Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Bionic Bugs To Fight Terrorists

Posted by Zonk on Fri Nov 17, 2006 11:54 AM
from the really-strong-swatter dept.
dptalia writes "Israel is looking to create a small robot, no larger than a hornet to follow, film, and kill terrorists. It's just one of a series of weapons the country is considering as an alternative to conventional technologies. Other ideas floating around include gloves that would give their user 'bionic strength', and ultra-miniaturized sensors to detect explosives on suicide bombers." From the article: "The research integrates nanotechnology into Israel's security department and will find creative solutions to problems the army has been unable to address, Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres told Yedioth Ahronoth. 'The war in Lebanon proved that we need smaller weaponry. It's illogical to send a plane worth $100 million against a suicidal terrorist. So we are building futuristic weapons,' Peres said."
+ -
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This discussion has been archived.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.
  • gah (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 17 2006, @11:56AM (#16885926)
    All, excelent, in a decade we will have cylons. Anything for freedom!
    • Cowardly (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FathomIT (464334) on Friday November 17 2006, @12:02PM (#16886036)
      It's very unfortunate. It will not be only for terrorists. We will soon have "terrorists" and our political and business leaders simply picked off by a small, unseen remote controlled insect carrying a poison payload.
      • Exactly. Governments use the excuse the topic du jour to justify advances in illegal monitoring, secret arrest, indefinite detention and torture. The means created today for the military will be applied to the general population tomorrow.
      • Re:Cowardly (Score:5, Insightful)

        by chriso11 (254041) on Friday November 17 2006, @12:16PM (#16886276) Journal
        I agree. This is extremely disruptive, and very easy to abuse. Not to sound like some utopian, but it is really sad that we use so much of our technology to develop 'better' ways to kill one another.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            Actually, radar was invented by Tesla before WWII, but it was pretty much ignored. The computer was invented by Charles Babbage in the 1800s, though it was rather different from those of the 1900s.
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                I feel like nitpicking... so bear with me for a second: you would be insulting his knowledge/education, but not his intelligence. MANY clever people have no idea who Turing was and why he was so important. Just like I have no idea who the first guy was who thought about brain surgery.
                • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                  Yeah, I only know about Turing because I'm a dedicated Virtual Adept player.
                  Fight the Technocracy!
  • Hmm (Score:4, Funny)

    by Kagura (843695) on Friday November 17 2006, @11:57AM (#16885958)
    'The war in Lebanon proved that we need smaller weaponry. It's illogical to send a plane worth $100 million against a suicidal terrorist.'

    Maybe it's just me, but that sentence makes it sound like we're running terrorists over with our jets. Teehee
    • Maybe it's just me, but that sentence makes it sound like we're running terrorists over with our jets. Teehee


      No, Israel is just bombing the neighbourhood where the were last seen. Just as efficient and just as effective.

          • Fool, all those dead innocent children (the ones that die in the initial blast, and the ones that die by previously unexploded cluster bombs) will never grow up to become terrorists. How much more efficient could you get than that?

            Nuke?
  • We've been hearing about this type of thing in science fiction books, then movies, and then in magazines like Popular Science for at least the past 20 years. While I think we probably have the technology to create the hornets, I seriously doubt we have the technology to have them fly very far then deliver some type of lethal force (e.g. poison) to a specific target.

    Plus, it's reasonable to assume that $100's of millions would need to be invested in such a "nanohornet" for it to be feasible. Heck, the current world's smallest flying robot [gizmodo.com] is massive compared to a bee, and can only fly a few minutes (yes, this link is from 2003, and the the robot is still considered the smallest working prototype of a flying robot).

    In my opinion, the israelis need to invest in far better armor and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. During their conflict with Hezbollah, the UAVs were a huge success [tmcnet.com]. Also, wouldn't highly armored robotic vehicles be better than a hornet? For example, maybe an armored ball (kind of like those hamster balls) that would essentially be indestructable and roll around doing reconaiscence and shooting things. Just a thought.
    • by Chris Burke (6130) on Friday November 17 2006, @12:21PM (#16886352) Homepage
      In my opinion, the israelis need to invest in far better armor and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. During their conflict with Hezbollah, the UAVs were a huge success. Also, wouldn't highly armored robotic vehicles be better than a hornet? For example, maybe an armored ball (kind of like those hamster balls) that would essentially be indestructable and roll around doing reconaiscence and shooting things. Just a thought.

      Well you're right the UAVs worked great, and you're right that they need far better armor if they want to continue using armor. The RPG-29s and guided missles used by Hezbollah did a number on the IDF's Merkava MBTs, considered one of if not the most heavily armored tanks in service. Between those relatively cheap shoulder-fired infantry weapons, and the shaped-charge mines Hezbollah had sprinkled throughout their territory, it was demonstrated pretty conclusively that today's armor isn't standing up to even the guerilla weapons. More armor is needed, though I'm not sure that's the right tack to take.

      First, tanks aren't that great in the kinds of environments we're talking about: hilly terrain with valleys and choke points that can be littered with mines and give attackers on the ridges an ideal firing line to hit the tank's weak point, and cities and villages that have basically the same properties. A slow moving tank with an enemy on high ground is vulnerable.

      Second, there is no such thing as "essentially indestructable". In the ages-old battle between weapons and armor, weapons always win eventually. There have been times that armor would have a brief period of success, but then the weapons would advance one generation and the armor would fall behind. This is just the nature of the beast: it's easier to destroy than to resist destruction. It's easier to focus a large amount of energy on a small area, whether the tip of an arrow fired from a longbow or the shaped-charge explosive of an RPG, than it is to build a material that can resist that energy, whether steel armor or the advanced composites used in MBTs. Reactive armor was designed to defeat the shaped charge rockets, so the rocket designers responded by simply adding a smaller charge ahead of the main one to defeat the reactive armor so the big charge can hit the main armor with full force. Just as the cannon signalled the end of the castle, the RPG-29 and ilk are signalling the end of MBT armor.

      Not that tanks aren't useful and further armor developments serve no purpose, it's just that you aren't going to get much of a lead even over non-state-militaries like Hezbollah. An autonomous tank would be nice because when it gets destroyed you haven't lost a tank crew as well. Plus you could design it to be more robust than a manned tank (where breaching into the crew compartment is basically all you need to do). But it isn't going to be an indestructable ball of death, that is for sure.
      • I was thinking to myself the other day of the same thing...

        If you make a tank automous or at least remote controlled, then you don't really have worry about protecting the crew anymore. Hence you can replace the saved weight with something devoted to firepower, fuel, and speed.

        In fact, why not make the tank cost $500,000 rather than $10 to $25 million and make a whole slew of them with mass production

        Sure an RPG could kill it with one hit, but a well placed mine or RPG could immobilize the best armored tank
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        The Merkava Mk. 4 is often cited as the best armored tank in the world, though I'm not sure that is accurate. It is the tank offering best survival for the crew within, however. This has been achieved by various intentional design decisions, such as placing the engine in the front of the crew compartment as extra armor, and having rear exits for evacuating soldiers, as well as some tanks serving as heavily armored ambulances, with special space reserved for emergency medical treatment. Anyhow, as for the
      • Sure, but how do we power the thing? Battery definitely wouldn't work, and solar power isn't efficient enough yet to power something as small as a hornet. Extended propulsion is almost certainly the biggest obstactle - as you and others have stated, we already have the technology to create a machine the size of a hornet that can carry poison.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Peace is not going to be possible until those crimes are acknowledged and some reparations made.

        But then we need to get the Palestinians to pay reparations to the people whose land they stole hundreds or thousands of years before, and we have to track down those peoples' descendents and make them pay reparations to the descendents of whoever had that land before that, etc. etc.

        The Americans will have to pay reparations to the Native Americans (most of whom are only fractionally N.A.) for their land. The Br
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          whose land they stole hundreds or thousands of years before

          I took your skateboard 25 years ago. It is still in my basement.

          My late grandfather stole your late gradfather's pogo-stick.

          You don't see the difference there?

          also, reparation shmeparations, just give me back my skateboard.
          • "We in Canada are paying reparations for a government imposed head tax on Chinese immigrants back in the 20s, this is pretty reasonable"

            Don't knock the Chinese head-tax. It kept the numbers of two- or three- headed Chinese to a minimum, didnt it?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Gee, I seem to remember Israel giving land "back" to the palestinians. What did they do? Went on a rampage, used that land to launch an attack and kidnap people. Use the land to fire rockets into Israel. I think you need to examine who is really the main cause of unrest in Israel.
  • So ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) * on Friday November 17 2006, @11:59AM (#16885986) Homepage Journal
    ... what's Hebrew for "Skynet"?
  • Just gloves? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dr. Eggman (932300) on Friday November 17 2006, @12:00PM (#16886004)
    What kind of bionic strength would gloves give? A bone crushing grip? You lift with your whole arm, not just your hands.
    • You lift with your whole arm, not just your hands.

      And your back, and your legs....

      Even as a kid, I thought The Six Million Dollar Man [wikipedia.org] was bogus. Think about it: Steve Austin grabs the bumper of a car, hoists....and telescopes his spinal column into 6 inches of splintered bone and splatted spinal nerve fibers.

    • What kind of bionic strength would gloves give? A bone crushing grip? You lift with your whole arm, not just your hands.

      True. However --

      I assume that gloves are much, much cheaper to develop and build than full-arm augmentation. (For full-arm augmentation, you really need full-body reinforcement -- upper body augementation to support the arm, augmented lower body to support the upper body.)

      Crushing grip alone can be very useful. Close-quarters action -- break a man's bones. Useful for black-bag s
  • by Tmack (593755) on Friday November 17 2006, @12:01PM (#16886016) Homepage Journal
    ...a small robot, no larger than a hornet to follow, film, and kill terrorists.

    Sounds like the flying robotic syringes in Dune, they silently fly around to find their target, then fly directly into them and inject some sort of fast acting poison (the spice?).

    tm

    • by WillAdams (45638) on Friday November 17 2006, @12:04PM (#16886084) Homepage
      In the original _Dune_, the young Paul Atreides is threatened by a ``Hunter Killer'', a small, repulsor-driven device directed by remote control which would ``burrow through his flesh'' if it managed to successfully attack him. (He grabs it when it attacks the housekeeper, the ``Shadout Mapes'' who is sent to summon him and smashes its nose against the wall).

      William
  • Building a miniature flying robot with cameras and transmission ability is well within current technology's reach. Stuffing in a battery with enough power to make the thing even vaguely useful is not. So what do they intend to power this with?
  • Greeeat. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Friday November 17 2006, @12:03PM (#16886060) Homepage Journal
    As if the world's oppressed peoples didn't have enough to deal with, now they've got to look over their shoulders for paparazzi hornet-bots and Lee Majors in a Nintendo Power Glove as well? What next, motherfXckin' snakes?
  • Who thought up "bionic hornet"? Seriously, it sounds like the perfect title for a cheap B-movie. How about, "Bionic Hornet 2:The Spawning"?
  • What really bugs me: What if these killer bugs have bugs?
  • by styryx (952942) on Friday November 17 2006, @12:10PM (#16886164)
    Yes, what a fantastic plan... that is until the terrorists invent rolled-up newspaper! Then whatcha gonna do?

    FFFFFFFFFFACE!!
  • ( ) Old fashioned terrorist. ( ) Small, hard to detect, killer robot hacked by a terrorist.
  • by schnooka_boy (1023007) on Friday November 17 2006, @12:12PM (#16886192)
    As a staunch Israeli supporter, this really frustrates me. Yes, it will reduce civilian casualties. Yes, it will be able to destroy missle launchers without having to go in and do any fighting. Yes, it will render the Hamas tactic of hiding amongst their own people useless. But no, there's no way you're going to establish trust with a people when you have killer robotic hornets flying around their homes.
      • If Israel really wanted to commit genocide in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, I don't understand why they'd be wasting their time and own people performing targetting operations when they could just as easily send in bombs to take out the entire region. Israel's doing an equally bad job "squeezing out" Arabs if they're withdrawing from the Gaza Strip and southern Lebanon (may I note, that in both these cases the withdrawal was used to send missles into Israel).

        So far Israel hasn't been moved by the hum
  • If only they were this creative and imaginative when sitting down to try to solve a conflict peacefully. This goes for both sides, and it applies in most conflicts.

    Remember, no matter how intelligent the weapons inventors are, it's still violence; and "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent".
  • by creimer (824291) on Friday November 17 2006, @12:13PM (#16886220) Homepage
    Wouldn't it be easier to call on God to deliver a plague of locusts? Worked for Moses.
    • It would be easier but for some reason, ever since people started to tinker with "science" God seemed to have disappeared and stopped doing the amazing and unexplainable things he once did. Either that, or the Jews pissed him off so much they are no longer his "chosen" perhaps? Or just MAYBE there's no God.

      But if there is a God, why does God hate amputees? God heals all other wounds and diseases. Why not amputees?
  • by tocs (866673) on Friday November 17 2006, @12:14PM (#16886230)
    Bullets ARE about the size of a hornet and already follow and kill people.
    If the bullet was following someone cleaver enough to move out of the way, it is very very cheap to send another.
  • by erroneus (253617) on Friday November 17 2006, @12:15PM (#16886242) Homepage
    ...SHEIKS with frikken laserbeams attached to their heads!
  • It's worth remembering that when Israel started, the then King of Jordan thought it was a good thing because it could kick start the modernisation of the Middle East. Israel began in exactly the sort of moderate level factional war that is now taking place in Iraq, and one interpretation of history is that the founders of Israel behaved in such a way as to alienate the Jordanians because, even then, their ultimate goal was not peace and stability but expansionism and hegemony (another interpretation is that
  • by ettlz (639203) on Friday November 17 2006, @12:22PM (#16886366) Homepage Journal
    Nice to see the Israeli military get some of their best ideas from an eleven-year-old TV show [bugs.co.uk].
  • Welcome... (Score:3, Informative)

    by inviolet (797804) <pineminder&yahoo,com> on Friday November 17 2006, @12:41PM (#16886702) Journal

    ...to the Diamond Age.

    For further reading and insightful predictions about the sociological effects of nanotech, see Mr. Neal Stephenson.

    Among his other speculations: as nanotech becomes ubiquitous (in the way that bacteria are today), societies will manufacture nanotech-based airborne immune systems for themselves.

    • Stuff like that gets reengineered or stolen and then its used against the Israeli elite.

      It makes you wonder if Israel would be further ahead if they tried to focus on the terrorist's technology core instead of worrying so much about the upper management that is fairly useless without their cronies to do the actual work.

      Maybe they already do have some focus on these people as you hear from time to time of a "bomb builder" being a target of an attack. But what about the communications structure that lets t
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        But what about the communications structure that lets terrorists communicate over a wide area?

        Israel couldn't knock out Hezbollah's tv station during the 34 day conflict nor could they disrupt the communications between Nasrallah and the troops in the field. For a good read on how Hezbollah defeated Israel, please see this journal entry [slashdot.org] which links to a three-part article from Asia Times Online.

        I'm not trying to karma whore so please don't give me mod points. I'm just pointing out articles which

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      "renouncing violence"

      Not very wise when the armies invading and attacking you have not done the same.
        • "Unlike in Darfur, where the world disapproves but is too lazy/incapable of fixing the problem, in Israel not only are we not trying to stop the war, we're FACILITATING it."

          To make clear the actual genocide problem (and you were blaming the VICTIMS!), here are some quotes from the current Palestinian government and their actual charter: [mideastweb.org] "Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious" [At least they do not hide their hatred behind the code word "Zionists"]..."The Day of Judgement will not c
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        "If Israel had land in 1940, why did 6 million Jews die during the holocaust when they could have just fled there?"

        The government of the Palestinians in the 1940s, such as it was, was a close ally of Nazi Germany, and actually participated in the Holocaust. This government pretty much survived for a long time: the leader from back then was Arafat's mentor.