Military Running a Parallel Earth Simulator 470
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."
So Chris Carter was right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The political options (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see it now:
Just save are money and say.. (Score:4, Insightful)
how about a good game of chess?
and then move the supercomputers back to the star gate at NORAD
Obl. Futurama? (Score:2, Insightful)
Professor: No, just the two.
Fry: Oh, well, I'm sure that's enough.
What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Which one are we? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Oh Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
The only problem with this: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The political options (Score:4, Insightful)
Half the world was telling him that.
He didn't pay any attention to millions of people. Why the fuck would he care what one computer predicts?
Re:Which one are we? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Not really feasibly possible (Score:3, Insightful)
Currently some of the most powerful super computers are devoted to predicting JUST the weather yet they still can't get it particularly accurate, especially if you try and predict the weather greater than 7 days in advance. If we can't predict the weather, what makes us think we can predict the world??? Especially years in advance. It's a ridiculous notion.
Another good example is the chinese board game "Go" [wikipedia.org]. The best computer players are only as good as good amateur human players. This is due to the high branching factor of the game. The area of the board is very large (more than five times the size of a chess board) and the number of legal moves rarely go below 50 (compare chess, where the average number of moves is 37). Throughout most of the game the number of legal moves stay at around 150-250 per turn (from Wikipedia).
My point is, the world is a bloody complex system and for current technology, essentially impossible. Take into account: The random vagaries of the human mind, the climate, the weather, the earths complex geology, natural disasters, evolution (new bacterium evolves - wipes out humanity), the animal kingdom (random malarial mosquito bites world leader), genetics (two people have sex, produce next Hitler).
I could go one but I think my point is made..
Twelfth Imam (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org]) 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 [ashbrook.org].) 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.)
Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The political options (Score:3, Insightful)
As an online discussion begins on slashdot, the probability of blaming Bush for something approaches one.
Good Advice is Useless when Ignored. (Score:3, Insightful)
Chance of desired outcome: 21.7%
Correct infrmation does not matter when the boss has an agenda. The CIA gave Bush a report that predicted failure in Iraq and it's consequences [commondreams.org]. The computer can do the same, but it won't do any good. The neo-cons had a plan [wordpress.com] and activated it.
Re:The political options (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good Advice is Useless when Ignored. (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. When General Shinseki said that 400,000 troops would be needed to stabilize Iraq, Rumsfeld announced Shinseki's replacement. If a computer had told him the same thing, he probably would have had it melted down and sold for scrap metal. There were intelligence failures that contributed to the disaster in Iraq, but the primary failure was one of leadership. The people in power knew what they wanted, and they ignored any facts or intelligence that said otherwise.
Re:Predicted Effect of Iraq Sanctions (Score:2, Insightful)
The old way of doing this was to have a bunch of military analysts, stick them in a room for a while and see the result. This new way may or may not be more accurate, but it will be more complicated, probably quicker, and won't tell you what you want to hear (lie).
kinda poking a hole in this summary, we already know how long a human can survive without water or food. Chances are that this will instead tell us how long a population will go with limited water, and how that population will react to it (violence, benevolence, ect)
Re:The political options (Score:3, Insightful)
Chaos theory suggests that increasing precision by a decimal point would lead to totally different results, yet the computer isn't considering anything close to accurate.
So throwing chaos into chaos - well, the prediction is chaos.
What may be nice is the investment in computing technology will spin off lots of nice gadgets for us. Just to let the simulate people know, the fact that people are aware they are being simulated and thus should be thinking of randomizing rather than patterning their activities ought to boost hardware requirements by several orders of magnitude.
Perhaps simulation is really moot. People have well known objectives, such as chasing the American dream. Individuals are hard to predict, and it is individuals that cause mayhem when least expected.
Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? (Score:3, Insightful)
The short of it is : in the long hard days of war, you need to know you exausted *every* opportunity for peace.
From Churchill speeches [winstonchurchill.org].
Re:Twelfth Imam (Score:2, Insightful)
Does wiping Israel off the map count as a "domestic" affair?
Re:Twelfth Imam (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, even if we discount ideas that we see in a lot of mysticism and in some interpretations of quantum theory about the observer's role in creating reality(this is slashdot, after all) - I think that two nuclear powers both run by small groups of people (please, lets not confuse the rulers of either the US or Iran with the people of the US or Iran) that have equally zany ideas about how destroying the planet being the in their best interest.
the difference is our leaders don't openly admit it. they gleefully continue on the path and in fact hasten it (see; the enviroment, nuclear weapons, domestic food policy, etc. I'd talk more but i'm late for dinner).
Fact is, it doesn't really matter what we day on here about it.
I hope you folks enjoy your dinner too.
Adarm
Re:The political options (Score:5, 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?
Re:Good Advice is Useless when Ignored. (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually they would have called it a simulation error, rejigged the numbers until they got the simulation they wanted. Then gone to the media proudly displaying their scientifically proven scenario.
Re:Twelfth Imam (Score:2, Insightful)
or maybe you american's should learn your lesson and stay they fuck out of other peoples domestic affairs?
Yeah, because that worked so well in WWII.
Personally, I don't care if a problem is domestic or international--if it has even a medium probability of escalating to something we're going to have to clean up later, I want to take action sooner rather than later. Like that CIA movie that came out not too long ago, "You guys start big wars," "No, we make sure the wars are small." Very much so. Yes, the loss of life in Iraq is unfortunate on both sides, but I find it preferable than "staying the f*ck out" and waiting to see if Saddam was able to kill hundreds of thousands or millions more people--his own or of other countries. He already demonstrated he was happy to attack three of his regional neighbors.
Seriously, the isolationist and "stay the heck out" approach is temptingly simple. But the world is not that simple and it's not a viable option. Especially with the tensions in the Middle East that will exist as long as Israel exists, and Israel does have a legal right to exist. There are evil and dangerous powers in this world, far more evil and dangerous than Bush or the U.S. So if we have to occasionally do something like we did in Iraq and are unpopular for it, fine. I still think it (intervention in general) is necessary. Not attractive, not popular, but necessary and the lesser of two evils.
Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you kidding ? It would make them even more desperate to get nukes from any source.
Civilian casualties didn't stop the US in 1945 and they didn't stop them invading Iraq. I think it's pretty obvious at this point that the US is quite happy to kill those tens of millions of innocent people for a perceived advantage; that's propably the top reason why Iran and NK are so desperate to get nukes.
Re:The political options (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Twelfth Imam (Score:2, Insightful)
Bush is part of an unorthodox group of Christians who believe they can hasten the second coming of Christ by deliberately sinking the world into chaos. The publicly announced intention of the US is to sink the world into chaos so as to usher in a new age.
Please tell me you can see the differences between this paragraph and reality.
Re:That's The Point (Score:4, Insightful)
Any sanctions that deliberately restrict vitals such as fresh water are criminal in the extreme. Inflicting death upon the population in the hope of achieving political change is commonly called terrorism. Here's what Madelaine Albright had to say on the issue.
"We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And - and you know, is the price worth it?"
Madeleine Albright (at that time, US Ambassador to the UN):
"I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."
An unbelievable statement to make. If only they had direct and clear evidence like that against Milosevic, his trial would have been over in a week. Of course this kind of terrorism/collective punishment goes on all the time, although not on the genocidal scale of the Iraq sanctions. A similar practice has been going on recently with suspension of aid to the Palestinians (and also taxes owed to them). We're not talking about preventing them from buying widescreen TVs and DVD Players, this is essential aid like food and water. They know full well that withholding hundreds of millions of dollars (and more recently restricting aid vehicles entering Gaza) will hurt the population severely.
Considering the terrible suffering of the Iraqi people, I'm very glad people were bypassing the sanctions, even if their motives were greed. Maybe someone even managed to sell some vital water-treatment supplies and save a few people. Just picture the whole thing from the point of view of an ordinary Iraqi. For years the US, UK et al, is supporting the dictator who is oppressing you and killing your friends and family. They even encourage and support his war on Iran which is killing so many of the people you know. Then they decide they don't like him anymore and impose sanctions which result in the deaths of some 500,000 children, possibly including some of your own. I can't imagine the rage that so many Iraqis must feel towards the west.
Junk (Score:3, Insightful)
(Second) reality check (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Twelfth Imam (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
One thing to know about simulations (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Twelfth Imam (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know, but I look forward to you informing me about that. :) Seriously, back in the early 90's I believed in a lot of conspiracy theories and some of those "overlords of the universe puppet masters" that you are eluding to. It gave me the sense that I really understand all the weird things going on. I was somehow on the "inside" track and I thought I could see the ulterior motives of everyone. Then I grew up.
Really, you think "my" version of history is so simple that a preschooler can understand it? Please! World politics is complicated, chaotic and confusing and a constant game of "best guessing" given contradicting--and sometimes wrong--information that, even on a good day, often doesn't make sense. To suggest that that reality is "simple" and your nice little simplified package of evil warmongering capitalists is actually the "complicated" truth is folly. You have to realize that you're the one engaging in mindless simplicity in an attempt to understand world events that are apparently beyond your ability or willingness to critically analyze. Believe me, I've been exactly where you are now and, like you, it made perfect sense to me at the time. I hope that you, too, grow out of it. I think it's a perfectly natural phase in growing up and trying to understand the world. It's only dangerous if you stay in that phase too long.
Re:What if Neville Chamberlain had a backbone? (Score:2, Insightful)
and the agents of Saudi Arabia. The situation in the middle east is complex in the extreme and further complicated by the oil. The whole region is very likely to be radioactive wasteland before a decade has gone by - indeed it may be unavoidable.
That's a good reason for all nations to start breaking their dependence on oil.