The Future of Battlefield Robots 237
Alien54 writes "The Pentagon is drafting the Segway two-wheeled scooter as part of a plan to develop battlefield robots that think on their own and communicate with troops. Dean Kamen, the Segway's inventor, says he had no qualms about enlisting his brainchild into the military."
Short Circuit (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Short Circuit (Score:2, Funny)
Doesn't seem very likely (Score:4, Interesting)
I would at least hope for something a bit more speedy/agile. Seems like these things would be overpriced tin cans used for RPG round practice in the field.
Re:Doesn't seem very likely (Score:4, Funny)
I'm sure the internal name for this project is Skynet. Lucky Arnie's a governour now, maybe he can stop the blast this time
Re:Doesn't seem very likely (Score:3, Interesting)
Is there a more embarassing death than being mowed down by a hotrod geek-scooter?
Re:Doesn't seem very likely (Score:3, Funny)
Not if they have machine guns on them, you can't.
Re:Doesn't seem very likely (Score:2, Funny)
Iron Giants! (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory Simpsons Quote (Score:5, Funny)
Even more obligatory: (Score:2)
And there go my cliche points for the day.
Re:Even more obligatory: (Score:3)
Re:Even more obligatory: (Score:2)
Just control the machines (Score:3, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:haha (Score:4, Funny)
Re:haha (Score:2)
And how long exactly d'ya think a hummvee goes before it runs out of gas? A tank? Much of army logisitics involves moving giant gasoline tankers around behind all that mechanical infantry.
A fuel-celled powered or a simple diesel-powered mobile generator charging a few hundred Segwaynators would require refueling a
Fly on the wall... (Score:5, Funny)
"Just imagine: a robot army that can think for itself, stand upright, speak clear English..."
"It sounds like a dream, but with those new scooters, it could happen."
"At last, an Army we control..."
"... no more drugs, booze,..."
"... or sleep, even!"
"There's the problem of terrain..."
"Yes, those wheels don't work well in brush."
"Maybe we can make them larger? Like HUGE?"
"Self-balancing tanks? Sounds interesting..."
"... and expensive. I like it."
"... and then we can keep the scooters for backup"
"You mean 'OPERATION NO DISSENT'?"
"Most of our cities are 'wheelchair friendly' already"
"Excellent. And we can just use the tanks in the others."
"Bottle's empty. MAJOR! MORE MALT!"
And you're a moron... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Fly on the wall... (Score:2)
"Hey, Top, looks like we've got a lot of mud here. How about I dig some holes in it?"
"That's a great idea, Private!"
;)
Re:Fly on the wall... (Score:2)
Wow. You provide your own insulting comeback post.
Interestingly, no one seems to have been ready to call you biased and stupid. You seem to think that the liberal knownothings are ready to spit on you and call you names.
Um, nope. So you make up a strawman to make it seem that you are under attack.
Defensive, much? I'd not mention it, but since you made such a point of your persecution, I have to make a point of the mythology massively a
one problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:one problem (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:one problem (Score:2)
There was a story on the news yesterday of a 7 year old child getting shot (in the foot, fortunately for him) after he pointed an AK-47 at U.S. troops.
Sad, but unavoidable.
It would be nice if the military had "phasers on
Re:one problem (Score:2)
No, the answer IMNSHO is:
1) Letting them know they can't win.
2) Showing them there is a better way.
3) Convincing them that people with a different viewpoint have a right to live and find happiness.
You know, all the things we know here in the States. :-)
Game over.
Re:one problem (Score:4, Informative)
Why should you? I didn't see any mention about it doing any shooting. They only mentioned using it for transport, like taking injured soldiers to safty. If something, maybe they have an algorithm how to take cover, but that's about it, I think. This isn't the movies, you know...
Re:one problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:one problem (Score:5, Insightful)
ROFL. Let's put it another way, how do you tell a human soldier the difference between an enemy and a civilian, when neither wears a uniform and either might be armed? At night, using night vision equipment? (For a robot, our soldiers are a relatively easy problem, it will involve IFF procedures and probably be more foolproof than with human troops/error.)
Here's the algorithm:
1) Robot detects a non-US-soldier in it's field of regard (possibly 360 degrees).
2) Robot blasts out, in the local vernacular at 120 db "ON THE GROUND NOW OR YOU DIE!"
3) If the intruders do anything besides start laying down on the ground within two seconds, a hypervelocity 5 mm. round strikes "upside the head". (No overpenetration and collateral damage with this type of round.)
4) Humans are called in to evaluate the situation.
In situations involving groups of people, the robot can break out the heavy weapons, designate laser guided artillery or bombs, or just call in satellite guided air support. BTW, any of these activities could involve a "human in the loop" if there are sufficient humans and good communications.
At any rate, I find this a highly plausible scenario that will likely happen within 20 years on the ground. (It will take a while due to power source constraints.) It is already happening today, in the air, with a "human in the loop". See Predator.
The main key is keeping the robots stupid enough that they don't develop true initiative. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:one problem (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:one problem (Score:2)
The first point I would make is that we're risking robot life, not human life. If those challenged don't respond, and after two seconds(!) don't respond by at least being non-aggressive, then I'd say
Re:one problem (Score:2)
Re:one problem (Score:2)
Er, not it's not...but what "friendly fire" incidents are you referring to specifically? As soon as you respond, I will as well...
TIA!
Re:one problem (Score:2)
A large-scale attack against a civilian population is only one type of war, among many.
Those robotic soldiers would sure be handy in Iraq about now... ;-)
It should also be pointed out that such a bio-attack might affect your human soldiers, but not your robotic ones. Same for virtually all chem weapons. Plus, training time is much less for a new robotic troops, a
Re:one problem (Score:2)
Should there be a difference? (Score:4, Insightful)
During WW2 we didn't really care and perhaps that guilted some people. Eventually with the UN is became the default handcuffs to put on any Western power.
The problem with separating the two is that in the long run the wars are prolonged and so is the suffering. You cannot win a war by just killing the other sides soldiers, they will just make more. To win a war you have to break their will and ability to wage it. People will flee their oppressive regimes if that same cannot protect them from the folly of their actions.
Spending on "peace" as the previous write mentions with his only anti-US rant; forgetting more people died at the hands of other countries - usually within those same countries he listed by their own people; only gets you as far as your enemy wants you too.
In other words, get out of your ignorant dream world. I suppose we should ignore what happens in other countries as long as it doesn't happen here? Well some of them decided to take their little spat to our shores, what are we supposed to do? Just forget about it? Worked well with the USS Cole eh?, the first Trade Center bombing, the barracks bombings in Lebanon and Saudia Arabia?
Summary, it is stupid to spend on peace when the other guy isn't. Its even dumber to pretend that one side is the problem. We live is a violent world in which most of those loonies use the US as an excuse to pummel their own people. Frankly the West has spent too much time sitting on its hands ignoring the problem but the blood is still there. Ignoring slaughter is the same as sponsoring it.
Re:one problem (Score:3, Interesting)
You call anyone with a Kalishnikov an enemy and kill them all. Don't want to get killed? Leave your AK in your hut, bury it under a rock, but if you carry it, expect to get engaged as a combatant. Combatants carry weapons, non-combatants don't.
Allowing non-combatants to carry arms only creates th
Re:one problem (Score:4, Funny)
Re:one problem (Score:2)
Re:one problem (Score:2)
Not during a state of active combat. The rules of orderly civil society don't apply during a time of war. Even in the US they didn't apply, despite the fact that the US did not host an active field of battle.
Re:one problem (Score:2)
Human infantry will have exactly the same problem- the difficulty of recognizing enemies isn't unique to robotics. (In fact, the currently active and near-future battlefield robots all use remotely-viewed cameras to detect targets, so its still a human who makes the decision)
A battlefield robot may
then the shepard better drop his kalashnikov (Score:2)
Spend money and effort on peace? (Score:2)
Cyborg Warriors (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Cyborg Warriors (Score:2)
Not in a while anyways. This project doesn't seem about replacing humans. Instead it just seems to be a project on how to make machines do maintance and such. Instead of having soldiers having heavy backpacks with supplies, this robot just carries them behind and gives them when needed. And if someo
Big O! (Score:2)
I have a slight problem with this... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the cause is removing Milosovic from power, people are going to tolerate much fewer losses before they start to demand that we bring our boys home.
Removing this from the battlefield of the future does two things, one it will allow future world leaders to bully less technically advanced countries even more than they do now and two it will increase the amount of terrorism directed at civilians. If I can't kill your people on the battlefield because there are no "people" on the battlefield, I'll do what I have to do to take the war to your "people".
We should proceed with caution.
LK
Segway out of this bad idea! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Segway out of this bad idea! (Score:2)
The next step in technology should involve robots with legs
Like this thing? [plustech.fi]
Given the "intelligence" of the Pentagon's leaders (Score:3, Funny)
ahh but how will this stop (Score:2, Insightful)
one man , 500 pounds of C4 and a car from blowing you and your checkpoints to smithereens ?
it seems there are 2 wars being fought, the fantasy one where USA is fighting this imaginary foe (like aliens or something) which has a technological superiority beyond all measure and therefore the USA must invent the most sophisticated solutions it can find
and then there is the reality of war which is fighting men who do not wear a uniform with RPG's and donkeys or suicide bombers that look like women or young men
You have 20 seconds to comply. (Score:4, Funny)
As a smart and good man said: "Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding... Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them." It seems we'll have to amend [cgpl.org] his philosophy that "The pioneers of a warless world are the youth that refuse military service." tho.
As for "The robots would navigate and communicate with each other autonomously, but a human would oversee the whole network.", they'll still get orders from the kind of people who volunteer to join, erm, wait, where's my asbestos suit?
Old joke -
Lt: Are they attacking from the east or the south?
RSHT: Yes.
Lt: Excuse me?
RSHT: Sir, yes sir!
Re:You have 20 seconds to comply. (Score:3, Insightful)
The only problem is that the bad guys aren't nearly as interested in Peace as the rest of us.
Look at the African warlords as the best example of what happens when power gets into the hands of a few bad guys and there's no one around to shut them up. How long would it take the US or Europe to devolve into similar madness if our strong military/police backed governments were to fall? It's not as if there aren't strong man tactics already being used in first wor
Re:You have 20 seconds to comply. (Score:4, Insightful)
Peace happened in Germany when we killed those who wanted war; we didn't come to an understanding with them.
Peace happened in Japan when we killed those who wanted war; we didn't come to an understanding with them.
Peace will happen in Palestine when we kill those who want war; we cannot come to an understanding with them (hint: it ISN'T the Israelis who want war. The name of the man who wants war starts with Yassar and ends with Arafat.)
We will have peace in Iraq when we kill those who want war; can't come to an understanding with them.
This concept is only difficult for people who have adopted moral relativism as their world view.
Re:You have 20 seconds to comply. (Score:2)
Wrongo. Germany was a democracy. War was favored by a majority of the population.
The majority of the population was not killed. They came to an understanding while staring into machinegun barrels.
Peace happened in Japan when we killed those who wanted war; we didn't come to an understanding with them.
Wrongo again. The majority of the nation wanted war. They weren't killed; they came to an
Re:You have 20 seconds to comply. (Score:2)
WRONG. The Nazi party was elected by the popular majority, sure. However, they passed an act called the enabling act which effectively disbanded the Reichstag (german parliament), gaving them absolute control of the government. They passed this act only by having a lot of armed "brown shirts" (SA) standing around and coercing the public representatives to vote in favour of it.
Wrongo again. The majority of the nation wanted
Re:You have 20 seconds to comply. (Score:2)
The Japanese people lived under a terribly brutal military dictatorship. I lived in that country for 18 months about twenty years ago and had the opportunity to speak with a number of people who were alive during that time. The stories that strike me the most were from the man who was a nine-y
Re:You have 20 seconds to comply. (Score:2)
What a joke. A supreme joke. Your line about "do you actually study any history?" applies 5000x stronger to yourself.
Your definition of Kristallnacht is so completely wrong that I'm laughing too hard to read the post any further. Even with the sorry state of US education, I'd expect a typ
Re:You have 20 seconds to comply. (Score:2)
By that reasoning, war could just as easily be averted by killing the parent poster. Interesting.
As an actual smart person said: Except for ending slavery, communism, facism and nazism, war has never solved anything.
Tragically, there isn't another smart person around to explain the concept of rhetoric. It is unfortunately true that war is sometimes made necessary. The actions by Axis powers in World War II the parent cites certainly fit the bill--a
Re:You have 20 seconds to comply. (Score:2)
Survivability in desert? Mountains? (Score:4, Interesting)
And the problem in both those places is that the enemy is unknown. Every civilian is a potential guerilla.
Seems like a solution, but to the wrong problem.
Re:Survivability in desert? Mountains? (Score:2)
Re:Survivability in desert? Mountains? (Score:3, Insightful)
In any case by the time they decide to use this batteries will be much improved and who says they can't load them up with 5 times the number the consumer model uses? These are supposed to be autonomous so they could instead carry the weight of a passenger in batteries minus the new surveillance equipment, whatever else.
Sounds like a question about energy and infrastructure but then
The future of war... (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Bushwar/guerilla warfare, involving low-tech small arms, often young soldiers, civilians, etc. This is the most common kind of war, the one with the most casualties (think: 3m dead in Congo in the last 5 years, by one estimate), also the one we hear least about. Robots? Big joke.
2. The Empire Strikes Back: hi-tech warfare against regimes or populations that have the wrong opinions, the wrong politics, or just happen to be in the wrong place. Robots? Not needed, it all happens by satellite-controlled smartbombs.
3. Police operations: friendly or unfriendly ground occupation with the goal of creating some kind of stability. Robots? Not likely, this is the most delicate form of aggression.
4. Entertainment: keep the public happy with videos of our heroes wiping out the enemy. Robots? Excellent - fewer of those body bags, and more potential for explosions.
Sigh.
Re:The future of war... (Score:2)
1. Bushwar/guerilla warfare,
2. The Empire Strikes Back:
3. Police operations: ...likely, this is the most delicate form of aggression.
Was it some kind of sarcasm :?
So, if I'm the enemy (Score:2)
Oh yeah, and become a jedi. Damn.
Simon
Re: (Score:2)
Terminator 4 (Score:2, Funny)
Bringing the war home, by AOL. (Score:2)
segway? (Score:2)
Of course not (Score:3)
Occupation... (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course the "potential applications" given to the public are all politically correct, but knowing the DoD the true intended applications if for something more sinister like reducing the number of human heads needed for an occupation force.
Right now we have our forces spread out all over the world.
I'd rather see... (Score:5, Interesting)
I can easily see a wheelchair at the price point. Some redundant non-electric safety would need to be implemented.
I can also see a severly dumbed down version used for shopping carts, generic wagons of all sorts... two-wheeled payload carriers. You have a device that's only purpose is to keep itself upright. The cheapest version just does that. A more expensive one would have a motor for forward motion. More expensive would have a proximity monitor and could follow you at an exact distance and have collision detectors to avoid running into things.
Re:I'd rather see... (Score:3, Insightful)
A 4 wheeled version does the same thing for free!
Or consider the genius of the wheelbarrow, a 2 wheeled device that uses a prop to stay upright when still. Brilliant!
This is technology taken to ridiculous extremes.
The segway is a misapplication of technology. Kamen's robotic wheelchair is genius because it adds functionality but is still just as useful as the standard electric wheelchair.
But the segway is just dumb,
Re:I'd rather see... (Score:2)
Yes those devices are
Re:I'd rather see... (Score:2)
I don't know why a 2 wheeled gizmo adds anything useful to the process of carrying things around.
Re:I'd rather see... (Score:2)
The question is how much does it cost to lease or maintain established methods.... for most cases current solutions are more economical, given... not really my point. My point was to point out that there are plenty of situations where having a two wheeled payload carrier would be beneficial (as well I believe many small contractors would love to rent or own a sub $50,000 transport for moving heavy loads).
It's not about cooler, or reinventing
Doh (Score:3, Funny)
Soldier 1: SHOOT! SHOOT! Damn piece of crap!
Robot: *bzzz* *System Slashdotted, rebooting in 35 seconds*
What terrain would these be used in? (Score:3, Interesting)
Geeks need to consider the ramifications of the technology they help to create; otherwise you're selling your own freedoms.
What the HT really stands for (Score:4, Funny)
This has terrible idea written all over it (Score:3, Interesting)
So now you take away even that. Brilliant.
What's next, soft skin that covers fragile power conduits? How about a CPU that's exposed to the elements? Oh oh, I got it, a robot soldier that can only operate in environments with temperatures between 50 and 105 degrees farenheit.
Phew at least they given up on the idea of using t (Score:3, Interesting)
America seems desperate to introduce all kind of high tech gadgets to make war easier. Yesterday there was a short news story about afghanistan on the BBC. A US post in a contested area was visited by reporters. At night the post comes under attack from rocket fire. The US calls in artilary on where it thinks the rockets have come from. In the morning they go out and check. What they find is missles setup with timers aimed at the post (some had not gone off). So all these highly equipped soldiers plus all the awacs stuff flying up there totally failed to spot a bunch of guys coming in, setting up a few missles and leaving again.
The US took heavy fire (no losses this time or at least not shown) the enemy took ZERO fire. Not one round.
Says it all really.
US army. War is putting a lot of soldiers on the ground with guns and getting them to kill more of the enemy then the enemy kills of you. This has worked for thousand of years. You are not going to be able to chance it. You want to because you don't want another vietnam. Well now you got two vietnams. War is hell but more importantly war only works when it is hell. Only when you totally slaughter the enemy will you convince the enemy to stop fighting. Little clever robots are not going to do this.
Re:Phew at least they given up on the idea of usin (Score:2)
The U.S. and its allies in Vietnam managed to kill more of the enemy, but the U.S. still gave up.
Only when you totally slaughter the enemy will you convince the enemy to stop fighting.
Maybe so, within limits. If you show that you will even kill those that surrender, the enemy has all the more reason for fighting.
Pow Pow Power Wheels! (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus, I imagine Fisher Price makes much sturdier equipment than most military contractors anyway.
Phear Children.
Again with the Segway! (Score:2)
Once again, I refer you to maddox: http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=segway_more_co
Why they are useful for Guerilla conflicts. (Score:5, Interesting)
Now the longer answer: A ruggedized sedgeway (or better yet something that can place itself into a permanently low power stable position, eg 3 wheels or more.) would be able to be very rugged, armoured and would be fairly easy to repair. The same can not be said for soldiers. A armoured trash can, can afford to wait until it is attacked before returning fire safe in the fact it is not important, is highly survivable and will probably manage
Now given the fact that mass production sedgeways cost $5000 odd and after you equip it for military purposes probably $50000. It is still a great deal. In fact I can see 10 000 being purchased at the drop of a hat.
Have two or three trundling along as point teams on patrol. (The bad guys can't let em get too close so they become the targets and that exposes the bad guys.) Set them as forward guards and you can keep the potential bad guys back. Make some that are very menacing (Big, black, with big stubby riot guns, maybe some big speakers, Bright strobes and nasty voices) and they could be very successful crowd controllers as well.
Most of the time in guerilla and urban areas they they sit still (unless patrolling) and so you could have 100's of guards set and flagging themselves for attention if something unusual or out of their ROE takes place. So you get 100 guys sitting in a comfy baracks somewhere, controlling, interdicting or at least observing a large area. Rather than 5 times that number actually being out in the thick of it.
Where they fail is in snatch sweeps where house searches are required but even there they can be used to secure rear areas of the searching troops, establish stop points and to act as covering roles or even anti sniper roles.
Some bigger ones can even act as a pack beast for supplies or maybe even crew served weapons. (Is that 50 kilo's of Machine gun and 1500 rounds of ammo weighing you down, just chuck it on the section trashcan) Having the Command element of a platoon gifted with 4 heavy weapon cans would make most soldiers, a lot happier. The extra firepower and much lessened load will be appreciated.
In more regular combat they are given sweep zones and much more liberal ROE. See enemy, (however defined) shoot it if close, otherwise identify them to command and assist in calling in fire.
Obviously development costs are huge to field basic autonamous combat machines. (somewhat less for command guided or standby and command machines) but once the work is done. A nation can probably afford to buy a fairly large number as supplements to their infantry and other forces. For example even at $50000 a copy a 100 000 would cost 5 billion but allow increased flexibility in the order of 30-50 000 additional on the ground troops. With almost certainly lower ongoing costs, much more rapid return to service if damaged ( A sedeway gets a wheel blown off it can be replaced. The same happen to a man and he's not playing soldier anymore.) and seriously reduced political consequences if one is totalled compared to a man, militaries will love them even if they only act as guards and scouts.
The key tech troubles are the power supply, the logic system, the comms system and possibly security. Loco, navigation, observation and weapon handling is effectively doable right now.
Trashcans vs Flak Jackets. (Score:2)
--grendel drago
Yes! Autonomous Hunter-Killer Robots! (Score:2)
Dean Kamen now officially sucks ass. (Score:2)
Well, isnt that nice. He's certainly no Divinci is he?
..Brent
What a fantastic world it will be when nobody has any qualms about making weapons or having them used without much thought.
Oh wait.. i think that's the Middle East. Nevermind!!
Hrmph. I always thought Mr. DEKA was tres-intelligent and someone i'd like to work for when i complete my Ph.D., but he can kiss my ass now.. douche bag.
Re:Dean Kamen now officially sucks ass. (Score:2)
Hate to burst your bubble, but Leonardo da Vinci also invented war machines [libero.it].
P.S. You can bite my shinny metal...
Re:Dean Kamen now officially sucks ass. (Score:2)
Wrong again, he was employed as a military engineer by Cesare Borgia for a while.
(1) Leonardo wasn't fighting for his country when he worked as a military engineer and (2) nothing has changed regarding societal obligations. Decent people who value freedom and justice still feel an obligation to do what they can to defend both.
I've seen a few people i went to
I don't know if I agree with this... (Score:2)
This guy apparently has watched Blade Runner too much, and not enough of the Matrix or Terminator. I think the master-slave relationship is the only safe one when it comes to robots. Somehow the idea of robots running around, without a human geeding it instructions, is not very appealing to me. Esp
Why Segway? (Score:2)
Memories (Score:2)
Easily Foiled (Score:2)
I will defend my country against these clanking monstrosities the same way I protected earth from the Daleks [daleklinks.co.uk];
stairs.
Re:Brockman (Score:4, Funny)
"Zapp: You see Killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them. Until they reached their limit and shutdown. Kif. Show them the medal I won. [Kif sighs and points to a medal on Zapp's uniform.] Afterwards the Killbots were actually quite friendly. Right Corpse-A-Tron?"
Hmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I would never trust one (Score:2)
Re:better to distroy battle-bots then people (Score:2)
Hey, it keeps the kids out of trouble...
Re:Will the robots have spam filters installed? (Score:2)
No, but you could recoup some of the costs by selling advertising space on them. Let's face it, no amount of camouflage is going to do a lot of good when a rolling trash can comes clanking around your position.