Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Robotics Hardware

First Armed Robots on Patrol in Iraq 661

An anonymous reader writes "Robots have been roaming Iraq, since shortly after the war began. Now, for the first time — the first time in any war zone — the 'bots are carrying guns. The SWORDS robots, armed with M249 machine guns, "haven't fired their weapons yet," an Army official says. "But that'll be happening soon." The machines have actually been ready for a while, but safety concerns kept them off the battlefield. Now, the robots have kill switches, so "now we can kill the unit if it goes crazy," according to the Army. I feel safer already."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First Armed Robots on Patrol in Iraq

Comments Filter:
  • by Plazmid ( 1132467 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @09:07PM (#20095843)
    Back during WWII the Russians built radio control "Teletanks" that were controlled by a human operator in another tank. They were equipped with far more firepower than SWORDS, so technically SWORDS is NOT the first armed robot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletank [wikipedia.org]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02, 2007 @09:26PM (#20096005)
    I'll feed you, troll.

    First off, please feel free to call a Marine dumb to his/her face. Someone of such high calibre as yourself should be more than willing to do so. It's the honourable path, after all, and from your post I can see you know a thing or two about honour.

    Your ambiguous post raises the question- do you realize that the Brits have Royal Marines? Serving in Iraq? How about the multinational coalition? Oh, ok.
    Regardless, the forces aren't necessarily an 'invading force' (typically requires the goals of conquest or occupation; if you mentioned invading as a synonym for 'entering,' it's acceptable) and the forces aren't an 'oil-keeping force.' Rather, they are liberators who operated under the intelligence that Saddam a)supported terrorists(9-11 link later proved faulty...but as a result of faulty intelligence- is that hard to comprehend?), and he b) disobeyed numerous UN mandates after the first Gulf War (making him a terrorist to, at the very least, the Kurds).

    Yes. I would expect anyone to be upset when civilians are deliberately targeted. If the hijackers could virtually rape the American airspace for so long with four separate airplanes over New York and the nation's capital, surely they could have done some damage to a military base. With all the protection the White House and its airspace have, I'm sure some small military base would have been a plausible target. Don't use civilized policy of attacking terrorists and insurgents as an excuse for their tactics of hiding among innocent civilians to create more of an excuse for their behavior. Besides..the suicide bombers are blowing their own people up as well.

    Sunni v Shi'ite != recent problem (or one caused by American policy.)
    Suicide bombings aren't brand new occurrences..
    For a good read, check this [apologeticsindex.org] for some good starters for topics to research.
  • by Black-Man ( 198831 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @09:45PM (#20096147)
    The also used dogs w/ bombs strapped to them and trained them by feeding them under tanks. They set them loose on the battle field and the ones that didn't freak out ran under the tanks where they were promptly blown by radio control.
  • Re:Erratic behaviour (Score:2, Informative)

    by emmons ( 94632 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @09:55PM (#20096223) Homepage
    Right. I would imagine the engineers that designed these things are similar to the parent, and the machines are probably quite well engineered.

    And some GI Joe got hold of it and said: whoa.. how do I stop it if it goes crazy? Engineer responds: it won't. GI: Well I ain't touching it unless it has a kill switch!

    Hence, it now has a (probably completely technically unnecessary) "kill switch".
  • Screamers anyone? (Score:2, Informative)

    by the1rob ( 1047478 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @11:04PM (#20096775)
    I can't believe that nobody has mentioned the movie Screamers!

    They got it right down to the name of the robots! You don't think SWORDS was original, did ya?

    Autonomous Mobile Swords?

    All they need is a high frequency speaker, and the MPAA would sue the hell outta the government for infringement!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screamers_(film) [wikipedia.org]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02, 2007 @11:59PM (#20097171)
    That .7% seems waaaayyy off... it must be the "Manpower reaching military service age annually" which is just over 2 million for male and 2 million female, so this fits into that low percentage you quoted. The real numbers are 54 million males and 54 million females age 18-49 that are available and fit to serve, which in total is far more than nearly every country on the planet. The problem is just recruiting volunteers that replace the attrition. These statistics are on the CIA's World Factbook website.
  • by kantier ( 993472 ) <ariel@NoSpaM.aknt.com.ar> on Friday August 03, 2007 @01:29AM (#20097695) Homepage

    Ummm, no. I, Robot the MOVIE was a moronic travesty of I, Robot the ASIMOV NOVEL.

    rj

    I, Robot the book is a collection of short stories, not a novel.

  • by MagusSlurpy ( 592575 ) on Friday August 03, 2007 @02:47AM (#20098041) Homepage
    I, Robot the MOVIE wasn't even about the Asimov collection; the script was originally called Hardwired, and bears not the slightest resemblance to Asimov's works, with the single exception of Asimov's Three Laws being interjected into the script. But many sci-fi works have utilized these, including the Alien series, Star Trek, and Mega Man.
  • by The Evil Couch ( 621105 ) on Friday August 03, 2007 @02:56AM (#20098077) Homepage
    I don't see us putting a lot of value on the lives of people with Iraqi surnames.

    No? Let me relate to you a fun story of mine.

    About two and a half years ago, I was a squad leader in Iraq, just outside of Ar Ramadi. We had a pair of outposts on one of the major highways in the Anbar province, one on each side of the highway. Next to our outpost, there was a barracks for Iraqi National Guardsmen. We built it up for them, gave them beds, toilets, showers, water, food, weapons, ammo, training, etc. One night, two of them put on civilian clothes and their body armor, sneak out of their compound and begin digging a hole in the check point to put a bomb inside of.

    One of my privates is on tower guard at the time and watches them do it. After radioing back and forth with the operations center, over the course of several minutes, he finally gets the authorization to open fire. He kills one and wounds the other. They flee back into their compound.

    Long story short, the second guy went to Abu Ghirab and is probably in Guantanamo. You know what happened after we had unquestionable proof that we couldn't trust the battalion of Iraqi National Guardsmen? Not a damn thing. We continued working with them. We continued feeding them. We continued giving them water and fuel, working the checkpoint with them and going on patrols with them.

    Next time you think that US soldiers don't care about the lives of Iraqis keep that in mind. We knew for a fact that at any time, we could get murdered by Iraqis that we had done so much for, but because it's THEIR country, we sucked up the danger and kept working with them.
  • by Fourier404 ( 1129107 ) on Friday August 03, 2007 @05:50AM (#20098813)
    If I'm not mistaken, the ratio of wounded soldiers to dead ones in the 17th century was less than one, but now it is actually more than ten to one.
  • by shilly ( 142940 ) on Friday August 03, 2007 @06:18AM (#20098911)
    British. And I don't have a problem with homosexuality. The fact that you do makes me think you have a problem with thinking, as does the fact that you seem not to have noticed that the US has only one other nation providing substantive military support in Iraq -- the British. So unless you've decided you hate everyone who's not American, there are probably better examples of nations to feel self-righteous about.
  • by hazem ( 472289 ) on Friday August 03, 2007 @06:39AM (#20099017) Journal
    My cousin served two tours in Iraq and he glibly reports of ramming cars off the road and forcing them into concrete barriers and walls, often killing the occupants - simply because the car was on the road when a US convoy happened to be approaching. So, that's much better than shooting at them.

    I'm sure it's all in the name of "winning hearts & minds" and brining democracy and freedom, so it's okay. I'm sure the Iraqis don't mind.

    Oh yeah, my cousin's pretty fucked up now. I'll be really surprised if he doesn't end up in jail for assaulting or killing someone now that he's back home. He wasn't like that before he went. The irony is that he laughs about how some kid's head was blown apart but nearly cries about a dog they had to leave on a rooftop. It's amazing what we do to others and our own in the name of democracy.
  • by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Friday August 03, 2007 @07:09AM (#20099125)
    The also used dogs w/ bombs strapped to them and trained them by feeding them under tanks. They set them loose on the battle field and the ones that didn't freak out ran under the tanks where they were promptly blown by radio control.

    Alas, the dogs had learned in training to associate food with the undersides of Soviet tanks, not German tanks. The result of all this was predictable.

  • by Afrosheen ( 42464 ) on Friday August 03, 2007 @08:39AM (#20099649)
    You hit the nail on the head. That's why the robot series expanded into 5 books and explored differing aspects of the 3 laws, an expanded set of rules, and the consequences of such.

    My favorite Asimov story was about a robot (AI computer) running the weather system for a planet, and intentionally causing major droughts and floods. They thought it was broken and sought to repair it, but found it was working in the best interests of humanity. If it controlled the weather 'perfectly' from a human standpoint, there would always be plenty to eat, and the AI knew that with enough food, there would be overpopulation. Overpopulation leads to human suffering, which the AI was trying to prevent. It ran into a paradox...either the humans starve to death during droughts or they live in close confines with a burgeoning population and starve due to the planet's inability to supply such a large population with an adequate amount of food.

    I can't remember the name of the book/story, because I went on a binge one time and read nearly all of Asimov's books back to back for a few months. Still, you get the gist. :)

Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.

Working...