"open, widely used and available"
Yeahhh... No.
So Perl, Python ?
Military systems have life spans of decades. What is widely used today is a niche tomorrow. When Ada was first specified about the only languages that fit your requirements where COBOL and FORTRAN. If you want to stretch it a bit you might include Pascal.
This was 1977 after all.
Ada actually fits your requirements pretty well. Most new systems are now using C++ but Ada is an interesting language for writing highly reliable systems.

I was actually thinking about their "complex" (understatement) relationship with the Kurds.

I have to say that while I do not extremists groups of any type your examples leave me wondering.
Violet Blue is not a well known security expert she is sex columnist. I also think that you in the context of computer security least she is not highly respected. I can seen the logic in the statement that a sex talk has no place in a computer security conference.

The EU isn't a defensive alliance; that's what NATO is for and Turkey is already a NATO member. One that's keeping us from forming a coherent policy against ISIS, incidentally, since our natural allies in the region and only proven effective anti-ISIS force happen to be Turkey's sworn enemy.

Really?
So when they contract out for a say an avionics system it would be fine if the product was delivered in some proprietary language giving the vendor a complete lock in?

I thought the same thing.

When USENET, IRC, and other mediums that were hard to censor were the rule rather than the exception? Now the "go to" places are all for profit enterprises, Facebook, Twitter, Google, et. al. They may profess to follow Western ideals, they may even actually believe in them, but when push comes to shove they'll always do what's necessary to enrich the bottom line.

As an aside, I wonder why the EU is hesitant to consider admitting Turkey? Or why the United States insists on advocating in favor of such a course of action.

I was implicitly pointing out that landmines have certain inherent qualities that makes them worth considering despite past instances of civilian causalities--causalities that could easily be minimized given a different context (strategic placement in a first-world nation instead of scattershot tactical placement in a third world nation.)

Automated weapons, it should be noted, generally lack this capability. I suppose that stationary turrets (of the sort that couldn't be trivially moved) could be useful but they are not at all militarily decisive or game-changing given how expensive and vulnerable they are (relative to mines.)

Again, landmines were brought up as a comparison. I was pointing out that this comparison was flawed and landmines in fact had a number of redeeming qualities that (I thought it unnecessary to highlight) automated weapons simply do not match.

Militaries do not clear modern minefields in minutes. That's complete nonsense. At best with hours or days of intense effort you might clear a narrow pathway, but that still puts you at a significant disadvantage as the defender can simply direct all of their air power and artillery at the pathway.

You furthermore are shifting the hypothetical into an all-out war including the potential use of nukes, when I was clearly talking about Ukraine-type situations, where force is limited and Russian deniablity (however laughable) was heavily utilized.

Also, I didn't cover this but tactical nuclear landmines are a very interesting (although politically very tricky to sell) strategy, which could even serve the dual purpose getting rid of some of the world's ICBMs.

Not even close my Suomalainen friend. Not even close. :)