Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Technology IT

Soldiers Call for Engineering Tech Support 314

Posted by michael from the you-break-it-you-bought-it dept.
chuckfucter writes "Wired news writes that soldiers in the battlefield now have their own army of geek advisers whom they can contact whenever they need technical support. The stakes are much higher here, with troops asking about the structural integrity of bridges, roads, dams and airfields: Can this structure be safely used after sustaining damage from bombings?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Soldiers Call for Engineering Tech Support More

Soldiers Call for Engineering Tech Support

Comments Filter:

  • Responses (Score:3, Insightful)

    by metlin ( 258108 ) * on Saturday November 06, 2004 @02:05AM (#10740647) Journal
    And if it is on the field, the responses would need to be realtime, too.

    It may make the difference between life and death.

    • Re:Responses (Score:5, Interesting)

      by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <<moc.liamg> <ta> <namtabmiaka>> on Saturday November 06, 2004 @02:25AM (#10740694) Homepage Journal
      Indeed. I actually think this makes a lot of sense. Information is ALWAYS a big problem on the battlefield, but getting the pertinent information is even more important. Having a "tech on call" for various engineering matters provides the troops with an advantage similar to that of getting the Army Corp of Engineers out there. (Need to cross a river? Build a bridge! :-))

      My only thought is that this should be extended much further. Instead of just "techie" issues, there should be something similar to the Naval concept of a Combat Information Center. You see, on a ship of war, all information flows through the CIC. It's the responsibility of those in CIC to process the information and route the results and guesstimations on to the proper area of the ship or fleet. Now imagine if we stuck a Zepplin above the heads of our troops.

      It could fly high enough to be out of range of just about everything except a Mig-29, and provide a line-of-sight communications center. The Zepplin could take information from onboard sensors, satellite readings, intel, other ground troops, and a variety of other sources, then route the most important information and estimates to the battlefield.
      • I Know! We could use "Nucular" Zepplins! They could stay aloft for as long as a submarine can stay under water. They could launch cruise missles and control battlefield information.

        We could put squads of HILO jumper Marines on them to hit trouble spots and drop pallets of food on indigenous people to win hearts and minds. We only crushed a few when we did that..

        BTW, it's the MiG-25 FOXBAT that can reach those altitudes, not the MiG-29 and, oh yeah, we loose more Americans in LA county each year than we lo
        • BTW, it's the MiG-25 FOXBAT that can reach those altitudes, not the MiG-29 and,

          *scratches head* Now how the heck did that happen? I was looking at the Mig-25 specs, intending to type "Mig-25", and somehow typed "Mig-29". Hmm... Freudian slip? Anyway, thanks for the correction. :-)

          I Know! We could use "Nucular" Zepplins! They could stay aloft for as long as a submarine can stay under water. They could launch cruise missles and control battlefield information.

          Well, if the power is necessary, that's a vi

      • You have to be kidding. An apache or a SAM could take it out. And once it goes stratospheric, you lose the advantage of close ground support. You're better off with JSTARS patrolling the area.
        • You have to be kidding. An apache or a SAM could take it out

          Eh? At 70,000 feet?! You've got to be kidding me. An Apache has a service ceiling of ~21,000 feet, and most SAMs are not designed to hit that altitude.

          And once it goes stratospheric, you lose the advantage of close ground support.

          Why would you use a blimp for close in ground support? That's what the A-10 Warthogs are for. I'm only suggesting that it provide an arial battlefield information center, that can get necessary info to the proper

    • Re:Responses (Score:5, Funny)

      by Cymsdale ( 772966 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @04:34AM (#10740968)
      It may make the difference between life and death.

      Then I'm glad they decided to use this method instead of AskSlashdot.

  • it makes sence (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dns_server ( 696283 )
    This doesn't suprise me, with all the money being spend on the army, it makes an awful lof of sence to give the army all the tools they need. the better prepared the army, the better they can protect us.

    • Re:it makes sence (Score:4, Insightful)

      by BiggerIsBetter ( 682164 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @02:42AM (#10740736)
      Protect you from who? It's the rest of the world that's worried about the US, not the other way around. It certainly makes sense to have better information on a battlefield, but surely it's more about reducing casualties - especially "friendly fire" on both your own and allied troops.
      • Protect us from who, you ask?!

        Terrorists blend into the very fabric of our society, spreading their atheistic dogma which undermines the sanctity of marriage and murdering of our babies.

        The only fairly reliable way to smoke them out is to hold an election and watch for Kerry signs in their yards. These blimps will help locate those signs.

        Oh, we'll get you my pretty and your little dog too!

        .

    • Re:it makes sence (Score:2, Insightful)

      by zakezuke ( 229119 )
      This doesn't suprise me, with all the money being spend on the army, it makes an awful lof of sence to give the army all the tools they need. the better prepared the army, the better they can protect us.

      They are not protecting us the US. There is an old rule of thumb as far as military spending is concerned about keeping enough assets to fight 2.5 wars. This way when we go out and police the world we don't leave our nation undefended. Keep in mind two large northern and southern land borders, and two

      • Re:it makes sence (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Corporate Troll ( 537873 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @03:36AM (#10740846) Homepage Journal
        Keep in mind two large northern and southern land borders, and two large coasts.

        Yeah, sure.... the Canadians and Mexicans were just waiting for you to lower your defenses in order to conquer, plunder and rape defenseless Americans... Americans who are unarmed by definition, after all they don't have right to bear arms to form militia.

        The two large coasts? You need an industrialized nation in order to attack those (airplanes/warships). China could *perhaps* do that. Europe is out of the question: we barely have enough military to defend ourself if anyone would like to invade us.
        Besides, the US under attack would immediately recall all troups in Iraq. Be damned civil war in Iraq if you've got bigger problems at home.

        • Yeah, sure.... the Canadians and Mexicans were just waiting for you to lower your defenses in order to conquer, plunder and rape defenseless Americans... Americans who are unarmed by definition, after all they don't have right to bear arms to form militia.

          Think 1942 when Japan decimated our Pacific fleet. It was a common belief that a direct assault on our western shore would not only be successful, it would be so successful that they'd be drinking sake in Omaha. Now think 2005 and think two coasts with

          • Re:it makes sence (Score:5, Insightful)

            by MemoryDragon ( 544441 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @06:28AM (#10741138)
            The funny thing is even if Europe had the ressources to fight sever offensive wars, it in its current state would not, the people are fed up with war and have been fed up with it since WW2 (you need severe reasons to drag the average European into a war, he/she would feel would be justified, Iraq was the classical example of not how to do it).

            On the other hand, Europe is a good buffer zone for the US and always was. Europeans prolly would start to fight tough once they are attacked. Europe in its current state should not be underestimated as a defensive force but as an offencive, forget it. The mentality of the people is not like that.
            Even if there are lots of problems with the transatlantic relations (most are caused by the idiotic Bush government) Europe still is the best ally the US can have against an atlantic coastal attack, most attackers who would try it that way, would get stuck way before, with around 500-800 million people working actively or passively against them und ultimately being stuck in Europe with an unresolvable resistance situation.

            But having Europe attacking the US, there is no way, even if the US was unable to defend itself. Despite all the shoutings and problems, no western European even would get the idea, to attack the "brothers" in the US, although the younger brother currently has a big problem :-) .

            • Re:it makes sence (Score:3, Interesting)

              by zakezuke ( 229119 )
              But having Europe attacking the US, there is no way, even if the US was unable to defend itself. Despite all the shoutings and problems, no western European even would get the idea, to attack the "brothers" in the US, although the younger brother currently has a big problem :-) .

              Would your feelings change on the subject if the US decided Iran is attacked? What about Syria? After all why stop at Iraq, don't need to worry about re-election so what the hell.
              • Lets leave this aside, Serbia/Kosovo was the perfect example of having justified reasons, but even that was inner european sphere so to say. The other thing is, if Bush really decides to go into other countries, he won't have international support no matter being it Europe or non Europe, given the recent past. So the US congress should be careful of giving another yes to anoter attack war, there will be no support from the outside. There is a huge difference also in international support by fighting an at
                • There is a huge difference also in international support by fighting an attack war or a defensive war.

                  Agreed, Iraq was an attack war. A pre-emptive attack war so we were told, but an attack on a sovereign nation that presented no clear and present danger.
        • The US has plenty of defences on it's own soil, at least for any kind of real threat. As you mention, Canada and Mexico are no threat. Canada is the US's largest trade partner (and vice versa). Both Mexico and Canada have nothing to gain and everything to lose from attacking the US. The US will step up to defend either from an attack, and even both combine do not have a military force that poses any kind of serious threat. Never mind that the three nations are on very good terms (you don't usually even need

  • Just wait... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ulpb ( 828643 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @02:07AM (#10740653)
    Give it a few months and they'll outsource it to India like all the other tech support jobs.

    • Re:Just wait... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by erick99 ( 743982 ) <homerun@gmail.com> on Saturday November 06, 2004 @02:23AM (#10740692)
      While corporate America likes to outsource overseas, the armed forces do not and they are not likely to allow their contractors to do so either. The last company I worked for handled only military contracts and we couldn't even get clearances for an engineer from India that was in the U.S., much less one that was still in India. For battlefield support, it isn't going to happen.

      • While corporate America likes to outsource overseas, the armed forces do not and they are not likely to allow their contractors to do so either. The last company I worked for handled only military contracts and we couldn't even get clearances for an engineer from India that was in the U.S., much less one that was still in India. For battlefield support, it isn't going to happen.

        How about an Indian engineer who has an American name?

        • Background checkl? (Score:2, Informative)

          by jgardn ( 539054 )
          You may not know of this, but there is something called a "background check". They go and visit all the people you've met for the past ten years of your life and interview them. They peruse records you don't even know that exist. They tap your phones, watch your email, know when and what you are doing at all times.

          I'm sorry, but you can't slip through this unless you are bona fide an American citizen who has never said anything bad about the country and has never associated with those who have.

          • Re:Background checkl? (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward
            I've been interviewed as part of background checks for friends, and they are really quite lame. No, they don't talk to everyone you've met in the last 10 years. No, they don't have s3kr3t information about you that they research. And I very much doubt (based on what I've seen) that they tap phones or read email (except perhaps your official work email).

            Basically, they interview your neighbors and ask you for a list of friends. Then they interview a few of your friends.

            Questions were like:
            - How long have y

  • Wager? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @02:11AM (#10740666) Homepage
    Ah, techies rejoice. Just join the military tech support and never again worry that your job might be outsourced to India.

    • Re:Wager? (Score:5, Funny)

      by BinBoy ( 164798 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @02:18AM (#10740679) Homepage
      Tech support: Tech support line -- Falluja office. Can I help you?

      Solider: Um... never mind.

      • Re:Wager? (Score:5, Funny)

        by mouseyMousey ( 804374 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @05:27AM (#10741049)
        Or:

        support: Hello, tech support; how can I help you?

        soldier: Our tank is down - the radar's out, the tracking and targetting is out and the engine won't start - we're surrounded and the enemy are closing in on us.

        support: I'll just create a ticket for you. you need to use this number every time you contact us about this problem. but only this problem.

        soldier: jeez!

        support: have you tried rebooting your tank?

        soldier: of course we have. It still won't move.

        support: could you try again for me?

        soldier: no, this urgent and it won't make a difference.

        support: okay, ... go to your tank's control panel (you can find it in My Tank(TM)) and double click 'MS KillForeigners Pro' (hopefully you've had the friendly-fire patch applied).

        soldier: it's not there!

        support: are you sure? it should be; it's a standard application. we include it in all builds.

        soldier: it aint there. quick they're getting closer and they have armour peircing weapons.

        support: okay, i'll have to call a contractor because we don't actually support MS KF Pro. He'll be about two hours; he's stuck in traffic near a pub.

        soldier: [blood curdling screams followed by explosion and white noise]

        support: [to self] I hate it when that happens, we've got no way of getting those tickets off the system and it really distorts our performance under the service level agreement.

        [heard from the next cubicle] the person who deals with nuclear weapons is on his lunch break. Have you tried rebooting your intercontinental ballistic missile?

    • I know its bad form to comment on your own comment, but here goes:

      What's next, all our medical records will start being outsour....oh wait...

      *Note to self: That wasn't as funny on the screen as it was in your head.

  • Quality hardware (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Can this structure be safely used after sustaining damage from bombings?"
    Whatever brand of motherboard they're using, I want it.
  • The article states clearly that the support is for engineering type problems.

    Article?!? Wait a minute, this is slashdot after all...

  • ACE. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 06, 2004 @02:20AM (#10740686)
    "Wired news writes that soldiers in the battlefield now have their own army of geek advisers whom they can contact whenever they need technical support. "

    Ummm, wouldn't that be the Army Corp. of Engineers?
    • As a former Army Engineer officer, and former structural engineer, I'm a little skeptical of this article.

      Engineer units and officers, who are already organic to Battalion (500ish troops) and above, are trained to do this sort of thing (bridge load surveys). For very complicated structures, I can see a need to contact a consultant "in garrison" somewhere who can do a more advanced structural model, but I'd think that would be quite the exception.

      I think the article is misleading. The Army has had to eva

  • panasonic toughbooks...!!?! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Look at the last thumbnail in that article, hes got a panasonic toughbook in his lap

    Damn i've always wanted one of those, looks like another one in the helicopter picture

    I'd always thought the military had some special laptops designed specifically for them, but i guess just like the police in vancouver they use those toughbooks
    • The army uses toughbooks when not on the front line. There ARE special laptops which are horrid to use, have the worst rubber keyboards and impossible to use d-pad mouse controllers and weigh a tonne. They're fairly splash proof and you can drop them as much as you want without a problem. Toughbooks are just not that robust, they're splashproof (sort of) and mostly used on a desk rather than in the field, dropping them isn't adviasble.

  • Yup this makes sense... NOT! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 06, 2004 @02:41AM (#10740733)
    So has anyone ever seen how long it takes to get a building checked out by a civil engineer and now your telling me people are going to do it over the phone whithout even seeing the damage to the beams?

  • Special Skills Draft Information? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by IvyMike ( 178408 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @02:51AM (#10740754)
    Back in March, the selective service began planning the procedures for a "Speical Skills" draft, which is a hypothetical draft of "Americans with special skills in computers and foreign languages."


    "Talking to the manpower folks at the Department of Defense and others, what came up was that nobody foresees a need for a large conventional draft such as we had in Vietnam," said Richard Flahavan, a spokesman for the Selective Service System. "But they thought that if we have any kind of a draft, it will probably be a special skills draft."

    Just to clarify: they're not talking about actually drafting such workers yet; they just want procedures in place if they do need to do a draft. (This strikes me as somewhat ominous, in spite of their claims that it's a remote possiblity, but that could be my own paranoia.)

    They already have the procedures in place to draft medical workers (up to age 44!) if it ever becomes necessary. The article doesn't say, but I would anticipate that an IT worker draft would have a similar age spread.

    This article was back in March; anybody have any more recent news?
    • ...anybody have any more recent news?

      Yes, in more recent news:

      • Young people didn't bother to vote (again)
      • George got back in
      • The draft is a certainty
      • Geeks are wanted
      • Geeks are screwed
      ...and those of us lucky enough to be outside the US and not a citizen of a country the US wants to bomb are quoting G.B.Shaw: "Democracy is a device that ensures [the US] shall be governed no better than [it] deserve."

  • I wanna hear about the REAL IT work (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Travoltus ( 110240 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @02:52AM (#10740759) Journal
    such as what they're doing in the areas of signal security and preventing interceptions/jamming of transmissions on the battlefield. How do they authenticate who's talking to who? How do they keep the enemy from listening in?

  • "Now has?" They've been there all along (Score:5, Interesting)

    by poptones ( 653660 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @02:52AM (#10740760) Journal
    These are the same folks who designed most of the dams under the TVA. They designed the steel mesh "tires" on the MOON ROVER, for pete's sake! I'm 40 years old and even I was a kid when that was happening.

    It's a way cool place to tour if you're in the area. Don't know if they still have the hangar-size scale model of the san francisco bay but if they don't there's sure to be something equally impressive occupying that space.

  • Outsourcing IS actually possible (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tehanu ( 682528 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @02:59AM (#10740771)
    A lot of people have made comments about the possibility of this being outsourced. While most of the comments are meant to be funny, I think it is definitely possible that it could be outsourced. Remember that the philosophy of Bush and Rumsfeld et al. is that the US army should be *small* and practically every function of the US army that doesn't involve holding a gun and shooting should be outsourced (mainly to private US companies like Halliburton). Actually, considering that even some US government staff in Iraq are guarded by private guards, even holding a gun and shooting is outsourced to some degree. I've read articles that said that in the first Gulf War something like 1 in 100 of the people working for the US army were private contractors, but in the second Gulf War, something like 1 in 10 are from private (US) companies. As events in Iraq show, even things like interrogation of prisoners is conducted by private contractors.

    Of course a major problem with this is that you can't order engineers from a private company to go out under fire to fix a bridge/power plant etc. while you can with army engineers. The other major problem is who will punish private contractors who say torture prisoners or accidentally (or even deliberately) kill or injure civilians. If they are in the army they could be investigated and court-martialed, but I think for private contractors it is much murkier. I think the general rule is that they are under the rules of the local government, but well, in a lot of these places, local government is hardly existent or very corrupt.

    • Re:Outsourcing IS actually possible (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bastian ( 66383 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @03:06AM (#10740785)
      If we're talking small government in terms of decreased spending, then Halliburton is a terrible example. I fail to see how handing a cost-plus contract to a company without any bidding process whatsoever is a good way to save money. It may sound good in theory, but in practise I imagine that it's a lot like giving some random guy a blank check to go get you some beer instead of walking to the store yourself.
      • I agree with you. I just wanted to point out that outsourcing is not only possible, but with this administration it is also very likely (though given their track record, I'd doubt that they'd be able to do it very competently...). I got the idea from the jokes people were making about India and China that they had the idea that outsourcing these types of jobs was not very likely.

  • oh.my.god. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 06, 2004 @03:46AM (#10740882)
    Thanks for calling the USMC technical support line.
    If you have been shot, press "1".
    If you have been bayoneted, press "2".
    If you want to shoot someone else, press "3".
    If you want to talk to a human being, a real nerdy type, the type you jock military type assholes used to bully in high school then you can kiss my safe, bunkered, hairy corn-fed ass. Yeah, not so clever now are you? Right, now Ive got your attention, lets talk about that wedgy you gave me in sixth grade...
    • hey now, I'm a TANKER and I consider myself quite a geek.
      • hey now, I'm a TANKER and I consider myself quite a geek.

        Heh. At least you're not eleven bravo. I was a 98C (inteligence analyst/translator) deployed "up front" with the 11B's in the 101st AB. Some of those guys were in dire need of tech support, if you know what I mean.

        • yeah, you need, what, a 32 AFQT to be 11B? The stupidest people get the guns, I guess. A buddy of mine in the 82nd AB almost threw a landmine in a trash compactor.
    • "Your call is very important to us.

      Please hold

      ...

      Thank you for waiting. All our technicians are helping other customers, but your call is important to us.

      ...

      Hello, Internet Tech support. This is -- *CLICK*

  • the Bastard Operator From Hell, and a full new bunch of front war stories.
  • Brave men an women out there need help and they get these guys [deadtroll.com].

Slashdot Top Deals

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a multipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer, as amended by Jeff Daiell, a Libertarian

Close