Military Robots Get Machine Guns 665
javaxman writes "Next spring, the U.S. military is expecting to deploy Talon robots with machine guns. They can also be equiped with rocket launchers. Really, they're remote-controlled 'bots, not true autonomous 'bots, so you can save the Skynet jokes for, um, some day in the not-to-distant future. This is just the first, or maybe second step. As for me, I just want to see arena matches between gangs of these suckers. Robot wars indeed!"
frickin (Score:4, Funny)
Captured robots (Score:5, Interesting)
This reminds me of an old Canon printer advertisement, where the Martians use this bubblejet printer to print realistic Mars landscape photos and place them in front of the Mars probe's visual sensor.
Re:Captured robots (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Captured robots (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Captured robots (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Captured robots (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Captured robots (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure there are ways to harden the electronics but...
Re:Captured robots (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, tricks like this (probably not these exact tricks) likely wouldn't let you send commands to the bot; however, they might let you know what is being sent to the bot, and what it is sending back.
Personally, I'm kinda curious as to how effective tempest attacks would be against "secure" communication devices, especially radios. I mean, radios make sounds by using pulsed magnetic fields to vibrate a diaphragm - sounds like a good way to broadcast unwanted RF to me
Re:Captured robots (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Captured robots (Score:3, Funny)
Wait, what were we talking about here?
Re:Good News in War Against China (Score:5, Funny)
I would say you're smoking something, but any plant strong enough to make you come up with that would have poisoned itself first and not grown.
Re:Good News in War Against China (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Chinese culture is very different from Western (Score:3, Funny)
Yes Sir! /me bows smilingly.
A trend (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A trend (Score:5, Funny)
I just hope they don't get Quad Damage.
Re:A trend (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A trend (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A trend (Score:3, Funny)
Hmmm...
Re:A trend (Score:5, Funny)
Then we could interface the machine with an FPS game and let people select weapons with the mouse scroll wheel.. And it can pick up any munitions, "health packs" or "armor shards" that it happens to "find" and maybe even throw grenades..
hrm.... And then you could get a whole bunch of them and stick them in one location, "map" if you will where they can duke and nuke it out forever.
oh wait...
Re:A trend (Score:2, Insightful)
What about ethics? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever happened to Asimov's rules of robots that they can do no harm to humans? For years, bearded terminal hackers have done their thing, hacking on software, hardware, and such, with little regard to the ethics of the situation. But now, with our creations affecting mankind in a more profound way, we give little more thought to ethics than we did with a simple BASIC shell script.
Think about this the next time you are coding a servo controller on your Redhat compiler. Could your code be misused in a way you would not approve?
Re:What about ethics? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seeing your work used "for evil" (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about this the next time you are coding a servo controller on your Redhat compiler. Could your code be misused in a way you would not approve?
Y'know, I hear this kind of question a lot. I work for a defense contractor. When I'm explaining my work to people, invariably the question of "don't you worry that your work will be used in some future war that you don't approve of?" No, actually, I don't and the reason isn't that I approve of all (or even most) of the military actions that my country is involved in. Part of it is a bit of short-sightedness on my part. I work on very "research-y" topics: data fusion, sensor resource management, and other stuff that isn't gonna get implemented until 2015 at the very earliest. Part of it is that I think war is a necessary part of humanity. I wish it weren't but a simple examination of the human brain reveals that the "R-complex" (aka reptilian brain) is present in every person. I have learned to use my other brain portions to control my aggresive tendancies but there are lots of people who will never master that trick.
But I think the main reason why I don't lie awake at night worrying that the results of my efforts might make the world a worse place is the same reason why parents don't usually lie awake worrying that their kids are going to turn out to cause more harm to society than benefit. I don't have kids but I'm thinking that if I did, I probably wouldn't spend too much time worrying that my kid is gonna become the next Kenneth Lay and be the cause of a great deal of suffering. I would probably think that my kid is more likely to be a benefit to society or I'd just be enjoying the process of raising my kid and not get all worried about how he's going to turn out.
I don't see any reason why one should assume that the products of their efforts will only be used for applications that they 100% agree with. Really, I think that's terribly naive. Do sheetmetal workers lie awake at night worrying that the steel they cast that day might be used in the casing for a bomb?
GMD
Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" (Score:3, Insightful)
If we worried more about the consequences of our actions, we would probably all be better off.
Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" (Score:5, Funny)
It just so happens that I AM A SHEETMETAL WORKER!
Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" (Score:4, Insightful)
Even with the necessity argument, one of the main reasons that war is accepted as necessary by the general masses is because we value our lives over the lives of others. We constantly demonize the actions of nazi soldiers because they were killing innocent people, but how often does the mainstream criticize the US for Hiroshima? If we are going to look at war, I think that it's important to put the human being back into the equation. With technology increasing its presence on the battlefield, we can look more and more casualties for the "enemy" and less and less for us. This will further push the disconnect between the idea of war and the reality of war.
Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" (Score:3, Insightful)
Please give even one example of a war happening primarily because of defense contractors being able to profit off of it. I can't think of a single instance myself.
While the actions of Nazis are constantly (and rightly, IMNSHO) demonized, most docum
Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope, the reason is that warfare fills your mouth with food and your pockets with money. The rest of your comment is mostly trying justify yourself that you're a great guy and you're doing things necessary for the humanity.
If you work for a company that sells weapons, your inventions will be used to kill. It's that simple. Nobody wastes loads of money just to not use what they bought.
That is a fallacy. You should blame also the farmers for selling you food to keep your brain functioning... you're designing directly weapons, or support devices for ppl that carry weapons to kill. Period.
Re:Seeing your work used "for evil" (Score:4, Insightful)
If you work for a company that sells weapons, your inventions will be used to kill.
Or defend. It's not really that simple. If we hadn't developed sonar and depth charges, Germany would have ruled the atlantic indefinitely. If we hadn't developed superior aircraft, they would have ruled the skies. If Britain hadn't developed radar, many, many more of their civilians would have died. As long as bad people exist, we need to develop weapons for defense.
you're designing directly weapons, or support devices for ppl that carry weapons to kill
Uh, no. The poster said he's doing research for a defense company. Stuff that may be used for defense, but may also be used for some cool domestic application, like, you know the INTERNET!
Every bit of technology ever developed has at sometime has been applied to the practice of killing people, whether directly or indirectly. Following the sheetmetal example, don't you think the first army to use body armor, shields, and swords had a decisive advantage? Should the scientists and blacksmiths at that time have gone on strike, skipped that overrated "progress" thing, and let themselves be conquered and killed by the barbarians?
Re:What about ethics? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ways you many not approve of? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just think of these robots doing really dangerous things - going down terrorist booby-trapped tunnels and the like.
Or would you feel better just sending human fodder into such situations?
If you think wars suck, then you should like modern high-tech wars. War still sucks, but far fewer people get killed doing it.
Hmmm is that a good thing? On balance, I think so.
Re:What about ethics? (Score:3, Interesting)
GNU should append a clause to their licenses that military use is prohibited so that nobody can get harmed by Free code.
Re:What about ethics? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or protected by it either, I guess
Re:What about ethics? (Score:3, Insightful)
Asimov just wanted to write Sci-Fi stories that avoid the cliche of square jawed human heros blow away evil robots (the irony of the I Robot film). So he came up with the laws. They also let him write neat logical puzzle type stories where the laws lead to uninteaded consequences, including the robots sometimes doing 'bad' things.
The laws were created as a dramatic and plot device. I'm sure he had plent of concept of human history and where technological inovation came from, but he was writing about his o
Finally! (Score:2, Funny)
Johnny Five ... ALIVE! (Score:5, Funny)
Need I say more?
Re:Johnny Five ... ALIVE! (Score:5, Funny)
Number 5: "Hey laser lips! Your momma was a snowblower!"
Re:Johnny Five ... ALIVE! (Score:3, Funny)
Great (Score:5, Funny)
Lemming? (Score:5, Funny)
not really new (Score:2, Interesting)
Robots Make $$$ (Score:2)
Maybe not.
M249 (Score:5, Informative)
The weapons these things are carrying are the M249 SAW. They are chambered in the 5.56mm NATO round spec and carry a 200 round box which it feeds from, but it can also use the regular 30 round magazines that the M-16 uses. The gun was developed in the 70s and has been used by the US, UK, and Isreali forces. Although the original ones could accept the M-16 magazines the latest Mk.46 mod.0 version doesn't include this option as to save weight on an already hefty 6.8 kg gun.
Not so bad... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not so bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not so bad... (Score:2)
Sure we ought to avoid war whenever we can, but if we are at war, our men come first.
Is that such a bad arguement?
Re:Not so bad... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not so bad... (Score:2, Insightful)
Fewer of ours, more of theirs...OOH RAH!
Re:Not so bad... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not so bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not so bad... (Score:4, Insightful)
Another angle on this is that mutually assured destruction through nuclear weapons was enough intimidation that it prevented nuclear war. In a similar fashion, fighting a war where your side suffers human losses while the enemy loses robots would be a humiliating, demoralizing experience - perhaps to an extent that fighting against such a miliatary would be a lost cause before the first round is fired.
There are pros and cons to that - it could be a very real deterrent to warfare, but it could just as easily alienate and silence people with a just cause for fighting. I doubt those people would shrug their shoulders and go home - they'd probably settle for guerilla warfare amongst the civilian population where an armed robot isn't a feasible option. Hm, not a far cry from terrorism.
I'm seriously not a hippy but the prevalence of "insurgent" style warfare these days is starting to convince me that war really isn't the answer - not because war is unhappy or unpleasant, but because people who are motivated enough to fight a war will express themselves despite being outright defeated in a war. If they want to kill, they'll kill regardless of your tanks or soldiers or barricades or armed robots. It's just too bad that nobody tosses tea into the harbor anymore.
SAN DIEGO HONDA PARTY!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Terrorism and the boston tea party (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, exactly.
People fight when they 1) have a grudge, 2) are poor 3) feel they're being taked advantage of 4) are scared or 5) are disenfranchised and feel they don't have a say in their own future.
How they fight depends on their circumstances. If they're wealthy, they use technology at arm's length and/or send other people (usually their own poor)
Re:Not so bad... (Score:2)
Re:Not so bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not so bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Man, I hope so. Otherwise, what good is it? Seriously.
Nobody wants to see more people die in war, but even fewer want to see a lone superpower with even less hesitancy to enforce its agenda around the world.
We all got agendas, Bunky. I have one. America and Iran have one. You clearly have one. And although I don't have the poll numbers in front of me, I believe the number of people who want to see the agenda of a country sitting atop a substantive percentage of the world's oil supply, draped in medieval-level religious fanaticism, and armed with newly-minted atomic weapons achieve ascendancy over that of a nation whose principal exports are fast food, Hollywood movies, Internet cafes, arrogance, swagger, and democracy is rather small.
It's been over a hundred years that America could be viewed as the underdog, and pop culture teaches us never to root for the Big Lone Superpower, but when the little guys are murderous right-wing religious lunatics, aintcha glad that pop culture's got nothing on plain ol' common sense?
Re:Not so bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
"...but when the little guys are murderous right-wing religious lunatics, aintcha glad that pop culture's got nothing on plain ol' common sense?"
And when the people in charge of the Big Lone Superpower are murderous right-wing religious lunatics with a massive military, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons (and a history of actually using them), and effectively unchecked political power over the rest of the world, then please tell me, who are we supposed to root for?
The obvious wingnut fallacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, of course. Nobody wants to see the mullahs take over the world. So? How does that imply that we should go to war? The uttermost wingnut error is this dogma:
"A is evil. Therefore we should go to war with them"
"B is evil. Therefore we should
Human oversight (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Human oversight (Score:4, Informative)
Dont fool yourself, if someone maliscious wanted to bypass the security of "the button", they would. I'm 100% confident that there are workarounds for the regular launch process.
Keith Laumer (Score:2)
I wonder if they will use a race or religion - based FoF discrimination system? Shoot the brown people or, shoot the non Christian?
http://www.keithlaumer.com/ [keithlaumer.com]
We already have autonomous firing systems (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it'll be a long time before autonomously firing ground systems are in place, because it's hard enough doing IFF in the sky, let alone on the ground. I think the fire-finder system (used in the Balkans to take out mortar positions in the mountains firing upon cities) might do this in some limited capacity, but that's only anti-artillery, rather than telling the difference between a guerilla carrying an RPG and a farmer carrying a section of irrigation pipe. Sure, you could wait until they shoot first for all of these systems, since that's a lot easier to determine automatically, but I think it's quite obvious that waiting for the other guy to shoot first is very far from the policy of the current administration.
Re:We already have autonomous firing systems (Score:3, Funny)
Do farmers really carry irrigation pipe in battle zones?
Perhaps we can pass out leaflets warning said farmers.
Mirrordot Link (Score:2, Informative)
What a great solution (Score:3, Funny)
IDing friend vs. foe with low-res cameras (Score:2)
Saw this on SeaQuest (Score:3, Insightful)
With the advances in VR and forms of total control of remote devices and such based on muscle movement and in some cases even brain wave activity, how far away are we from a time when anyone with a joystick can command a combat robot?
It really reminds me a lot of Largo from MegaTokyo and his army of Ph34rbots.. but on a serious note, however, I really do wonder. It would seem that, while these types of things are great in that they save lives ultimately, at the same time, they could ultimately be a supreme form of evil.
Even though bad things DO happen in any armed conflict, at least in this case, fields of robots battling it out, even if they are merely remote controlled, will keep real people from dying needlesly. However, again, how long before someone figures out how to gain control of these things and turn them against civilian populations, villages, cities, etc.
On a side note, what I really find funny is that, traditionally, the military is the last major area of manual labor that has NOT been severly affected by technology (in the sense of robots replacing workers as they have in manufacturing and other areas) and now, there exists a real possibility of the military being downsized due to robots replacing soldiers. Maybe the Teamsters can organize the military!
Re:Saw this on SeaQuest (Score:2)
Not Skynet, silly... (Score:3, Funny)
Now put down that weapon. You have 30 seconds to comply.
Damnit (Score:3, Funny)
(Sorry, saw the "In the not too distant future" quote in the article, brought up some fond memories)
A genuine worry (Score:2)
Re:History repeating itself? (Score:3, Informative)
In WW2, the British and to some extent the Americans put a huge dent in the German advance by having a very good understanding of the psyche of their opponents and of their command structure. Both sides had radar as far back as 1940, but the British used it much more effectively and designed a defense system around it that optimally combined what little resources they could bring to the situation at that time.
The various deceptions that were devised by the Bri
Can't sleep (Score:2)
Can't sleep, robots have guns.
Oh, and in Korea, only old robots have guns.
7-11 (Score:2)
Remote controlled war! (Score:3, Interesting)
Now the US can slaughter people in developing countries without the fear that some of our own soldiers -- fighting for "freedom", of course -- will be killed or injured. I suspect we'll see the number of "Operation Freedoms" increase dramatically.
How come I don't think this is progress?
Re:Remote controlled war! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll admit it. (Score:3, Funny)
Now about the ramifications... I'm starting to think that it's only a matter of time before some mad genius combines one of these with the robotic toilet and mankind is doomed.
the future is starting (Score:3, Interesting)
But if you have a soldier controlling a robot with a gun, he can literally have eyes in the back of his head. The thing could have cammeras on all sides. His hands would be perfectly steady. He could be simultaneously seeing infra red, heat vision, and what ever other kind of cammera they have mounted on it buy looking at multiple monitors. And think if the great help in communication. You could just yell "he's around the corner" to the other controller right next to you, like at a LAN party. No hand signals or radios needed. You could have a speaker mounted on it for ording civilians around.
Soon we will be fighting zero casualty (on our side) battles. That is, until someone develops the perfect jammer and sells it widely.
Ah, and that's when the badness starts (Score:4, Insightful)
That, my friend, is the argument for making the robots autonomous. Insert sci-fi armageddon of choice here.
Put a M16 in Asimo's hands and you have one hell of a prototype.
No where near replacing soldiers. (Score:2)
First Mission (Score:2)
They even look like Number Five... (Score:3, Funny)
Jammers should sell well (Score:3, Interesting)
I wish the boys would grow up a bit or at least make toys that friggin are useable.
How would you design the interface? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, what is the interface going to look like? I am assuming a live-feed, encrypted, RF signal with video and audio and not some command line interface thing because we don't have that kind of autonomy in AI yet... unless you count my industry. I am not in defense works, I am a game designer. We have AI that could do the job. Sure, the bots would freeze up for seconds at a time trying to convert the terrain into a pathmap grid, and it will get stuck in odd loops between rocks and hard places, but my point is that some degree of autonomy is possible if the operator is taking a piss or getting another jolt, pizza, mountain dew, what have you.
And so, what interface will the "mechanized infantry" be using against its operator? One 'bot per remote operator "Operation Flashpoint" style (or "Mechwarrior" / "Starsiege" style?) or two to four 'bots per operator, "Hidden & Dangerous"-style or maybe even eight ("Full Spectrum Warrior") or 60 ("Ground Control") 'bots for every operator?
Especially if bots feature some kind of learning, remembering last used commands, path maps, all of these alternatives are more or less feasible. I actually think the "Quake 3" or "OFP" approach is the least appropriate because a bot can be destroyed, chaffed, EMP'd, taken out of range, fall down a hole, lose the connection or start dropping packages like crazy. Controlling a bot lagging over radio with a jerky video feed is not a first person shooter experience you would want to participate in, not even for fun, and especially not when you are sitting in a command bunker undefended save for those ABC mechanoids.
Instead, imagine a setup where each operator shares his or her attention between members of a squad of four or five 'bots. Equip the 'bots with a few different pieces of equipment while they're awaiting deployment, maybe tweak one of them for speed and recon, another for damage soak and a third with a long-range weapon, and so on. Now, keep in mind that a video feed is possible but not speedy enough to make instant point-and-click orders. Thunderstorms, sandstorms, building occluding the signal and so forth will make that much too unreliable. Instead, the operator gives move orders to the 'bots, identifies targets, marks them on the IFF using bandboxing or clicking, the bot remembers distingishing features and asks for confirmation when a takedown is possible.
The only thing the USA has to worry about now is Korea. No matter how smart US operators become, how streamlined their interface or how autonomous their remote controlled heavy weapons platforms, they will remain unable to stop the Zerg rush, kekekekeke.
The NRA will say... (Score:3, Funny)
Obligatory Simpsons quote... (Score:3, Funny)
-- Military school Commandant's graduation address, "The Secret War of Lisa Simpson"
I am Shocked, Shocked (Score:3, Interesting)
"AFP is reporting that, starting today, "Japan's growing elderly population will be able to buy companionship in the form of a 45-centimeter (18-inch) robot" designed to help them avoid senility. The robot, named Snuggling Ifbot and developed by Dream Supply, will be able to respond to verbal commands. "If a person tells Snuggling Ifbot, "I'm bored today," the robot might respond, "Are you bored? What do you want to do?"". It retails for 576,000 yen (5,600 dollars) and there is no English version currently available but "its makers plan to program the robot in English -- not for export, but to teach the language to Japanese children.""
Reminds me how Japan's largest computer is used to model weather and the earth, and our largest computers are used to model nuclear explosions.
Well, I guess that's the difference between the conquered and the conqueror. If we conquer the world does that make every country more sane than us?
Re:This Will Save Lives (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They are terrorists. (Score:2)
Re:This Will Save Lives (Score:2)
No this will cost lives (Score:5, Insightful)
And thus negating the most important check and balance against perpetual war.
It is necessary for soldiers to die in a war, because their death reminds us that war has a price. If you can operate a completely robotic army/navy/air force, you lose that human connection, and create a killing force that can operate without any moral conscience whatsoever.
That makes for a generation of politicians who will decide that because there is no human cost to their side, they may as well just send in the robots and exterminate the opposition.
You are already seeing this process in action with such edicts as not being allowed to show coffins returning from Iraq. If you don't see the cost of war you are more likely to support it, and robot killing machines are the ultimate expression of that lack of human cost to war.
Continuing down that path will have only one outcome, and it won't be pretty.
You just couldn't help yourself could you (Score:2)
A shinny new cliche on a first post is a very seductive force to be reckoned with, and an even bigger heartbreak when it gets modded down as a troll. I feel your pain.
Cheers,
Adolfo
Re:What... (Score:2)
Re:Good News in War Against China (Score:5, Insightful)
Some time in 2000 I spidered the CIA world factbook.
There is an entry in that book labelled;
"Military manpower - fit for military service"
In the edition which I have, it lists the USA as having 2,056,762 people who are fit for military service. I believe that was supposed to include women.
Thats less than one percent of the population.
Every other listed country can manage at least 10%
After the Sept.11 attacks these figures were no longer listed. Instead today it says "NA"
The USA is the *only* country listed as "NA".
Why does the USA *need* machines like this?
Do the math.
I know the parent post was mostly humerous but frankly the idea of a USA with autonomous fighting machines scares the bejebits out of me since lack of manpower seems to be the *only* thing holding them back from a classic Civ endgame.
Re:Good News in War Against China (Score:3, Insightful)
What it comes down to is the almighty dollar.
Re:Dehumanization of Killing (Score:4, Insightful)
The real concern is the number of human lives lost in stopping these recurring acts of idiocy. The actual effect of technological advancement has been to steadily reduce the number of combatant and noncombatant casualties as technology improved. Modern technology makes it possible to confront agression with less cost in human lives over shorter periods of time.
But if it assauges your sense of moral rectitude, we can go back to the days of sword-weilding armies and the concomitant casualty rates of 20-40% of entire populations during wars. We wouldn't be isolated at all from the act of killing -- a large plurality of us would have a constant connection with death, rather than our 1-2% or so who have intimate experience with it now.
If you think more experience with death promotes peace, talk to a Bosinan, or a Croat. They'll set you straight.
Not so. (Score:4, Informative)
He's a psychiatrist who considered the effects of different ways of killing on the mental health of the soldier and has come the conclusion that, while the US army has become extremely efficient at breaking down the natural inhibitions against murder it has not been as successfull in dealing with its aftermath. One step has always been the adding of physical distance between the soldier and his victim, in the progression you so proudly cite (have you ever thought about the "collateral damage" of a sword vs. that of a cruise missile?). Go read that, and then reconsider your opinion.
Re:US Cowardice (Score:3, Insightful)
How many times have you realized that you really should do something, but you were afraid for your own safety? Aside from disagreeing with their beliefs, these terrorists did what they thought they needed to do, and were not cowards.
Enemies? Sure. Needing a good ass-kicking? Definately. Hidin
Re:US Cowardice (Score:3, Insightful)