1455517
story
Comments: 765 +- Hardware: Pentagon To Send Robot Soldiers to Iraq on Saturday January 22 2005, @09:08PM
Posted
by
timothy
on Saturday January 22 2005, @09:08PM
from the take-the-meat-popsicle-out-of-the-loop dept.
from the take-the-meat-popsicle-out-of-the-loop dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicrobotics.gif); width:40px; height:77px;
robot
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicus.gif); width:80px; height:61px;
usa
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.
Related Stories
Robot Rebellion Quelled in Iraq 317 comments
I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.
-- Judge Harold T. Stone
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
obligatory. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:obligatory. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:obligatory. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:obligatory. (Score:3, Informative)
Bush is no redneck. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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:4, Funny)
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:obligatory. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:obligatory. (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
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.
Parent
Simpson's quote: (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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)
Automation (Score:5, Funny)
I can see it now (Score:5, Funny)
The Iraqis, for one.... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Democracy. (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether or not thats a good thing, I don't know.
Re:Democracy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Definitely not a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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".
Parent
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!
Parent
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.
Parent
Are they controlled by SkyNet (Score:5, Funny)
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!
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]
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.
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.)
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?
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)
Re:AOL Robots? (Score:5, Funny)
I miss Douglas Adams.
Parent
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: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