    --
    "Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live." - Mark Twain, "Taming the Bicycle"
  7. I think they buried the lead.... by jpapon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    to direct secret assassination drones in central Asia.

    The CIA has the authority to direct secret assassination drones? Inside of Pakistan and possibly other countries?

    Did we learn NOTHING from the Bay of Pigs, Nicaragua, the equipping of the Mujaheddin with weapons, etc... ? The CIA should not be fighting wars. We're supposed to be the city upon the hill. We shouldn't be fighting our wars in secrecy.

    --
    -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    1. Re:I think they buried the lead.... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To quote many prominent Republicans, "9-11 changed everything."

      To be fair, it did. It gave cover for authoritarian assholes to do whatever they wanted to do. Fighting wars in secrecy is just the tip of the iceberg. Welcome to the large gulag, comrade.

      --
      That is all.
    2. Re:I think they buried the lead.... by blair1q · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dude. That's been common knowledge for years.

    3. Re:I think they buried the lead.... by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Equipping the Muj with weapons was worth it, even counting the blowback (which was more consequence of ABANDONING A-stan than equipping the Muj).

      Lest we forget, the Cold War was a VASTLY more important and larger struggle than the current police actions. A few thousand or few tens of thousands dead in late consequence of that existential conflict is a trifle. We are too easily impressed by small wars nowadays.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    4. Re:I think they buried the lead.... by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A few thousand or few tens of thousands dead in late consequence of that existential conflict is a trifle. We are too easily impressed by small wars nowadays.

      What do you mean we kemosabe?

      Wouldn't it be nice if the people who felt it was acceptable to kill a few thousand people for their political goals were included in the total?

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    5. Re:I think they buried the lead.... by Lehk228 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      yea anything that directly attacks the supremacy of our corporate overlords must be stopped at any cost, though preferably that cost should be paid in proletariat blood and recycled as motivation for the next war of lies.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    6. Re:I think they buried the lead.... by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Wouldn't it be nice if the people who felt it was acceptable to kill a few thousand people for their political goals were included in the total?"

      They frequently risk that, and fear doesn't stop those who think the game is worth the candle. Killing thousands of enemies has often been the price of progress.

      Killing thousands of Brits, Tories and Hessians freed the US from England. Killing thousands of Confederates freed the slaves. Killing millions of Nazis and Italian Fascists saved Europe. Killing millions of Japanese rescued much of Asia from Imperial Japan. Killing millions of Commies and their proxies contained them to buy time for China and Russia to outgrow Communism.

      Killing often works very,very well, and it works even if you don't like that it works. Sufficient force trumps everything else.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  8. ROFL by sir+lox+elroy · · Score: 3, Funny

    What did the CIA also think the Toyota "Bug" was a feature. Great car, drives it self. :-)

    --
    Kosh: "Understanding is a 3 edged sword, your side, their side, the Truth."
    1. Re:ROFL by srw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yup. And Therac-25 turned out to be operator error.

      Until later, when it became clear it was very badly designed software.

  9. IP theft by drone overlords! by skynexus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Military drones, armed and dangerous, operating software resulting from IP theft?

    Heh... I'd love to see the Business Software Alliance go after these guys... :-)

  10. 13 meters? by gandhi_2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    so what?

    hellfires are laser guided, not GPS. a predator reporting its position as being 13 meters wrong is basically nothing....and a non-issue with regards to missile targeting.

    if the predator was dropping JDAMS, i could see the issue. but even then, 13 meters is well within the CPE allowed for the JDAM.

    1. Re:13 meters? by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If my understanding is correct, this software was used to determine the locations of people making phone calls. So if it's off by 13 meters, the operator may chose the wrong target. The missile being laser guided doesn't help you if you're laser guiding it to the wrong place.

    2. Re:13 meters? by gandhi_2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You misunderstand how the hellfire / predator platform works.

      Several systems can fly the predator to the target area. Once in the target area, remote operators designate the target on the video feed, which is to say (in this phone call scenario) the operators designate the person making the phone call on the TV screen. The target designator is a laser device on the predator which sends encoded information in the beam to actually hit the target. Where the laser target beam hits the target, it shines. Electro-optics and servos keep the designator on the designated target. The hellfire is fired and goes to where it sees the correctly-coded shining.

      A hellfire, tow, dragon, or javelin doesn't care where it is, where it was, or where the target is. they just go where they are steered. No GPS, no grid.

      In any case, 13 meters is nothing. Civilians have been watching too many movies to think war is fought on that scale. A 10-digit MGRS grid is 2 digits too many for calling in anything.

    3. Re:13 meters? by jpapon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In any case, 13 meters is nothing. Civilians have been watching too many movies to think war is fought on that scale.

      13 meters is a hell of a lot if there's a hospital or school ten meters from the target. This isn't warfare, it's assassinations. A 13 m discrepancy when you're trying to assassinate someone is pretty damn unacceptable.

      Also, the system was used to locate targets. So it might say the target is in one hut, when in fact, they are in a hut 13 meters away. The drone's pilot would then designate the wrong hut with the laser. The system is for target selection, not missile or drone guidance.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    4. Re:13 meters? by jpapon · · Score: 4, Insightful
      FFS, I served, and while 13 meters isn't all that much, bad intelligence is still bad intelligence.

      And while yes, being 13 meters away from a hellfire hit is still going to turn your brain to mush, a blase attitude towards the need to be as accurate and efficient as possible in target selection is what leads to blue on blue and death of civies. Once you start accepting 13 meter inaccuracies as "good enough" you're on a slippery slope. You want to be as accurate as your weapon system allows you to be, and you always want to strive to improve upon it.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    5. Re:13 meters? by AJWM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For assassinating houses, 13 meters will most likely still give the remote operator the same house.

      In sparsely-built American suburbs, perhaps. Most places that's the house next door, or the car across the street or a couple of car lengths ahead or behind.

      --
      -- Alastair
    6. Re:13 meters? by mosb1000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes. Especially those of us standing near the people getting shot with missiles.

  11. 9-11 was just a drop in the ocean by Steeltoe · · Score: 2, Informative

    To be fair, fighting wars in secrecy has been going on for a long long time, way before 9-11, making it the proverbial drop in the ocean:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions

    Now, what should upset the American public is that 9-11 was probably engineers or supported by "allied" forces, in order to escalate conflict levels and justify wars.

  12. Re: Confounded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    You asked for it. Plumbing in Jerusalem

  13. Re: Confounded by Yold · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Romans had plumbing and they were occupying Jerusalem at the time the New Testament was written... but please don't allow facts to stand in the way of your religion-bashing.

  14. Better idea... by countSudoku() · · Score: 4, Funny

    Capture these badly programmed drones, reinstall them with some sweet, sweet Linux goodness, use them for fun aerial combat play, and taking snaps of bikini-clad neighbors. Problem solved. Patent not pending. Come as you are. There you go.

    --
    This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
  15. Re: Confounded by ooshna · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fine fine understanding that the stars are giant balls of burning gas just like the sun and like the sun could have planets and like the planet earth some of them could have light was too complex for the people that wrote the new testament.

  16. Re: Confounded by ooshna · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's just thinning the herd.

  17. Open letter to terrorists by or-switch · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dear Terrorists, Due to a minor software glitch we request that you stay within 13 meters of your cell phone at all times. No reason, we just appreciate your help. Thanks, The US Government P.S. Don't look up P.P.S. ....no...what whistling noise do you hear?

  18. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anyone who works in/for the U.S. military industrial complex should quit if they have any shred of morality in their being. It's way beyond defense.

  19. Let me see if I have this straight by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1) US creates military drones used in Pakistan.

    2) Drones are controlled using software.

    3) Software company that writes drone software is bought by IBM.

    4) Software can now, potentially, be outsourced to IBM development personnel in um, Pakistan.

    Is it just me, or is something wrong with this picture?

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Let me see if I have this straight by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Back when I was a lowly QA tester for a company that took DARPA contracts involving things specific to North Korea, it never ceased to amaze me that the entire programmer staff were H1B's from China, who just happens to be North Korea's main ally, who were hired solely for their utter cheapness.

      This is why I just can't take tin-foil hat people seriously.

    2. Re:Let me see if I have this straight by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sadly, I can top that story. I used to work for a government contractor that took blueprints and had them redrawn in AutoCAD in St. Petersburg, Russia.

      Our main client was Los Alamos National Labs. We sent them the blueprints for almost every building there.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    3. Re:Let me see if I have this straight by waferhead · · Score: 2, Funny

      1) US creates military drones used in Pakistan.

      2) Drones are controlled using software.

      3) Software company that writes drone software is bought by IBM.

      4) Software can now, potentially, be outsourced to IBM development personnel in um, Pakistan.

      Is it just me, or is something wrong with this picture?

      Don't ask me, before I followed the links, I was trying to figure out how IBM bought the CIA ;-)

  20. But they do not actually mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    the risk of being included in the total, which is why they tend to win if they are also smart and can get enough resources.

    Revolutions actually run on people who are much less risk-averse, including the ultimate risk of death. Pretending that everyone shares the same aversion to the risk of violent death that is characteristic of educated urbanites is naive. In many cultures of the world Western style conflict avoidance will get you exploited, enslaved, or even killed.

  21. Re:Better idea...Better Meme by bcong · · Score: 2, Funny

    2012 will be the year of Linux on the drone

  22. Illegal Software by Alcoholist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The CIA? This is a bunch who allegedly run clandestine torture camps. Use illegal software - oh no, they'd never do that...

    --
    Bibo Ergo Sum.
  23. Re:Lest we forget by bsDaemon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The greatest American general? Would that be Patton? Or Lee? Or the only man ever to get higher marks at West Point than Lee, Douglas MacArthur? Pershing was no slouch either. Eisenhower had actually been subordinate to both Pershing and MacArthur earlier in his career, and only a lucky break getting assigned to the General Staff in D.C. that allowed him some paper-pusher promotions got him to the head of the queue. He barely even had any combat experience.

    The war in Germany was limited because the Americans and British, while not pro-Nazi (except the people where were), weren't really anti-German. There are too many Germans in the US and Britain for that to happen, and the current set of British Royals are German. My grandfather on my mother's side fought in Europe during WWII, but before he shipped out they trained him for bayonet on dolls with Japanese features.

    The American people at that time probably would have accepted extremely high losses fighting the Japanese and wouldn't take anything less than unconditional surrender. If they hadn't given up after the two nukes, no one here would probably ever have heard the phrase "made in Japan."

    But what the OP was referring two was more along the lines of the fact that between the US, UK and Canada, we suffered over 10,000 casualties, with well over 2000 of those being actual battlefield deaths, just on D-DAY. Just D-DAY, not even the whole Normandy campaign. We have had a bit of 4,000 dead in all 7 years of the Iraq war, while we lost over 418,000 in WWII, or about 0.32% of our population at the start of the war.

    I'm not trying to diminish the feeling of loss I'm sure the families of the 4,000+ US soldiers who have died in Iraq must feel. However, the fact that in 7 years we've lost about twice the number of soldiers we lost trying to get ashore in France on 6 June, 1944, speaks volumes about what "limited" war might actually be.

    tl;dr you're wrong.

  24. In Soviet America, Zeroes Divide You! by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh and as to not arming robots? Too late really. We have been doing it for ever 100 years now.
    The Torpedo is a Robot. The first ones where really steampunk killing robots. Suicidal ones to be sure but still robots.

    This is not the root issue of using a robot. The root issue is that technologically advanced societies have been pushing the button from further and further away. The further away they are, the less incentive they have to make sure that their target is valid.

    First, you've got hand to hand combat. You're not going to engage unless you absolutely have to, and can deal with listening to someone gurgle and plead while they bleed out. Then you can move on to ranged weapons. In the early days, you had to get pretty close to hit someone with a musket, but you still at least had to watch people die. Then we got cannon. Rifles. Machine guns. Artillery. Airplanes. Satellite guided bombs. With each advance in military technology, you are taking less risk to your own life when you take the lives of others. That's why there are 6,000 dead "coalition" troops and several hundred thousand dead Afghans and Iraqis. It's not a war, it's a shooting gallery with political implications. If it were a war, like it was with the Japanese and the Nazis, there would be a front somewhere. The chances of Iraqis or Afghans crossing continents and oceans are not virtually zero, they are exactly zero.

    Now we're at the point where some militaries have the majority of their apparatus safely tucked away in a megabase or in the air or even back in their home country. Ninety nine percent of the military are good guys who sign up thinking they will be fighting for their country. For the military to work, when the guy with the most penises on their shoulder says "Kill" the command must be passed down until a trigger is pulled somewhere. But for that guy at the very end, it's still a human decision that can be overridden by natural desires to protect human life. He can make up something about the target being obscured. He can stop it if he really thinks it's not achieving an objective. He knows intuitively that he will pay a high price for taking this life, because he has to take that memory home with him.

    When the top brass are over your shoulder, you'd better click the button and blow up the house.

    And soon the top brass won't even need to issue a command. They will order the command, and the quasi-sentient robots (not some half assed definition that fits your argument) will kill, and the grunts will simply arrive to ID the body parts.

    The real problem with this technology is that there is no pushback for human life. If a politician wants it, and he can find someone in the military who will perform it, you can bet your ass that millions of innocent people will die as a result. The more humans you remove from the end of the equation, the less humane the result will be.

    1. Re:In Soviet America, Zeroes Divide You! by gknoy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But for that guy at the very end, it's still a human decision that can be overridden by natural desires to protect human life. He can make up something about the target being obscured. He can stop it if he really thinks it's not achieving an objective. He knows intuitively that he will pay a high price for taking this life, because he has to take that memory home with him.

      I read an interesting article in a mainstream magazine about Air Force drone pilots. Basically, they sit in Nevada and control drones in Afghanistan. I was expecting to read about how jaded and eager they were to press buttons at the drop of the hat, but what I found was the opposite.

      The drones are capable of staying in the air for days at a time, monitoring a target (person). They have cameras running, and multiple shifts of human crews watching the video feeds and analyzing what's going on. In the process, they are able to ascertain with frightening accuracy that yes, this particular man is a terrorist: Here's the video feed of him buying some weapons, and here's the part X hours later where we just watched him create a roadside IED. Being able to keep someone under direct video surveillance (including thermal, if I recall correctly, so being indoors didn't help a lot) meant that for at least some targets, they were very sure that that person was a bad guy.

      We have people halfway around the globe pushing buttons to kill people about whom we have reams of (video) evidence showing hostile behavior. I think that's better informed killing than having combat teams need to go in and do the same killing on foot, with potentially faulty intelligence, and without (at times) being able to mount multi-day uninterrupted surveillance.

  25. Re:Lest we forget by AJWM · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Cold War arose because of the Russian fear of the nuclear-armed US [...] and their desire to create buffer zones in the West of the Soviet Union.

    You mean to the West of the Soviet Union. Places like Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and anywhere else they could roll in tanks and grab.

    --
    -- Alastair
  26. Re: Confounded by element-o.p. · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ummm...Paul was a Roman citizen and is frequently credited with writing most of the New Testament. Got any other prejudices you'd like to have disproved?

    --
    MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  27. How could they not know their job? by dontmakemethink · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The entire point of American warfare is to expend as much ammunition as possible so to stick the American public with the biggest bill possible. A 13 meter margin of error means you can justify using three guided missiles instead of one. How does a military contractor not see the benefit of that? How are they supposed to create business for you if you're tying them up in court!

    These clowns can't possibly think they're actually looking for WMD's and Osama Bin Laden could they? They're looking for an intractable enemy to spend billions trying to irradicate, and they've found them in the Taliban, just like Isreal found the Palestinians. Spooky sneaky "bad guys" are literally booming business.

    --

    War as we knew it was obsolete
    Nothing could beat complete denial
    - Emily Haines
  28. Re:Lest we forget by BigFootApe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Cold War arose because of the Russian fear of the nuclear-armed US (they had after all nearly been destroyed by Germany, a smaller country) and their desire to create buffer zones in the West of the Soviet Union. That, and what that notorious left-winger Eisenhower called the "military-industrial complex".

    Eisenhower wasn't upset about having a strong, high technology military. He was concerned that crackpot projects were excessively milking the country for money and that military spending should be looked upon always with a certain amount of clear eyed judgement to prevent unwarranted waste.

    Nuclear powered bombers? Remember that one? Safeguard? Heck, even now NMD is being built for pork purposes under the smokescreen of a fictional "rogue nation" threat.

    Even the Sovs had their own version military industrial complex. They called it the "metal eaters alliance".

    However, as I suspect that you're writing that from your parents' basement, I doubt that you actually know any history, or were even around for the Cold War."We are too easily impressed by small wars nowadays"- if you knew any history, you would know that the Western invasion of Germany was a limited war because high casualties would not be accepted by the American and British public. Read up on Eisenhower. You need to learn about the greatest American general.

    I'd say it was pretty much total war. There was a certain amount of trust within the western allied governments that the generals would not be wasteful with soldiers lives and I think Eisenhower and his colleagues were cognisant of that.

  29. The real world is not written by Tom Clancy by dbIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I thought the problem is that such professionals brought in from the military were vastly outnumbered and outranked by kids fresh out of school that think they are James Bond and advancement is by nepotism and political links instead of competance. The CIA is not a professional military operation and it shows. They can be as supposedly good in their own mind but that didn't catch Bin Laden or all the other operations where the military were pulled out so that the CIA could take the credit for completing the operation - and then messed it up!
    What the CIA do in the real world is not written by Tom Clancy, or it seems by anybody that has a clue what the organisation should be doing. Yet another example of Horse Judges out of their depth and unable to do anything useful even if they were given the best possible people to work for them.

  30. Re:Lest we forget by Szechuan+Vanilla · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually, Marshall jumped Eisenhower to the top because Eisenhower impressed the hell out of Marshall during 1941 war games in Louisiana when a lot of the show was a mess from career Regular Army clowns screwing up. Eisenhower got a lot of stuff done right despite the chaos and systemic cluster-fucks.

    Marshall ruthlessly cleaned house after the mess and Eisenhower got jumped over a lot of RA types. People were pissed, but it kind of worked out OK, didn't it.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.