Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Robotics Government Politics

Korea To Build Front-line Combat Robot 293

Posted by Zonk
from the johnny-5-gets-a-gun dept.
christchurch wrote to mention the story of a plucky Korean robot that has been built for combat. From the article: "According to design blueprints released during a meeting of science-related ministers, the robot will have six or eight extendable legs with wheels allowing it to move like an insect over uneven terrain. The robot will be armed with various weapons and will operate both by remote control and its own artificial intelligence system"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Korea To Build Front-line Combat Robot

Comments Filter:
  • by aussie_a (778472) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @11:29PM (#13642450) Journal
    We're constantly hearing about combat robots, but are any in use? The only ones I know of being in use are reconnaisance robots (of numerous types) and bomb-defusing robots.

    Are there any bots out there that are designed to shoot people? I'm constantly hearing about designs for them, but I've never heard of them being put to use.
  • by richdun (672214) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @11:39PM (#13642517)
    Some people think "North" when they hear about Korean military stuff.

    Of course, if the past Olympics, Asian Games, and other efforts are any indication, many Koreans are trying to disregard the directions altogether - most refer to the country as "Korea," no bloody North, South, C, or D.
  • Re:has to be said. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24, 2005 @11:40PM (#13642522)
    To paraphrase someone: Just because you can say a thing, it doesn't necessarily follow that you must.
  • Re:Yes (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ergo98 (9391) on Sunday September 25, 2005 @12:05AM (#13642623) Homepage Journal
    The drones are expensive remote controlled airplanes - they don't really qualify as a robot.

    Why not? While one traditional definition is, err, "human like", another is quite simply a remote controlled or autonomous mechanical device. A remote controlled jet qualifies. Indeed last I heard some of those jets fly autonomous routes, triggering alerts for suspect objects, but it would just be a software change for it to start (Crazily) shooting stuff itself.

    If equipped with an autoloader, I would imagine that equipping an M1A2 with remote control would be very much achievable as well. Surprized that hasn't been done already.
  • by izomiac (815208) on Sunday September 25, 2005 @01:18AM (#13642863) Homepage
    Wait a second, why would "who's responsible" matter? Nobody is trying to gun down school buses, and if one did then it would be a tragic accident that people should take measures to prevent from reoccuring, not punish someone over (unless it was caused by some huge fault of theirs). Of course, I'd hope that the AI would be smarter than that (or shut down in the event of a malfunction), or that they keep loaded school buses out of war zones where these things would be deployed. Preferably both.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 25, 2005 @01:20AM (#13642872)

    Are there any bots out there that are designed to shoot people? I'm constantly hearing about designs for them, but I've never heard of them being put to use.

    You haven't been pulled over in the 'States recently, have you?

  • by Manchot (847225) on Sunday September 25, 2005 @01:27AM (#13642892)
    Three things: First of all, Asimov lived half a century ago, not half a decade ago. Secondly, he can hardly be called "the father of robotics." He neither conceived the idea of a robot nor built any. Since none of the technology came about as a direct result of him, saying that he is the father of the field does a disservice to those who actually pioneered it. Finally, the three rules of robotics were never meant to be guidelines for people to follow. They are essentially MacGuffins, used only to advance the plot of the stories.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 25, 2005 @02:18AM (#13643039)
    Not because these things might go haywire. Quite simply, because they will *obey any order given to them.* You can order them to overthrow the government, or massacre civilians. A real soldier may not comply with such an order - these robots always will.

    Security Code: "taxpayer"
  • One step closer (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MacFury (659201) <me@nosPAm.johnkramlich.com> on Sunday September 25, 2005 @02:32AM (#13643073) Homepage
    Commander: Solider! Kill that mother and small child!
    Solider: No sir! I will not kill an innocent civilian
    Commander: KillBot5000! Kill that mother and small child!
    KillBot5000 Would you like me to toture them first?

    I certainly can't wait!

  • by Godwin O'Hitler (205945) on Sunday September 25, 2005 @03:38AM (#13643194) Homepage Journal
    Why would they build a battle robot with a head? To make it look more intimidating?

    Why not fit a tail too. Is there any reason a robot should be directional at all?

    The idea of armies of battle robots fighting each other all seems a bit burlesque to me. Can you imagine Robots vs Robots in a "take that hill" scenario. Who's going to surrender if there are only robots out there - and surrender what? Their sensors?
  • Re:has to be said. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WindBourne (631190) on Sunday September 25, 2005 @04:29AM (#13643326) Journal
    Of course, I was thinking of Bruce Schneier's infamous quote: It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state. I suspect that when you or your children are on the receiving end of them, Then you will not be welcoming them. If nothing else, think kent state in vietnam era.

New crypt. See /usr/news/crypt.

Working...