Electronic Warfare Insects Coming Soon 187
Mike writes "British defence giant BAE Systems is creating a series of tiny electronic spiders, insects and snakes that could become the eyes and ears of soldiers on the battlefield, helping to save thousands of lives, and they claim that prototypes could be on the front line by the end of the year. A fascinating development to be sure, but who thinks this won't be misused domestically for spying and evidence gathering?"
Included in the story is a link to a creepy little (scripted, rendered) demo video of these robots in action.
better steal yours. (Score:2, Insightful)
Big Brother knows who buys them.
Ha! That's funny. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, right!
Re:Ha! That's funny. (Score:5, Insightful)
battery life (Score:5, Insightful)
save lives? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:BAE Systems Motto (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not exactly (Score:2, Insightful)
Instead, if you send poor guys on a distant battlefield to take lives and have theirs being taken, while staying in your office, the risk is not exactly the same for you...
That's why people in charge of nuclear armed nations prefer the second solution : THEY won't die.
Re:Ha! That's funny. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ha! That's funny. (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Saving thousands of lives on a battlefield... (Score:5, Insightful)
> they could...
They are usually there to take and hold territory by any means necessary. If the enemy resists somebody gets killed but if they run away or surrender that works too.
Re:Forget tiny spiders.... (Score:3, Insightful)
A 20ft spider would also be pretty obvious so you loose out on the paranoia factor of covert devices. You may only have enough covert little machines to oppress 10% of the world, but the other 90% will live in fear of wondering if they're in that 10% or not.
Re:...And killing them? (Score:3, Insightful)
"...helping to save thousands of lives..." (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:save lives? (Score:5, Insightful)
They have and do, but sometimes (when deterrence fails) at the cost of other lives.
WWII is an excellent example. It took killing millions of Germans, Japanese, Italians, and other Axis types to halt their enthusiastic killing of others. There not being a non-violent option for dealing with such folk (non-violence just meant surrender to extermination) it was perfectly logical and reasonable to save Allied lives by killing heaps of Axis humans. Those who snivel about it now are conveniently distant from having to actually deal with any similar problems.
It worked superbly, like it or not.
Re:"...helping to save thousands of lives..." (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thousands of lives? (Score:2, Insightful)
The snarky reason why Tonkin and Vietnam and Iraq don't get mentioned is that they aren't wars, but the real reason is that they aren't nearly as morally unambiguous as WWII was, especially after the extent of the crimes against humanity was uncovered.
What it comes down to is that one unjust war doesn't prove that all war is unjust.
The point about the fake incidents not being bilateral is that side B can't do a whole lot about the actions of side A (other than fight back) once side A starts rolling in tanks.
orwellian bs (Score:2, Insightful)
so, lemme get this straight - on a battlefield where, ostensibly, some kind o f a battle is going on, where people are murdering each other in cold blood, these little magical toys are going to prevent thousands of people from dying, in a battle, where people are murdering each other in cold blood . Riiiiiight. Let's unpack the happy ass bullshit and get to the core: these will be implemented in order to protect and project the interests of the EMPIRE (American, Chinese, Russian, whatever) that has the money to build these things. Saving LIVES by PREVENTING DEATHS is not part of the equation. That's the province of clever diplomacy.
And the best part? I'm sure some locals who are finding these expensive little toys invading their resource rich homeland will develop a cheap bug zapper that costs $8 to build and can take out thousands of them at a go.
RS
Re:Thousands of lives? (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullhockey.
Tell THIS girl [wikipedia.org] that she wasn't in a war zone.
Calling it "a police action", "counter-insurgency", or BY any other marginally more "pleasant" euphemism does NOT change the rules of the game.
It's war, plain and simple. Kill them before they have a chance to kill you. Period.
...unless you want to tell me the name really DID change to "Freedom Fries". :P
Re:Pigs with bugs. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:BAE Systems Motto (Score:2, Insightful)
For example, the countries whose people can afford this kind of hardware are not countries that have fought any defensive wars in any recent history (past 50 years or so). All wars fought by rich countries are fought for offense, conquest, loot, plunder, and unofficially, rape. Yeah, it might not be penis and vagina rape anymore, but as anyone who has had his or her home vandalized by uninvited thugs, the feeling of violation is quite tangible. It is always legitimate to exterminate aggressors, but how many of those clamoring for more hardware to "save lives" are merely saving the lives of those who kill on demand, rather than out of necessity?
Take Vietnam... what changed? What did "we" accomplish there? A slow surrender to the Cong instead of simply letting them do what they were going to? Does anyone truly believe that anything at all OTHER than that would've been accomplished? For a so called "christian" nation, the vast majorities of "god fearing Christians" seem to miss the fact that we cannot go and tamper with other people's homes, until we have set our OWN homes in order. Judging by the vast foreclosures out there, I doubt that the majority even HAVE their own houses anymore, or ever did. Guess those "god fearing Christians" have missed that lovely part about "neither borrower, nor lender be." Even their very money supplies are based on borrowing money into existence. Debt as money. Something that their so called "Christian faith" treats with disdain... debt.. and usury (interest) is seen as a great and wonderful thing.
Oh well, they just believe what the priest caste tells them to, not those pesky bits that contrasted to their actual way of life would make little sense.
Onto the topic of this subject. These defense companies only serve two purposes. To construct tools that will be used by various governments and related agencies to oppress their own populaces, and of course, to help said governments borrow their relative populaces into absolute poverty. See, most of this hardware costs a LOT of money, even when it turns out to be worthless, useless, obsolete, or unjustified, and governments spend money without really looking at ROI. There is little ROI in government operations. All it is, is plain and simple spending. Aimless, pointless and limitless.
Until you look at the greater backdrop, that the money must be spent into existence and that friends of the rulers must be the first to receive its value, before its issuance can devalue the existing stock of debt based currency. It is brilliant, in reality, and it would even be admirable, if it weren't such a sad state of affairs.
Re:Saving thousands of lives on a battlefield... (Score:3, Insightful)
To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
-- Sun Tzu
Re:Ha! That's funny. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ha! That's funny. (Score:3, Insightful)
If GP doesn't agree with military action, so be it, but to personally insult those who are putting their butts on the line is repugnant and arrogant.
Re:Ha! That's funny. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ha! That's funny. (Score:1, Insightful)
Edit: I'll qualify that definition. Military weapons are only meant to kill. I suppose there are some weapons that are intended to be non-lethal, although it's evident that police/military will find ways to make them lethal (tasers - enough said, rubber bullets - purposefully targeting people's heads)
They might save the lives of people on "our side," but that's it.
It also raises a more important problem: if we can wage war that doesn't cost very many lives, war becomes very "cheap." It's very evident in Iraq; some reports put the death count over a million Iraqis vs. ~4000 US troops.
I really, really despise the idea of robotic warfare. There is no possible way that it can end well. Whoever can build more robots will have no moral problem killing anyone that stands in their way; it's the age old government solution: throw money, which buys robots, at the "problem" (dissidents, foreigners, etc.).
Re:Pigs with bugs. (Score:2, Insightful)
There will be mafias wherever there are groups or individuals with interests that run contrary to those of the state/society; you can't get rid of crime just by legalizing a few of the currently-illegal interests. Don't want to pay your taxes? Want to get your money back without having to sue the debtor and wait forever? Want something that the owner won't sell?
Not that legalizing marihuana would be negative, I'm just pointing out that crime is here to stay...
Re:save lives? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:save lives? (Score:3, Insightful)
The decision to act or not is a matter of perceived results.
Killing does not always work, or work in the way that those killing intended.