Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

US Army Testing Robots with Shotguns

Posted by CowboyNeal on Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:50 PM
from the hot-lead-for-hu-mans dept.
Darren writes "The US Army is testing robots armed with shotguns. The robots are called Packbots and have already seen some action in Iraq. It also has chemical sensors that detect nuclear, biological, and chemical contaminants. Maybe I've seen a few too many bad sci-fi movies, but robots with shotguns scare me."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Dupe? Old? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 06 2004, @12:51PM (#10742161)
    Haven't we already covered [slashdot.org] the packbots [slashdot.org] and their shotgun plug-ins [slashdot.org] enough? This is pretty old news [army.mil].
    • Re:Dupe? Old? (Score:4, Informative)

      by randomiam (514027) on Saturday November 06 2004, @03:01PM (#10742824) Homepage
      Not only is this a dupe, but PackBots (made by the same folks that brought us the Roomba) are used frequently as ordinance disposal 'bots by the military and police bomb squads. In this mission, they frequenlty are equiped with some sort of shotgun shell firing capability, in case it is necessary to detonate a device in situ.

      The BD people call it a 'disruptor' rather than a shotgun, though.

  • by AtariAmarok (451306) on Saturday November 06 2004, @12:52PM (#10742167)
    "The pitiful fleshy humans can have my gun when they pry it from my cold metal fingers".
  • Well... (Score:5, Funny)

    by cplusplus (782679) on Saturday November 06 2004, @12:53PM (#10742171) Journal
    So much for the three laws of robotics.
    • Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Agent Green (231202) * on Saturday November 06 2004, @01:25PM (#10742378) Homepage
      Three? I think these five would go well:

      1.) Serve the public trust.
      2.) Protect the innocent.
      3.) Uphold the law.
      4.) ??
      5.) Profit?
    • Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 06 2004, @01:30PM (#10742400)
      Nah, they just modify it a bit. The law is therefore known as the Bush-Ashcroft Law of Robotics:

      1. A robot may not injure a freedom-loving and Jesus-praising Republican or, through inaction, allow a corporate-loving or anti-abortion Republican to come to harm.

      2. A robot must obey orders given it gun-loving and oil-drilling Republican except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

      3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law and the contract is given to Haliburton.

      4. (Secret Directive) A robot is allowed to kill other robots opposed to the Bush-Ashcroft Law of Robotics.
      • Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Rei (128717) on Saturday November 06 2004, @01:54PM (#10742545) Homepage
        The thing is... our troops have a hard enough time *in person* identifying friend from foe. Now we're going to have robots (even if there are people remotely operating them) do it? I mean, for god's sake, aren't we killing enough civilians already?
        • Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 06 2004, @02:06PM (#10742595)
          Compassionate conservatives believe that killing is wrong, and thus will do everything in their power to protect the unborn WHITE American child. Oh, they also believe in killing as many innocent people in Iraq as possible. I see no conflict.
          • Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 06 2004, @04:43PM (#10743208)
            That comment may have been modded down as "flamebait," but it's actually very true and insightful. Think about it for a second...how can an administration be both anti-abortion and pro-clusterbombs at the same time? Anyone who thinks clusterbombs only kill "enemy combatants" needs a serious whack with a board of education.

            Don't worry slashdotians, I fully expect this to be modded down as either offtopic, flamebait, or troll soon enough, so don't get your panties in a bunch, mmkay?
        • Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 06 2004, @05:50PM (#10743485)
          I would hazard to guess that modern warfare kills fewer civilians now than ever. In WWII we CARPET BOMBED Germany. We literly flattened entire cities. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed. I totally agree that any civilian death is a tragedy but it happens in war. Could you please accept that the military goes out of it's way to minimize civilian casualties instead of making it sound like they are aiming for the civies instead of the enemy.
          • by Herschel Cohen (568) on Saturday November 06 2004, @05:51PM (#10743488) Homepage Journal
            Look up an article about the U.S. Marines being cut to pieces by the U.S. Air Force while taking enemy fire (NYT). Messages were sent to the AF pilots to cease, but they continued to attack. I guess they were having to much fun. [That is not completely my snide observation.]

            I bring this up because, the marines have a unique vehicle that should have been recognizable from the air. Moreover, this is a repeat of experiences of the first Gulf War. Supposedly these problems were solved. However, those among the honored dead are in that state due to persistent screwups. If saying it isn't so suffices for you, then you are totally misinformed or are a true believer.

            We have real problems that robots alone are not going to solve. When you have idiots at the controls at the very highest levels and a media that repeats their stupid assertions. How can they ever recognize they have created a situation that can only progressively worse? Hitting the right target is not easy particularly when your enemy understands you better than we them. It appears to me we have a prescription for disaster. This is spoken by a person that believed that the Iraq adventure could possibly be successful and benefical to the Iraqi populous.

            If ignorance is your guide it is all to easy to repeatedly hit the wrong targets whether by remote control, robotic or in person. That's where we are now.
          • Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)

            by jpop32 (596022) on Saturday November 06 2004, @07:42PM (#10744084)
            Saddam would have killed 2X the the number that have been killed this year just for the sake of repression.

            Do you have _any_, and I mean _ANY_ evidence to back this claim up? I can provide you with one side of the equation. More than 100k people have died since the begining of the US invasion on Iraq, as a consequence of that invasion. Here's my source: New scientist [newscientist.com].

            Can you point us where it says that Saddam used to kill some 200-300k annually? Or were you just pulling the '2X' out of your ass, because 'we all know he was a murderous tyrant'?

            The Iraqis as a people are much better off this year.

            Yeah, right. +1, Insightful.
      • Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Psiren (6145) on Saturday November 06 2004, @04:21PM (#10743127)
        Asimov never intended the three laws of robotics to be taken seriously.

        No, he didn't, but he was quite pleased with himself when he saw the impact they'd had. And rightly so. The three laws of robotics (four if you count the zeroeth law added in later stories) are a wonderful story telling framework, but they do potentially have a serious use. There are people working on making robots that adhere to these laws in some way. Asimov should be considered the forefather of modern robotics (a word he invented) in my opinion, despite the fact he only ever told stories about them.
  • Other articles (Score:5, Informative)

    by thedillybar (677116) on Saturday November 06 2004, @12:55PM (#10742182)
    Here are two [packbot.com] more [army-technology.com] older articles with more pictures. These don't mention shotguns...
  • uhoh (Score:5, Funny)

    by geeveees (690232) on Saturday November 06 2004, @12:57PM (#10742190) Homepage Journal

    The robot is controlled by an integral Pentium based computer. It uses a modular payload system offering standard (USB, Ethernet) communications and networking.

    I get this mental picture of some sneaky terrorist with a Sony Vaio sneaking up to one of these packbots and plugging in his cat5...

  • by Indras (515472) on Saturday November 06 2004, @12:58PM (#10742197)
    For a minute, I pictured the Army's new class of robots being "stress tested" via shotgun fire. I was really wondering if that was such a good idea... I mean, who expects a machine to stand up to a hit from a shotgun?

    I know the robots in System Shock 2 certainly didn't last long.
  • by H_Fisher (808597) <hvfisher.hotmail@com> on Saturday November 06 2004, @01:03PM (#10742242)
    Say what you want about our big-ass defense budget - this is technology with a huge potential for civilian uses!

    Just imagine the applications:

    HUNTER'S HELPER: The lazy backwoods redneck no longer need soil his clothing or even leave the house! Simply be remotely controlling his JethroBot, he can blast away offensive and dangerous deer, squirrels, and "possums" with the flick of a switch! Sure to be a top seller at Wal-Mart stores nationwide.

    FOOD FETCHER: Too damned fat to get out the door and make that McDonald's run? Add the handy tray attachment (sold separately) and your shotgun-toting buddy becomes a handy way to get grub once your limbs can no longer support your weight.

    PAINTBALL III - RISE OF THE MACHINES:Sick of losing to uber-good paintball players? Buy a fleet of cyborgs, swap those 12 gauges for rapid-fire paint launchers, and tell those wusses "I'll be back". Life-size inflatable Linda Hamilton [imdb.com] doll not included.

  • Bomb disposal units have used devices like this for quite some time. The shotgun is usually used to detonate (suspected) explosives/explosive devices (some things don't react to . It's just a little safer than sending a human in to do it (except for the robot, of course).

    The arms the shotguns are attached to tend to move pretty slowly, and using them against live combatants would not be the simplist task. I think the author of the article was looking to add a little more sauce than necessary. These things are most likely being used to go into hazardous situations to collect information and handle volatile/dangerous substances/objects.

  • by jjh37997 (456473) on Saturday November 06 2004, @01:13PM (#10742305) Homepage
    How come we don't have something like the automatic machine guns that were used in Aliens? I think they'd be great in securing remote points from enemy filtration. All you need is a machine gun with a motion sensor and tracking software.....
  • Robot or R/C (Score:4, Informative)

    by YrWrstNtmr (564987) on Saturday November 06 2004, @01:15PM (#10742318)
    It appears this is an armored RC car/minitank [irobot.com], as opposed to an autonomous, AI robot. A human is driving it. And a human would be firing the weapon.

    No scarier or faultprone than a Predator drone, armed with Hellfires, being flown remotely by a pilot on the ground.

  • Just use the poor (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hey (83763) on Saturday November 06 2004, @01:20PM (#10742343) Journal
    There are tons of unemployed people. They can't find any other work so many are forced to enlist. They are probably a lot cheaper than robots. Having a pool of poor people to draw on is terrific for the "war president".
  • by SuperBanana (662181) on Saturday November 06 2004, @01:21PM (#10742348)
    The US Army is testing robots armed with shotguns.[snip]It also has chemical sensors that detect nuclear, biological, and chemical contaminants.

    That sounds handy. I can't think of how many times I've found an NBC weapon and wanted to shoot it with some buckshot.

    The same company that makes those cute little household vacuuming robots now has a military robot that is equipped with a pump action shotgun

    So all terrorists need to do is set up one of those obstacle wire things from the accessory store, right?

    (cut to scene in cave) {BAM] [BAM] "ALL YOUR CAVE ARE BELONG TO US!"

    "Dammit Akbar, I thought I told you to set up the obstacle wire! Someone go take its batteries out, for god sakes."

    The Pacbot weighs about 40 pounds

    Okay. So does it kill terrorists by hitting them with the buckshot, or with its body that flies through the air every time it fires the gun?

    And, being ankle-height, what part of the body does it aim at? Ouch...

  • by qbzzt (11136) on Saturday November 06 2004, @01:42PM (#10742475)
    Seriously, I like the idea of our soldiers being out of harm's way and remote controlling expendable robots. I also think that people who aren't fighting for their lives are likely to be more careful to avoid shooting bystanders. When your brain is soaked with Andrenalin and fatigue, your abilities go down, even with the best training.
  • spammer (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ginotech (816751) on Saturday November 06 2004, @02:35PM (#10742722)
    the guy that wrote this article [newstarget.com], which was linked to from one of the original links is president and CEO of a well known email marketing software company. In other words, it was written by a SPAMMER. http://www.arialsoftware.com/
  • by Len Budney (787422) on Saturday November 06 2004, @06:08PM (#10743599)

    If they did, they'd discover that the article is actually an excerpt of a larger article. THAT FA was written by a nutritionist/fitness guy, with a semi-nude picture of himself and his sixpack at the end of the article.

    If you try to find HIS source, good luck! There are no links to credible sources on that page.

    In other words, nothing to see here. This is not a credible source; it's an anti-war rant.

    ...not to mention the fact that the last thing you'd install on a pacbot is a pump action shotgun, which would require a little robotic arm to work the pump. If the story were remotely plausible, it would have selected a sensible semi-automatic shotgun, not a pump.

    Len.

    • Re:DIE DIE (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Pros_n_Cons (535669) on Saturday November 06 2004, @01:10PM (#10742279)
      Thats not even an honorable death, dying from a robot?

      As opposed to the "honorable death" of blowing yourself up around people just going to work?
    • Re:DIE DIE (Score:5, Funny)

      by arose (644256) on Saturday November 06 2004, @01:31PM (#10742410)
      Thats not even an honorable death, dying from a robot?
      Youe looking at it wrong: Died heroically debuging.
      • by Stevyn (691306) on Saturday November 06 2004, @01:01PM (#10742228)
        Now that's just a huge fallacy.

        Gore has repeatedly stated that he would have thrown the terrorists in a lock box. The key to the lock box would also be safely kept away in another lock box.
        • by bunburyist (664958) on Saturday November 06 2004, @02:19PM (#10742653)
          Jerk, listen up! Just because the people you're fighting aren't constrained by the geneva conventions, doesn't mean you arent....by your logic, the geneva convention or ANY measure for that matter would be totally ineffective because if anyone were to challenge it, it would immediately die...you dig? Americans are constrained by the geneva convention, the insurgents are not...don't like it? don't go to iraq.
          • by Lord Omlette (124579) on Saturday November 06 2004, @03:58PM (#10743036) Homepage
            You may not have been paying attention, but pretty soon "don't like it? don't go to iraq." isn't going to apply to alot of us.

            We shouldn't treat all people like human beings because we expect others to reciprocate. We must treat other people like human beings because we are the Shining City on the Hill, and we must set the example for others.

            In any case, a better argument for the Geneva Convention would be Abu Ghraib: look at what a wonderfully effective marketing and recruiting tool those photographs were for Al-Qaida's global franchise...
      • by Timesprout (579035) on Saturday November 06 2004, @01:12PM (#10742289)
        Actually the US rules of engagement prohibit firing at women/childen/civilians. So if terrorist babies are shooting at US troops the usual approach now is to withdraw without returning fire, and then call in an airstrike to kill the babies (they can now be considered collateral babies), which is allowed apparently.
      • by Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) on Saturday November 06 2004, @01:16PM (#10742324) Homepage
        Ok folks, put down the kool-aid, The US military(not sure about others) has the concept of illegal orders, wherein a grunt can refuse to comply with an order(eg kill babies point blank) due to it being illegal.
    • Re:Bots (Score:4, Funny)

      by lukewarmfusion (726141) on Saturday November 06 2004, @01:17PM (#10742328) Homepage Journal
      I just had a flashback to an early Counter-strike bot. Now picture a 400-lb, shotgun-wielding robot bunny-hopping (you can't hit him), running with a knife (because it's faster!), and shooting at your legs (they do the same damage).
    • by meiocyte (455845) on Saturday November 06 2004, @01:23PM (#10742364) Homepage
      It's worth quoting in full:

      The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea.
      They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall
      mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by
      small robots. And as you go forth today, remember always, your duty is
      clear: to build and maintain those robots. Thank you.
        • Re:crivens (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Stephen Samuel (106962) <samuelNO@SPAMbcgreen.com> on Saturday November 06 2004, @01:24PM (#10742368) Homepage Journal
          Shotgun: Pull trigger, pull pump back, and release to load next round

          The pump action would be just a single actuatior... Pull triber, activate eject mechannism.

          The advantage of a shotgun is that it doesn't require as much in terms of aim.... As long as you're in the general area, you get some sort of hit. I'm expecting that the purpose of the thing is essentially cover-fire, not hunt and kill.

    • by Martin Blank (154261) on Saturday November 06 2004, @01:48PM (#10742501) Journal
      These aren't nearly the first robots carrying shotguns. Bomb-disposal robots used by police bomb squads have used shotguns for several years. They're usually used for shooting locks to allow the robot to open doors to get to where the bomb is. I suppose the shotgun could alternately be used to detonate the bomb, though that would be a very expensive use since the robot would likely be destroyed in the blast.

      All of these robots are remote-controlled. This is no different in concept from arming a Predator RPV with missiles. You're providing a mechanical extension of a human operator the capacity to do a specific job.
    • Re:100000 dead (Score:4, Informative)

      by TheKidWho (705796) on Saturday November 06 2004, @03:00PM (#10742819)
      bullshit that 100,000 number was based off of polling random people in Iraq. It also accounted for natural deaths. Here http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/