War by any means: The story of DARPA
newscientist.com
newscientist.com
Yeah, and imagine how many orders of magnitude more it would've come out if say NASA had gotten that money, or some other government agency with specific goals of doing R&D for the consumer market, like say investing $200-$300 billion a year to create better batteries, LCDs, processors, VR tech, and so on.
The military has spent much of that money on buying weapons, then a large chunk of it on researching weapons, and whatever consumer technology came out of that was incidental. It only seems we've gotten "so much", because the investments were so huge, so even if only 0.1% of the military tech rubbed off on the consumer market, it still seems like a lot.
A good example of this is how the U.S. government has largely refused to invest in anything other than radioactive nuclear reactors, preferring nuclear reactors based on uranium over say thorium, because it could also use the uranium to build weapons. Perhaps people wouldn't be so against nuclear reactors now if most of them were using thorium. And maybe we'd even have nuclear-powered rockets by now, making those Mars trips much shorter.
> Yeah, and imagine how many orders of magnitude more it would've come out if say NASA had gotten that money
That exact same argument applies to giving money to NASA. Sure, it has spun off some useful technology (no, not just Tang, space pens & freeze-dried ice cream), but while we see that technology, we don't see the innovations which could have been developed with that money elsewhere. There's no reason to think that the state can pick innovative winners any better than it can pick economic winners.
The reason to spend money on the military is national defense, period — not some amorphous 'oh, we'll get some cool tech out of it too!' The same applies to NASA or any other government agency.
Which is the core issue, private industry hates investing in long term research and it has a small problem space. The government funding got self driving cars close enough to production ready that companies are willing to finish the process. But, no company was trying to build a freeway capable self driving car 30 years ago and then publish their results.
A non-radioactive nuclear reactor is one that isn't working, surely?
-Foreword of Grunch of Giants, Buckminster Fuller
There are other reasons for this as well. LiFTR reactors have serious problems with chemical corrosion.
This is not a good example.
Wow. Never know that.
http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/293/nuclear-bl...
The article you linked to (also a great read) seems to indicate that there was no contact or access to the cavern until they tried drilling into it a few years later to take readings, at which point they contaminated the local landscape. I'm kinda curious where these two years of cooling come into it.
p/s: there doesn't seems to be a lot of red-tape in approving whatever the 'researchers' wants to do, at least in the past
http://www.darpa.mil/program/explainable-artificial-intellig...
That project is about explaining how (say) a given classifier came to a decision on a given set of data. This is fairly easy on a tree-based classifier, but on a deep neural network is extremely difficult.
The most impressive piece of work I'm aware of in this area is LIME, from “Why Should I Trust You?” Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier[1]
The acknowledgement section of that paper read, in part:
This work was supported in part by ONR awards #W911NF-13-1-0246 and #N00014-13-1-0023, and in part by TerraSwarm, one of six centers of STARnet, a Semiconductor Research Corporation program sponsored by MARCO and DARPA.
Today I saw ELI5[2], which encapsulates LIME and a number of other similar tools.
Regardless of origin you can rest assured the technology will make its way into the hands of a killer. It always does.
They're not gonna publish an RFP for something that's actually groundbreaking. That's gonna be classified.
This program has civilian uses, but can be weaponized easily.
In not even the most rabid fever dreams of generals would an army without science be capable of even a fraction of the capabilities of an army with.
- Armies fight on their stomachs - so science produced stay good food that lasts under any condition for years with special storage, comes in a variety of menus and even provides for hot menus without the use of fire [1]
- Soldiers need better tactical capabilities - so science let them see in the dark [2], become stronger [3], gave them perfect aim [4], gave them god-like ability to peel back the fog of war [5] and made them nearly indestructible [6][7]
- Generals needed more powerful options - so science created nuclear weapons [8], the ability to see from atop Mount Olympus[9][10], physics bending intelligence collection capabilities[11], ships that stay beneath the sea for months [12], combat aircraft that don't put the pilots at risk[13], and tanks that can survive in any condition [14], and soon the ability to harness energy to knock enemy munitions from the sky[15] or to through matter at many times the speed of sound using invisible forces[16]
This combat magnification extends to logistics, information processing, chemical warfare (and defense), biological warfare (and defense), intelligence collection and so on.
An equivalent force from the 19th century would be turned into pulp by a force from today. And our forces probably wouldn't even be in harms way during the major exchange.
Significantly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, and scientists and engineers who develop it are the wizards of modern times. DARPA merely tries to give wizards a place to hone their craft. Sometimes their work leaks out in the public and we're touched by this magic to make the internet, or use GPS, safer food, make medicine more life saving and so on. Sometimes we're on the receiving end of dark magic and our cities get turned to dust.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meal,_Ready-to-Eat
2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_vision_device
3 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViL4bAUGuGY
4 - http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/05/15/184...
5 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11th_Reconnaissance_Squadron
6 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQi7iknSKy0
7 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC2pnjN4qT8
8 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon
9 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle
10 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconnaissance_satellite
11 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
12 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_submarine
13 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_combat_aerial_vehicle
14 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams
The point is, generals tend to; A) fight the last war, and B) over-value scientifice/technology solutions.
That's not to negate their importance even for knuckle-draggers, for example, the ability to call in a helo for supporting fire has saved more infantrymen on the ground than you could imagine. I just think it's important to keep technological advances in perspective, (especially in an age where overdependence could create a massive shift in a battlespace if say large radius EMP's were deployed).
As an observer from afar it strikes me that science/technology has actually been bad for warfighting as a skilled trade. Back in the 1800's for instance the British had a large corps of experienced experts in foreign language and culture and were able to out-fox many of the locals. Nowadays the Taliban seemed to have out-foxed them pretty badly, and the fact that air support was available quickly on hand removed some of the incentive to "get it right" on the ground.
On the other hand, in today's world when technology, and among it military , and dual-use technology is so cheap , it's seems impossible to make a dedicated distributed enemy Quit, so some even call this "the end of victories".
MAD arguably lengthened conventional conflicts since it made both sides less willing (and both sides knew this about the other) to seek decisive victory.
There isn't really much of another alternative to war.
War equalizes everything. It turns princes into paupers and paupers into princes. Enormous amounts of stored wealth simply evaporate and everything becomes the communal property of the state.
You see this cycle all throughout history. Wealth and inequality build up, people complain, threaten war, and to allay them the elites throw a few ladders out. This creates not just elite families, but elite sections of society.
Once you have sections of society hating each other, then you have the makings of war. People constantly worry about it, but we're still on the downswing from World War 2.
Unfortunately we have not yet reached the point to where war threatens human survival. Nuclear weapons are just not powerful enough.
What I am hoping for is that humanity has figured out the trick of de-escalation. That the US can project power all across the globe is a huge improvement. We can bring overwhelming force to any situation we find ourselves in. Instead of worrying about war, we now worry about our special forces personnel. Huge win.
This keeps any one side from really gaining the power to threaten the broader peace of the region. Sure, right now we're not all that great at driving political goals through force projection, just look at Iraq, but we should get better at it over time.
Indeed, we could call it the "War to End All Wars". The peoples of the world would be so horrified at the prospect that they would form some sort of league of all the nations to prevent such a thing from ever happening again.
And as far as having a single power goes... That's not a guaranteed promise, either. Look at ancient Rome: They achieved (more or less) unquestionable power and authority over the Mediterranean, and that simply led to decades of civil war.
People living together in peace is a myth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Advanced_Research...