🚀 go-pugleaf

fouts@hpl.hp.com writes:

> Sigh.

Sigh.

> 1) Supercomputers are not widely used in command and control situations
>   because they don't have the high mean time to failure.
>
> 2) Most US supercomputers are used for research which would probably
>   stop in the kind of war being suggested above, and certainly not
>   critical to the prosecution of such a war.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but unless you have actually worked in those
[black] areas, you are not really qualified to draw those conclusions, are
you? And if you have worked there (as I have), then you know you have to
keep your mouth shut and smile. :-)

Anyway, there is at least one system that is public knowledge. In fact, it
was the topic of the keynote speech at the Banquet during Supercomputing
91. It was an interesting talk, since it gave a rare public glimpse of how
the US uses supercomputers [for military purposes] to solve real problems.

> 3) Not buying supercomputers for command and control does not imply
>    not buying supercomputers for research.

I agree here.

> Just because the NRO needs to function in a war doesn't mean NASA
> can't buy a supercomputer for computational chemistry.

ditto.

Remember though that any "National Security" argument used to justify
buying domestic computers can also be used by other countries for not
buying US computers, and using their own home-grown product.

And one other point. Content. Many of those chips (except Convex GaAs!),
disk drives, etc. all come from the Land of the Rising Sun. So most of
those domestic computers are not all that home-grown after all.
-- 
Mike Tighe, (214) 497-4206
tighe@convex.com