Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Robotics Science

US Army Testing Robots with Shotguns 645

Darren writes "The US Army is testing robots armed with shotguns. The robots are called Packbots and have already seen some action in Iraq. It also has chemical sensors that detect nuclear, biological, and chemical contaminants. Maybe I've seen a few too many bad sci-fi movies, but robots with shotguns scare me."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Army Testing Robots with Shotguns

Comments Filter:
  • Dupe? Old? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 06, 2004 @12:51PM (#10742161)
    Haven't we already covered [slashdot.org] the packbots [slashdot.org] and their shotgun plug-ins [slashdot.org] enough? This is pretty old news [army.mil].
    • Re:Dupe? Old? (Score:4, Informative)

      by randomiam ( 514027 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @03:01PM (#10742824) Homepage
      Not only is this a dupe, but PackBots (made by the same folks that brought us the Roomba) are used frequently as ordinance disposal 'bots by the military and police bomb squads. In this mission, they frequenlty are equiped with some sort of shotgun shell firing capability, in case it is necessary to detonate a device in situ.

      The BD people call it a 'disruptor' rather than a shotgun, though.

  • by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @12:52PM (#10742167)
    "The pitiful fleshy humans can have my gun when they pry it from my cold metal fingers".
  • Well... (Score:5, Funny)

    by cplusplus ( 782679 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @12:53PM (#10742171) Journal
    So much for the three laws of robotics.
    • Re:Well... (Score:2, Funny)

      by mordors9 ( 665662 )
      I guess now we know that the Terminator shows the true future of mankind, not Asimov.
    • Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Agent Green ( 231202 ) * on Saturday November 06, 2004 @01:25PM (#10742378)
      Three? I think these five would go well:

      1.) Serve the public trust.
      2.) Protect the innocent.
      3.) Uphold the law.
      4.) ??
      5.) Profit?
    • Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 06, 2004 @01:30PM (#10742400)
      Nah, they just modify it a bit. The law is therefore known as the Bush-Ashcroft Law of Robotics:

      1. A robot may not injure a freedom-loving and Jesus-praising Republican or, through inaction, allow a corporate-loving or anti-abortion Republican to come to harm.

      2. A robot must obey orders given it gun-loving and oil-drilling Republican except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

      3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law and the contract is given to Haliburton.

      4. (Secret Directive) A robot is allowed to kill other robots opposed to the Bush-Ashcroft Law of Robotics.
    • Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dun Malg ( 230075 )
      So much for the three laws of robotics.

      You're just now saying that? You should've said that after getting about halfway through Asimov's book "I, Robot". The three laws are essentially a parody of the Ten Commandments intended to illustrate the folly of trying to sustitute iron-clad rules for rational thought by reasonable, ethical people. Asimov never intended the three laws of robotics to be taken seriously.

      • Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Psiren ( 6145 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @04:21PM (#10743127)
        Asimov never intended the three laws of robotics to be taken seriously.

        No, he didn't, but he was quite pleased with himself when he saw the impact they'd had. And rightly so. The three laws of robotics (four if you count the zeroeth law added in later stories) are a wonderful story telling framework, but they do potentially have a serious use. There are people working on making robots that adhere to these laws in some way. Asimov should be considered the forefather of modern robotics (a word he invented) in my opinion, despite the fact he only ever told stories about them.
  • by The I Shing ( 700142 ) * on Saturday November 06, 2004 @12:53PM (#10742172) Journal
    ... you have twenty seconds to comply... ... rrrr ... you now have fifteen seconds to comply...
  • DIE DIE (Score:3, Funny)

    by ThisNukes4u ( 752508 ) <tcoppi AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday November 06, 2004 @12:53PM (#10742173) Homepage
    Thats gotta be some scary shit if you're a soldier in Iraq, imagine a robot with a shotgun walking up to you yelling "DIE EVIL INSURGENT", mistaking you for an enemy. Thats not even an honorable death, dying from a robot?
    • Re:DIE DIE (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Pros_n_Cons ( 535669 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @01:10PM (#10742279)
      Thats not even an honorable death, dying from a robot?

      As opposed to the "honorable death" of blowing yourself up around people just going to work?
      • I wish I could get a +5 for being this much wide of the mark.
    • ED-209: Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply.
      Dick Jones: I think you'd better do as he says, Mr. Kinney.
    • Re:DIE DIE (Score:5, Funny)

      by arose ( 644256 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @01:31PM (#10742410)
      Thats not even an honorable death, dying from a robot?
      Youe looking at it wrong: Died heroically debuging.
  • Other articles (Score:5, Informative)

    by thedillybar ( 677116 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @12:55PM (#10742182)
    Here are two [packbot.com] more [army-technology.com] older articles with more pictures. These don't mention shotguns...
  • uhoh (Score:5, Funny)

    by geeveees ( 690232 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @12:57PM (#10742190) Homepage Journal

    The robot is controlled by an integral Pentium based computer. It uses a modular payload system offering standard (USB, Ethernet) communications and networking.

    I get this mental picture of some sneaky terrorist with a Sony Vaio sneaking up to one of these packbots and plugging in his cat5...

  • by tchdab1 ( 164848 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @12:57PM (#10742195) Homepage
    >> "...robots with shotguns scare me."

    But I'm perfectly fine with 200,000 teenagers armed with billions of dollars in "smart" weapons and ordered to do what they are told under penalty of courts-martial.
    • If he is ordered to go kill some babies point-blank, he at least has the option of saying "screw that" and going through court-martial.

      No chance of a conscience with a robot.
      • by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @01:12PM (#10742289)
        Actually the US rules of engagement prohibit firing at women/childen/civilians. So if terrorist babies are shooting at US troops the usual approach now is to withdraw without returning fire, and then call in an airstrike to kill the babies (they can now be considered collateral babies), which is allowed apparently.
      • by Beyond_GoodandEvil ( 769135 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @01:16PM (#10742324) Homepage
        Ok folks, put down the kool-aid, The US military(not sure about others) has the concept of illegal orders, wherein a grunt can refuse to comply with an order(eg kill babies point blank) due to it being illegal.
      • Ughhh.... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Firethorn ( 177587 )
        I wouldn't like hearing that. The moment that order comes out of whoever's mouth, I know there's going to be a court-martial.

        It's called an illegal order. It is my duty as a soldier to A: refuse the order, B: prevent the order from being carried out, to the best of my ability. As in apprehend/shoot the officer if he tries to do it himself.
  • by Indras ( 515472 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @12:58PM (#10742197)
    For a minute, I pictured the Army's new class of robots being "stress tested" via shotgun fire. I was really wondering if that was such a good idea... I mean, who expects a machine to stand up to a hit from a shotgun?

    I know the robots in System Shock 2 certainly didn't last long.
    • I mean, who expects a machine to stand up to a hit from a shotgun?

      First of all, I'm all with you on the imagining " BLAM! ... Man, that's some hard coding!"

      As for why they'd do something like that, Given that they're probably paying $4,000,000 a shot (excuse the pun) for these things, you figure they should be able to survive at least light arms fire.

  • ... now, not only can I keep the floors in a country house clean, the robot can also eliminate the vermin problem in the neighbouring fields.
  • esp. if you are on the other side.
  • crivens (Score:2, Interesting)

    by unfunk ( 804468 )
    if they can afford to build a (let's face it) Terminator (T-0.00001a?), then why can't they afford to build a weapon for it that's better suited to being used by a robot? A shotgun is a pretty complicated weapon to fire, whereas an uzi-nine-millimeder isn't.
    • "A shotgun is a pretty complicated weapon to fire, "

      wha?

    • The shotgun is a pretty straight-forward weapon.

      The action basically consists of:
      1) Place Shell in barrel 2) Aim 3) Strike cap to fire 4) Eject shell (repeat).

      In the case of the pump-action shotgun, the weapon is cycled by a simple linear motion in 2 directions.

      Furthermore, the shotgun has a low requirement for accurate aiming.

      The UZI is a bit more of a problem.

      Compared to the shotgun, the mechanism of the UZI which provides its 'automatic' cycling using part of the gas from the barrel is quite c
  • Os? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rbreve ( 94225 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @12:59PM (#10742212) Journal
    robots running windows scare more!
  • I wouldn't want to be the poor bastard who has to demonstrate that robot in front of the brass.

    "Use your gun in a threatening manner."
    "Uh, with respect, sir... fuck that!"

  • Civilians? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jmaatta ( 550428 )
    How are those things going to recognize whether someone is a soldier or a civilian?
    • How are those things going to recognize whether someone is a soldier or a civilian?

      'First there was the Mark One War Droid. He was programmed to identify and attack enemies of the state... but couldn't recognise civilians. That required moral judgement.

      'The Mark Two was programmed with genuine moral values. He became a pacifist and tried converting human soldiers to his cause... and paid the inevitable price.

      'So the Mark Three was given artificial values and emotions: patriotism, thrilling to the nat

  • I thought they already put shotguns on bomb defusal robots as a way of remotely triggering explosives.

    And, I also seem to recall (probably on a Fox special) police using a robot with remote camera and a shotgun to negotiate with an armed man (and get the layout of his place)... and this was YEARS ago.

    Why is this really news, outside of it containing the "Iraq hotbutton?"
  • So how long before we battle the evil robot spider things like in this film [culturalianet.com]
  • by H_Fisher ( 808597 ) <[h_v_fisher] [at] [yahoo.com]> on Saturday November 06, 2004 @01:03PM (#10742242)
    Say what you want about our big-ass defense budget - this is technology with a huge potential for civilian uses!

    Just imagine the applications:

    HUNTER'S HELPER: The lazy backwoods redneck no longer need soil his clothing or even leave the house! Simply be remotely controlling his JethroBot, he can blast away offensive and dangerous deer, squirrels, and "possums" with the flick of a switch! Sure to be a top seller at Wal-Mart stores nationwide.

    FOOD FETCHER: Too damned fat to get out the door and make that McDonald's run? Add the handy tray attachment (sold separately) and your shotgun-toting buddy becomes a handy way to get grub once your limbs can no longer support your weight.

    PAINTBALL III - RISE OF THE MACHINES:Sick of losing to uber-good paintball players? Buy a fleet of cyborgs, swap those 12 gauges for rapid-fire paint launchers, and tell those wusses "I'll be back". Life-size inflatable Linda Hamilton [imdb.com] doll not included.

  • I wonder if the packbot comes with a standard Quake interface?

    (gives new meaning to "first person shooter")
  • not autonomous (Score:3, Informative)

    by vijayiyer ( 728590 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @01:08PM (#10742268)
    It seems that these "robots" are actually just remote controlled vehicles with shotguns. I don't think they're autonomous, most of the concerns raised don't reem relevant.
  • Bomb disposal units have used devices like this for quite some time. The shotgun is usually used to detonate (suspected) explosives/explosive devices (some things don't react to . It's just a little safer than sending a human in to do it (except for the robot, of course).

    The arms the shotguns are attached to tend to move pretty slowly, and using them against live combatants would not be the simplist task. I think the author of the article was looking to add a little more sauce than necessary. These things are most likely being used to go into hazardous situations to collect information and handle volatile/dangerous substances/objects.

  • Just in time for Star Wars. When Regan started Star Wars Defence Program I didn't know it meant robots like there were in Star Wars episode I :P

    How about ASIMO with a machine gun?

    They are kinda cool though. Can you use them for karaoke in their off time?

  • Kill all humans... must kill all humans...
  • by jjh37997 ( 456473 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @01:13PM (#10742305) Homepage
    How come we don't have something like the automatic machine guns that were used in Aliens? I think they'd be great in securing remote points from enemy filtration. All you need is a machine gun with a motion sensor and tracking software.....
  • by DrAegoon ( 738446 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @01:13PM (#10742306)
    Seriously folks, these are glorified remote controlled cars with shotguns. It's not even that new. Bomb disposal robots that Police departments use have had shotguns for a long time (they use them to set off a suspicious package). The only thing new about this is it's being used against humans in a combat situation. It's still a human controlling it.

    The best part of it is that it replaces the "Tunnel Rats" from Vietnam. Instead of sending a human with a pistol to clear a tunnel or cave, you send one of these in.
  • Robot or R/C (Score:4, Informative)

    by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @01:15PM (#10742318)
    It appears this is an armored RC car/minitank [irobot.com], as opposed to an autonomous, AI robot. A human is driving it. And a human would be firing the weapon.

    No scarier or faultprone than a Predator drone, armed with Hellfires, being flown remotely by a pilot on the ground.

  • The commadant speaking at Bart and Lisa's graduation ceremony from the military academy:
    "The wars of the future will be fought with robots, but it will be your job to build and maintain those robots"
    • by meiocyte ( 455845 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @01:23PM (#10742364) Homepage
      It's worth quoting in full:

      The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea.
      They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall
      mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by
      small robots. And as you go forth today, remember always, your duty is
      clear: to build and maintain those robots. Thank you.
  • Just use the poor (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hey ( 83763 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @01:20PM (#10742343) Journal
    There are tons of unemployed people. They can't find any other work so many are forced to enlist. They are probably a lot cheaper than robots. Having a pool of poor people to draw on is terrific for the "war president".
  • by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @01:21PM (#10742348)
    The US Army is testing robots armed with shotguns.[snip]It also has chemical sensors that detect nuclear, biological, and chemical contaminants.

    That sounds handy. I can't think of how many times I've found an NBC weapon and wanted to shoot it with some buckshot.

    The same company that makes those cute little household vacuuming robots now has a military robot that is equipped with a pump action shotgun

    So all terrorists need to do is set up one of those obstacle wire things from the accessory store, right?

    (cut to scene in cave) {BAM] [BAM] "ALL YOUR CAVE ARE BELONG TO US!"

    "Dammit Akbar, I thought I told you to set up the obstacle wire! Someone go take its batteries out, for god sakes."

    The Pacbot weighs about 40 pounds

    Okay. So does it kill terrorists by hitting them with the buckshot, or with its body that flies through the air every time it fires the gun?

    And, being ankle-height, what part of the body does it aim at? Ouch...

  • by qbzzt ( 11136 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @01:42PM (#10742475)
    Seriously, I like the idea of our soldiers being out of harm's way and remote controlling expendable robots. I also think that people who aren't fighting for their lives are likely to be more careful to avoid shooting bystanders. When your brain is soaked with Andrenalin and fatigue, your abilities go down, even with the best training.
    • When your brain is soaked with Andrenalin and fatigue, your abilities go down, even with the best training.

      Even with reduced abilities, it's still hard to beat a well-trained human being - eyes and hears are going to have higher bandwidth than a microphone and a video camera or other sensors (which are further reduced by the telemetry link bandwidth), and the senses-to-brain-to-trigger latency time is going to be fairly low compared to having to send info to some remote location and then send the response
  • spammer (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ginotech ( 816751 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @02:35PM (#10742722)
    the guy that wrote this article [newstarget.com], which was linked to from one of the original links is president and CEO of a well known email marketing software company. In other words, it was written by a SPAMMER. http://www.arialsoftware.com/
  • by Attaturk ( 695988 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @03:09PM (#10742860) Homepage

    "Surrender all your weapons of mass destruction. You have 20 seconds to comply."

    "But... I don't have any! I never had any! I don't understand what you..."

    "Surrender all your weapons of mass destruction. You have 15 seconds to comply."

    "Listen, I'm a western journalist - I'm just here to try and find out the other side of the story..."

    "Surrender all your weapons of mass destruction. You have 10 seconds to comply."

    "Hmm, it's obviously targeted me in error - is there any way to switch it off?"

    "Surrender all your weapons of mass destruction. You have 5 seconds to comply."

    "OK now hold on a second - can I communicate with your operator somehow? I mean seriously I'm not anything to do with this and I doubt there were ever any......"

    Boom! pump,click.
  • by Len Budney ( 787422 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @06:08PM (#10743599)

    If they did, they'd discover that the article is actually an excerpt of a larger article. THAT FA was written by a nutritionist/fitness guy, with a semi-nude picture of himself and his sixpack at the end of the article.

    If you try to find HIS source, good luck! There are no links to credible sources on that page.

    In other words, nothing to see here. This is not a credible source; it's an anti-war rant.

    ...not to mention the fact that the last thing you'd install on a pacbot is a pump action shotgun, which would require a little robotic arm to work the pump. If the story were remotely plausible, it would have selected a sensible semi-automatic shotgun, not a pump.

    Len.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday November 06, 2004 @08:13PM (#10744229)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Working...