Slashdot Mirror
Robots for No Man's Land
Roland Piquepaille writes "The Stryker is an 18-ton infantry vehicle, already deployed by the U.S. army in places such as Iraq. Right now, it has human drivers. But that will no longer be the case by 2010, when it will be driven by a robot. Today, the Stryker has a 'ladar' scanner, which emits 400,000 laser and radar beams and snaps 120 images every second. 'Its brain -- a 40-pound computer system tucked inside its body -- processes that data, and makes instant judgments on how to act and where to go.' These robots are developed by General Dynamics Robotic Systems, Inc. (GDRSI), which received $185 million last November to build between 30 and 60 automated-navigation prototypes to be used in all kinds of military vehicles. This overview contains more details, references and photographs."
On a related note, these military robots use "swarm technology" to mimic a group of ants or other "swarm" animals. Kind of a cool approach to A.I. At least it's not nanotechnology like in the (bad) novel by Michael Crichton.
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
Good point.
However, keep in mind that as far as those leaders are concerned, small-scale (less than 1,000) loss of human life is only important if it can sway public opinion.
Assuming there is no loss of human life, there are still some other factors involved - i.e. money. Developing robots which can reliably replace human infantry will cost huge amounts of money. Reproducing them would be considerably cheaper...I'd be very interested to see a comparison between human troop training costs and the costs of producing such a robot (of course its imprudent to begin computing things like that at this juncture).
So although I agree that the removal of issue of human lives will make war less burdensome ethically, it still won't be cheap. Hell, depending on the politician it might be more expensive.
Reminds me of Starship troopers.
Even though they were the least respected and sophisticated class, it was the Mobile Infantry that got things done.
Heinlein isn't the only one who stuck with infantry in the future. The truth is that nothing we create can replace a man (or woman) in the field.
And if we do manage to create something that can carry out sophisticated reasoning and creative tactics, it sure as hell won't stick around to work for us.
For the immediate future, I agree with you. A 17 yo with a rifle is the one thing we cannot replace. On the other hand, it might just be that with the advances in communications, robotics, etc. that we may both be wrong.
Consider the military tech in Joe Haldeman's _Forever Peace_. It's an okay work, and I question some of the assumptions - especially the big physics one and the massive handwave to save the world - but the remotely control infantry robots were definitely worth a thought or two.
Consider what the world might be like if America could go to war and never have a soldier fall in combat. Exciting, interesting, and scary as hell all come to mind. All at once.
Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
I agree that this will drastically change the battlefield, but I think eventually most other countries will adopt similar mechanized robotic armies and "winning" will become more an almost large scale public display of technologically and industrially productive might. The rules of engagement certianlly will change dramatically.
>
> Maybe Peace would be better.
>>The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea... ...or on the borders. This device would be perfect for monitoring the enormous (and easily penetrated) US/Mexico and US/Canadian borders.
How long before a marine version is developed to patrol the coastal areas?
Public opinon didn't stop the recent war in Iraq.
Though, in general I do agree with you. What happens when we get a strung out general who decides to program his bots to kill anything in site.
Unless we invent a new type of microchip, we're probably only going to kick ass in countries without access to EMP technology.
there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots
"Except," he continued, "those pesky innocent civilians, who have complicated serious warmaking efforts for ages via their hostile acts of living on our battlegrounds. Well, they can now be slaughtered with even greater efficiency by soulless robots in their ever-growing search for weapons of mass destruction."
"I mean, remember that guy who stopped the tank at Tiennamen by standing in front of it? Ha! Good luck using that tactic against TankMaster v.06a! To it, that brave individual would register simple as 'non-threat to navigation object'. El squish-o."
Note to the General Dynamics guys who are working on this one: Thanks a bunch. This ought to make the life of any petty dictator, from Castro to Dick Cheney, far easier. I mean, bet you'll never see a robot put its chopper between a bunch of fleeing civilians and other robots who are massacring them.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Ah, but there are at least 8 countries out there who possess the hole card... Thermonuclear weapons.
No robot army, no politician survives a 500kt direct hit.
Mod parent up.
There are serious implications for abuse of this kind of automated military within ones own country too.
Right now, if a government wants to declare martial law and force its citizenry to live in a fascist dictatorship, they have to somehow convince the people of the military to do it. That's a lot easier when most of their "troops" can't think for themselves, and you can have them controlled by people who share the totalitarian point of view.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
scripsit cybercuzco:
You know, I was just about to post something very similar. It's the standard rebuttal to the airpower fanboys: you can have all the toys you want, but you will always need an 18-year-old with a gun to hold the terrain.
I just realized, though, that the argument sounds eerily like that made by the horse cavalry officers after WWI. They argued that these new `tank' things were great and certainly had their uses, but there were things horse cavalry could do that tanks never could -- like operating in rough terrain, long-range reconnaissance away from supply lines, etc. I've read essays written by horse-cav folks from as late as the 1950s arguing that the U.S. army was idiotic to have gotten rid of horses altogether, and that the fact the Russians still had horse cav was going to be a big disadvantage to the U.S. in WWIII.
This is clearly not an exactly analogous situation, but it's something to think about.
FWIW, old-timers in the Royal Navy made a similar argument about steam power in the mid to late 1800s. Battleships retained sails for a long time, because the idea that a fleet would rely totally on steam seemed inconceivable...
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
Guess what: Special Forces troopers in Afghanistan operated on horseback for exactly the reasons the horse-cavalry boys said. They were perfect for the rough terrain, were logistically light and allowed them to blend in with the locals. Nothing that the proponents of horse cavalry said was wrong, only the scale was.
However, war is always about move and countermove. If you build robots, the enemy will build robot killers (bigger robots, EMP), and you will then need to build even bigger robots with heavier EMP shielding and so on. If you rely completely on robots, then the enemy will force you into a form of conflict where you cannot use them. Carrier battle groups could not stop the destruction of the World Trade Center. This is just one more step in the eternal dance that is warfare.
As a 2LT in the Guard, I'd rather see more money going towards upgrading all our old M1's with M1A1. The survivability increase is astronomical. As far as the strykers with the turrets mounted, we already have a light tank: the M8-AGS. Far more versitile and still quickly deployable.
Problem is, neither the M1A1 or M8 make for ideal urban combat vehicles. There is a great article on this very issue in the latest edition of Armor magazine. That said, I don't think the Stryker or the Bradley are good solutions, either. I think it may be quite some time before the Army develops a vehicle that is large enough to hold an entire squad but sufficiently armored to shield against RPG attacks, while also agile enough to maneuver in an urban environment and be air-deliverable. It probably comes down to armor--we need something lighter.
Stryker's armor is heavier than the armored version of the hummer, but not so armored as the Bradley, by intent. The sort of machine gun caliber that can penetrate the wheel wells are only mounted on aircraft, which would never be shooting at the stryker from below. Furthermore, the angling of the armor deflects RPG rounds without alloing the round to focus it's charge on the armor.
Now, I'd like to see you design a tank that can go where the Stryker can. Ain't gonna happen. You add more armor and it will sink in the sand.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves