Pentagon To Send Robot Soldiers to Iraq 765
conJunk points out this AP story carried by Salon (also covered by various sources linked from Google News) "about the Pentagon's plan to send robot soldiers to Iraq in March or April. The program, Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems, uses Foster-Miller TALON robots, and is said to be "years ahead of the larger Future Combat System vehicles currently under development by big defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics Corp." If it's successful, maybe our men and women in uniform will have to team up with the United Auto Workers to fight the robo-threat to their jobs." Note that (whatever other considerations you might have about such deployment), the Rules of Robotics that some readers have linked to don't really apply to remote-controlled drones, which is what these are.
obligatory. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:obligatory. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:obligatory. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:obligatory. (Score:3, Informative)
Bush is no redneck. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bush is no redneck. (Score:5, Interesting)
Earlier in his career, a native Texan opponent defeated him by emphasing W's outsider status and Yale connections. After that W remade himself into cowboy.
Re:Bush is no redneck. (Score:3, Insightful)
Definition of Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
But if that is the definition of democracy, then Communist China, and even Iraq are democracys because the population consents to the rule. (Before y'all fling yourselves at you keyboards, I don't believe they are democracies. I am merely questioning what I believe is a flawed definition.)
In Canada, the definition of a democracy is responsible government. They who govern us must answer to us. And it isn't just the election every few years that holds them in check. We also have the fact that the Prime Minister has to answer to his caucus and his cabinet. They can depose him by several political means. He has to answer to the House of Commons every day that it sits and then some.
And who in the countries cited above in the first paragraph could say "Nay" to the leader. That's what made them non-democratic.
Re:obligatory. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:obligatory. (Score:5, Insightful)
You do know that food production [thehindubusinessline.com] and mining [thirdworldtraveler.com] in the US are inherently and inescapably unprofitable when in direct competition with other regions in the world and survive only by the subsidies given to you [typepad.com] by those "city slickers", don't you? A little gratitude to them for preserving your way of life would be in order I think.
What? (Score:3, Insightful)
If it is your contention that city dwellers should subsidize land consuming industrial farms that burn fuel and generate waste in order to buy more subsidies, it truly is time for NYC to declare independence. We've got ports - I'
Re:obligatory. (Score:2)
(So as to crush the user's karma.)
Re:obligatory. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:obligatory. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not on Slashdot there isn't.
Re:obligatory. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:obligatory. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The clone wars (Score:3, Funny)
Dun dun dun dun-DA-dun dun-DA-dun;
Dun dun dun DUN-da-dun dun-DA-dun.
DA dun! DA dun da da-da dun.
etc.
Re:obligatory. (Score:3, Informative)
That said, he was raised in Texas from age 2. Just because you were born somewhere doesn't mean you're from that location.
Re:I seriously welcome it (not funny) (Score:5, Insightful)
A robot could commit war crimes, and it could easily be blamed on a 'technical fault', the manufacturers, or anyone other than the military.
You also forget that a robot would follow every order given to it, without question. Think about that for a moment.
Re:I seriously welcome it (not funny) (Score:3, Funny)
Would that be a General Protection Fault?
Re:obligatory. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:obligatory. (Score:4, Informative)
Simpson's quote: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Simpson's quote: (Score:2)
oh well.
Re:Simpson's quote: (Score:3, Funny)
no, silly, in the future, wars will be fought with a mmorpg mod for quake 1 teamfortress. except when countries are too poor to afford all the computers, in which case, they'll get their asses kicked the old fashioned way.
Re:Simpson's quote: (Score:3, Funny)
Robot Insurance (Score:3, Funny)
And remember, persons denying the existance of Robots may be Robots themselves.
Ummmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, more like note that the "Rules of Robotics" don't apply in real life.
Re:Ummmm.... (Score:3, Informative)
However this applies only to Asimovian robots.
Re:Ummmm.... (Score:3, Interesting)
One way of looking at it is: science fiction writers have done an incredible amount of research into possible scenarios resulting from various premises. For example, Asimov has sketched out for us a lot of the changes we can expect from a world in which we decide that robots should work for humans, where ownership of the robot has less priority than protecting hum
Re:Ummmm.... (Score:3, Interesting)
How long? (Score:2)
Automation (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Automation (Score:2)
Now, what options do I want?
Gripper manipulator.
Smoke dropping module.
Grenade dropping module.
Breaching tool.
Gen III night vision camera.
NBC sensors.
UXO/countermine systems/sensors.
Anti-Tank (AT4) launcher.
Light Anti-Tank Weapon (LAW) launcher.
40-mm grenade launcher (M203 barrel).
12-gauge shotgun.
Mounts for remotely controlled weapons including: M240; M249: M16; M82A1 (50-cal).
Oh screw it, I'll take all the options. But... where's the pusher module?
Re:Automation (Score:2)
I can see it now (Score:5, Funny)
The Iraqis, for one.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Iraqis, for one.... (Score:2)
Have you got some reason for thinking so? Or are you trusting the groupthink around here to validate your point of view for you?
Maybe we should have sent 100,000 human shields instead? That would have worked.
Re:The Iraqis, for one.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, hang on. You mean the terrorist so-called "insurgents?" Funny. That's not the first thing that comes to mind when I think "Iraqis." That you associate all "Iraqis" with a minority of violent jerks who want to destroy any chance the country has of developing democracy says something rather disturbing about you.
Re:The Iraqis, for one.... (Score:4, Insightful)
As for the Iraqis not liking this, well it is probably true, even if the police were hunting a band of criminals with robots in my home town, well robots covering me with automatic weapons would not be the most pleasant situation. That doesn't mean I woduld want them to stop, but it would be bloody freaky.
As for the tactics effectiveness, if it is used with restraint (i.e. mostly on those who are hostile, and not just all the time) then it could work really well, they would hate it, and that is a good thing. Sometimes you have to scare people, and riskless killing from heartless robots would probably break morale very quickly.
The risk would of course if they were used as the face that most iraqis saw of the Coalition, hard to trust somebody who is aiming a weapon at you from a block away. Would you try to help someone who always apears as a robot? Would you risk your life to support them?
There are also fairly serious abuse concerns, I mean if a bunch of guys shoot up someone, eyewitnesses might be able to finger them, but an anonymous robot? It is the perfect tool to frag a comander that you don't like. Or to settle scores. Though that is more novel stuff, give it time, and someone will probably try it.
Re:The Iraqis, for one.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Halle-fucking-lujah!!
Someone who finally understands the definition of terrorism!
Terrorism is not bombing convoys or suicide bombs against mess halls. These are military targets. Even the crashing of a plane into the Pentagon was not a terrorist act, since the point was to attack a military target. The victims families might not like it applied to their family members, but those civilians killed on the plane were what is termed "collateral damage" in what was a military attack by definition.
Taking civilian hostages and killing them if your demands aren't met is terrorism, but much(or most, hard to tell from the watered-down news in the USA) of what the insurgents in Iraq do is not terrorism.
Re:The Iraqis, for one.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if we use your defination of terrorism, wouldn't the fact that the plane was a civilian plane make crashing it terrorism? Civilian hostages were taken.
What is terrorism? Re:The Iraqis, for one.... (Score:3, Insightful)
While it is true that Terrorism is asymetrical warfare it is not true that they are waging a lawful or legal law -- and I use the terms lawful and legal very loosely.
The West, as most modern societies do, self-impose basic rules of engagement and behavior. These rules of engagement are based largely on our values system.
This is why the news of captured terrorists bein
Re:The Iraqis, for one.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The attack on the Pentagon was meant to intimidate our society. It was also for ideologicl reasons
You perhaps forgot the most important one - a crude but effective psychological warfare tactic. A smaller force cannot hope to defeat a larger one (in most cases), so other methods are used. Demoralizing the enemy has always been an effective exploit.
Re:The Iraqis, for one.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I would contend that had the group chartered, leased, or purchased their own planes, and then flown them into strictly military targets (I would count the Pentagon as strictly military, despite the civilian workers), then this would not constitute a terrorist attack, but a guerilla attack.
I'll admit that #3 is not clear cut in all cases, but let me try to address your two poin
I agree with most of that ... (Score:3, Insightful)
But Fundamentalism isn't a very popular (large segment of society) hobby.
In order for Fundamentalism to infect a large portion of society, you need a large portion of society to be (or believe it is being) affected by the evil threat.
Fundamentalism is catching in the mid-east because more and more of the people there ARE affected by "The Great Satan". Either directly or through someone they know.
That is the prob
Re:The Iraqis, for one.... (Score:2)
After all, don't happy people kill themselves in suicide car bombs all the time? Why would anyone think they'd be pissed?
TALON online store? (Score:5, Funny)
Equipped with breaching tool, light anti-tank weapon launcher, 12-gauge shotgun and 40mm grenade launcher I must admit - for a moment I reflexively considered my available credit.
Anyone Else Remember Ogre? (Score:2)
The basic McGuffin is you've got one huge mother of a cybernetic tank with armor plating that shoots micronukes and it goes up against an entire army - and the battle's a fair fight!
Then again, with the current administration, perhaps I should be playing "Rivets" instead. "Rivets" were the third-world's answer to the superpower Ogres. The robots were rather dain-bra
So it's true (Score:2)
Democracy. (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether or not thats a good thing, I don't know.
Re:Democracy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Democracy. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Democracy. (Score:3, Interesting)
The attack on Iraq, as we now know and as many tried to tell us before hand, was not a preemptive war. It was an elective war. If you're going to trot out "911 changed everything", I would say that no, it didn't. The threat existed befor
Re:Definitely not a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Definitely not a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
certainly, they will only be used to secure democracy, free enslaved peoples around the world, and protect against WMD's.
Really, I live in the US, I was out at happy hour at Mackies in DC when Bush made the announcement that we were going to invade Iraq.... everyone cheered. They bought rounds of shots for eachother. It was disgusting- you don't celebrate the start of a war, you celebrate it's end. We are already as sanitized to the violence, pain, and suffering of others. Just so long as it doesn't happin "on our soil".
Re:Definitely not a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? In the type of war we're fighting in Iraq, marines are just one more target for a terror-bomb. By contrast, how fired up do you think some suicide-bomber candidate is going to get when told to "eradicate the infidel's Aibos! No robots will withstand our wrath!" Much harder sell, seems to me.
Another aspect
Re:Democracy. (Score:3, Insightful)
What the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
And all societies with different government structures don't???
It's not like wanting your offsprings to live is a basic human trait, or a basic animal instinct common to most critters on earth or anything, no no no, that's specific to democracies!
Re:Democracy. (Score:5, Insightful)
So by that logic we should throw out all the body armor, armored vehicles, medics, and anything else that makes our troops safer.
Hell lets throw out all that modern technology and go back to the "good old days" like during the Civil War, where over 50,000 died in one three day battle (thats around twice the total number of deaths in the entire Iraq war). I mean because of the horrors of war back then, people were so peaceful and never engaged in violence to settle a dispute.
Hey, while we are at it, lets stop all those researchers making drugs to help AIDs patients. The more horrible the disease is, the fewer people will engage in reckless sex and drugs.
Are they controlled by SkyNet (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Are they controlled by SkyNet (Score:2)
Make Money Fast! (Score:2)
2. Profit!
Johnny 5 (Score:4, Funny)
In the movie Johnny 5 had Apple hardware... does this real one perhaps have a G5?
Is it running Darwin (insert darwinism joke here)?
It could broadcast what it's eyes/camera's see via a QuickTime Stream. It's voice can be done using text to speach. It can even sing (better than the movie) thanks to iTunes.
Oh boy. I bet I'm right!
Re:Johnny 5 (Score:2)
Gotta love the way geeks are just as capable of acting ignorantly to new technology as the rest of society.
robot warriors / digital warriors (Score:2)
Already Robots, Just Not Meat Robots (Score:2, Interesting)
And isn't that the reality of military discipline? Soldiers are meat, fodder, expendable. I suppose having machines will lower the bar for ethics and morality when it comes to how much we care about the human beings which we are told are our enemies.
Re:Already Robots, Just Not Meat Robots (Score:3, Insightful)
I realize this may become flamebait, but I just gotta answer.
First, I agree with the relevant sentence: "..lower the bar for ethics and morality.." There is a danger that the ability to kill with impunity (in this instance, no danger to yourself) will lead to gross abuses of power. Sadly enough, it happens all the time.
Terminator sci-fi scenarios aside, however, I believe that the end result will be a more complicated battlefield with just another offensive/defensive capability. It's happened before
Gross oversimplification (Score:3, Insightful)
The reality of military discipline is that you have to do what you're told, because you can't manage complex military operations on the basis of nuanced discussions. But that doesn't mean that the people in the US military are considered expendible.
The truth is that in wars people die. As a soldier you know you might loose your life, but American doctrine has never relied on sheer numbers. For better and sometimes
Great for scenarios like Fallujah (Score:2)
When no one will be killed in a war (Score:2, Interesting)
Soon it will be 1984, a never ending war. All metal will be reclaimed from the battlefield and all parts will be modular, meaning these wars could go on forever. It will be the perfect
So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Funny)
Just so I understand this...
We're giving automatic weapons, and license to kill, to remote-controlled robots that are not only hackable and abusable but that use PLUG'N'PLAY?!?!
I can see the future general now... "Bring me Bill Gates!" [imdb.com]
The other side already has robotic killers (Score:2)
I'm afraid civilization is playing catchup to terrorists when it comes to the dumb robot category.
Re:The other side already has robotic killers (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you ever fucking considered what despair might take to put yourself into the situation of a suicide bomber?
Look behind you Batman (Score:3, Insightful)
Robots have no loyalty, they obey the RC.
How soon till we have robowarrior-takedowns.
EXAMPLE:
Some dude walks up behind this bot and using Cloak, drill, and Tinfoil! covers up the bots recieving antenna and cameras. Takes the 200K POS apart and sells the gun(whats the going rate on the armament of these things, anyone?)
Brainwash complete!
I think people are the best weapon, and the cheapest.
Dispatch the robots! (Score:2, Funny)
Mod Submission -1 Too Many Links (Score:2)
Cheers,
SB
Anybody remember the Viet Cong? (Score:2, Insightful)
High tech works only if the enemy is stupid enough to stand in one place and fight you face to face. A million of these robots won't win the war in Iraq. Sorry Uncle Sam but if you want peace on your terms, you're going to have to kill everyone else on the face of the planet. If you are willing to commit genocide then these robots will be a great help
My concern would be... (Score:2)
1. Iraqi hackers hack a robot and use that information to turn all of the robots against our own people.
2. The Iraqi's come up with a simple but effective EMP which causes all of the robots to go dormant.
3. Another sand storm hits Iraq, gunks up all of the robot's gears, and we have wasted millions of dollars on useless military gear which is now only good for the junk heap.
They will never replace REAL american soldiers (Score:2, Insightful)
robotic laws are for wimps (Score:2, Funny)
It's Pretty Pathetic When.... (Score:2, Interesting)
These are not robot soldiers (Score:5, Insightful)
But they are not soldiers. There's a lot more to being a soldier than combat.
Exclusive video of the robot... (Score:3, Interesting)
(actually, the video is an "old" CG animation clip called Tetra Vaal. Still gives me goosebumps to imagine what the powerdrunk elite would probably do if commanding a better-than-human army without a conscience.)
think they can tweak.. (Score:2)
More War Profiteering? (Score:3, Insightful)
Having recently watched Fahrenheit 911 I find it interesting that the Carlyle Group is mixed up in this. Are George Bush Sr and Jr still part of the Carlyle Group or are they now only friends and former business associates with its investors?
Re:More War Profiteering? (Score:3, Interesting)
Jobs? (Score:3, Insightful)
If the national defense could be effected without risking any lives on the front line, that would be great from the perspective of reducing loss of life.
That being said, I would only support it if the wars we fought were just. Since the US is mostly involved in wars based on lies and deception to further one agenda or another, I see the loss of life of soldiers as a necessary part of sustaining anti-war sentiment. Wars with no loss of life on the aggressor's part simply serve to increase the likelihood of further aggression with little regard for the consequences.
Serving your country "for the money" is not serving your country. Military service should be about serving your country for the sake of service. I have no sympathy for those who complain about the bad effects of military service simply because they wanted a paycheck and a free ride through college, for those who never expected to see combat.
SWORDS (Score:3, Insightful)
Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems.
Fun!
A new way to fund the military? (Score:3, Funny)
Somewhat misleading intro. (Score:3, Informative)
For example this system is remotly controlled at the infantry level out in the field by an operator that controlls the movement, behavior, offensive opperations etc according to the Rules of Engagement.
The big corps strayegy and the DOD think tanks on the other hand belive that futore robots, weapon platforms, systems needs to be more independent and able to operate autonomously.
The prime example here is the Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft (currently on hold for budget issues?). The goal is to connect it to other units through the FCS and make it possible for it to operate without a base station with a controll crew. With the UCAR taking care of target indentification, engagement, movement and BDA there will still be a man in the loop to authorize weapon release. The DOD uses a "rating system" to describe the level of ability to operate autonomously. Level 3 and 4 is where most of the currect UAV are and I think this robot if it can be classified under the same system would be placed. AFAIK the UCAR will be level 6. (?)
As the systems becomes more advanced with more sensors, "better AI", social understanding, more network sharing etc. the man in the loop will become somewhat irrelevant and reduntant as his information will come from the systems ability to indentify the opponent. Imagine if this robot in the future is stationed in Falluja and is tracking down some Freedom fighters| guerillas|terrorists|insurgents|civilians inside a building. Since there will be some delay between the operator and the robot it will be tempting to just "leave it to the robot to decide" aka "send the robot into the building and let him take care of it". Operating a M240 can be done much faster without a man in the loop. With IR, X-RAY, optical, laser, NV etc the robots can (in the future) track down the enemy much more efficently without the operator delay.
So in the future I think the Military-Industrial Complex will seek to make robots that will violate all the three Laws of Robotics.
RC Killing for All (Score:5, Interesting)
Quite an intimidating enemy (Score:3, Interesting)
Now imagine you're hiding in a building, waiting for your chance to repel the evil americans storming your city. You've heard the american forces are well organized and have amazing technology, but you're entirely unprepared for an armed robot coming in after you. One of your fellow soldiers in another room opens fire with his AK-47, but succeeds only in damaging the robot's treads, and giving away his position. The robot returns fire with its rocket launcher, and at this point you feel desperation like you've never felt before.
Sorry for the dramatic scenario, but I think it's worth noting that these robots could really inspire a sense of despair in the United States' enemies. I believe that it often takes a desperate person to view civilians as acceptable targets, and suicide bombers may often chose to be suicide bombers due to a feeling that nothing else will work.
Also, I know the thought of killing other humans doesn't deter a lot of people from joining militias and armed forces, but it will be that much harder to feel any sympathy for invading forces if the face of the enemy is a slow-moving robot that has deadly accuracy.
Re:AOL Robots? (Score:5, Funny)
I miss Douglas Adams.
Re:A Bummer about the Job, though... (Score:3, Interesting)
...until some pencil pusher decides it's more cost-effective to have the humans sacrifice themselves to protect the robots....
Re:A Bummer about the Job, though... (Score:2, Insightful)
Robots replacing humans may not be as cost-ineffective as you think.
Re:A Bummer about the Job, though... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll admit I was being a bit flippant, but if you think about it, there are already machines out there where it's already considered cost-effective to lose a few humans than to lose the machine.
If there were something on a battlefield like an Ogre (large autonomous tank from the Steve Jackson game by the same name), it might be of such strategic importance that a human would be
Re:glad they decided not to call them (Score:2)
Almost as rugged as real terminators.
Re:glad they decided not to call them (Score:2)
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but those movies were fiction, not factual reports.
Re:sniperbots (Score:2)
He bought the gun off the Internet, had the body fabricated from carbon fiber, took it for testing, killed the guy who made it with his own weapon.
It pulled to the right a little bit, so when he was going to shoot his apple he was holding, he shot his arm off instead.
Was an amazing movie, but I forget what it was called.