Slashdot Mirror
The Future of Battlefield Robots
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."
Ok, we will all concede that losing fewer lives is the goal. However, there is one good part about potential losing lives. It is this, the people of your country (assuming that it is a free country) are not going to tolerate unnecessary loss of life. This keeps most leaders from provoking wars unnecessarily. If the cause is to stop Hitler, people understand that we may take heavy losses, but in the end it is worth is.
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
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
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. ;-)
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
What about using Power Wheels instead of a Segway? Hell, they can hold 130 pounds and move 5 mph. That's a machine gun and plenty of ammo.
Plus, I imagine Fisher Price makes much sturdier equipment than most military contractors anyway.
Phear Children.
As an actual smart person said: Except for ending slavery, communism, facism and nazism, war has never solved anything.
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.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Western sensibilities tell us that there is a difference between a combatant and a civilian. Yet no one has told that to the other side.
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.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.