Slashdot Mirror
US Army Testing Robots with Shotguns
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."
Haven't we already covered the packbots and their shotgun plug-ins enough? This is pretty old news.
Here are two more older articles with more pictures. These don't mention shotguns...
So how long before we battle the evil robot spider things like in this film
Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
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.
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.
Idiot, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant
No scarier or faultprone than a Predator drone, armed with Hellfires, being flown remotely by a pilot on the ground.
Administration is always telling us the truth, isn't it ?
...
Also it is running Linux
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 complex.
Once firing begins from a closed-bolt (not sure if the UZI fires from CB), the weapon then relies on gas to work the bolt and springs to chamber the next round and cycle the trigger.
All of this makes a weapon like an UZI prone to jamming which, in the case of a robot would render the weapon useless until the end of the mission. (When human-intervention can fix the jam)
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
Actually nowadays shotguns in EOD robots is more used to help have access to de devices, like opening doors, breaking windows, etc, the neutralization of the device, in most cases, is achieved with water fired at high velocites using a proper device.
Look at the CIWS on many surface ships; once it's been set loose, it atempts to destroy inbound missiles with a hailstorm of fire.
---
Book(n): Utensil used to pass time while waiting for the TV repairman
A report published in The Lancet Medical Journal (although the link seems to be down at the moment) authored by researchers from John Hopkins University, Columbia University, and some University in Bagdhad. Even if the numbers are half of that, its pretty disturbing.
These aren't nearly the first robots carrying shotguns. Bomb-disposal robots used by police bomb squads have used shotguns for several years. They're usually used for shooting locks to allow the robot to open doors to get to where the bomb is. I suppose the shotgun could alternately be used to detonate the bomb, though that would be a very expensive use since the robot would likely be destroyed in the blast.
All of these robots are remote-controlled. This is no different in concept from arming a Predator RPV with missiles. You're providing a mechanical extension of a human operator the capacity to do a specific job.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Shotguns cannot be used in war. Sorry.
(And since it was usually really Toronto in disguise, someone would put them in the blue box for recycling pickup.)
Nope, The original Robocop was filmed in Dallas. Robocop 2 was filmed in Houston, and the ill-advised Robocop 3 was filmed in Atlanta. I don't think there's enough urban decay in Toronto (or in all of canada combined) to simulate the really nasty parts of Detroit.
Filming locations for Robocop
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
bullshit that 100,000 number was based off of polling random people in Iraq. It also accounted for natural deaths. Here http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/
As the abused prisoners were criminals, not POWs, the Geneva conventions don't apply. The soldiers were busted on the standard prisoner abuse rules.
Geneva Conventions
1. In order for the geneva conventions to apply, both parties have to be signatories.
2. Note that weapons aren't mentioned. The Hague Conventions cover this. *Note: Though the USA follows these conventions, the USA is not a signatory*. The main effect of the Hague is that we're not allowed to use expanding bullets. IE hollowpoints/softpoints aren't allowed if they're designed to expand. FMJ only. A hollowpoint design has been approved for use, but only because it's more accurate, and it's not an expanding hollowpoint (IE it doesn't expand any more than a FMJ on will).
I don't read AC A human right
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.
... or action will be taken.
Saddam would have killed 2X the the number that have been killed this year just for the sake of repression.
Do you have _any_, and I mean _ANY_ evidence to back this claim up? I can provide you with one side of the equation. More than 100k people have died since the begining of the US invasion on Iraq, as a consequence of that invasion. Here's my source: New scientist.
Can you point us where it says that Saddam used to kill some 200-300k annually? Or were you just pulling the '2X' out of your ass, because 'we all know he was a murderous tyrant'?
The Iraqis as a people are much better off this year.
Yeah, right. +1, Insightful.
The whole "pump shotgun" thing makes this a little suspicious. The things don't look like they could pump a shotgun or even aim one at something that was more than 5 inches off the ground:
0 34 207.php
w at ch/2002/12/robot_tunnel/print.phtml
http://www.irobot.com/governmentindustrial/
However, here are Army Times and Popular Mechanics stories, and they do talk about weapons, but it doesn't sound like they have done so yet:
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1
http://popularmechanics.com/science/technology_
So maybe so, but I think a semi-auto shotgun would be better than a pump.
-- I browse at +5 with stripped sigs
The polling method took *out* their statistics for Fallujah when calculating the increased death rate.
All areas were chosen randomly.
The exact same polling method was used by international agencies, governments etc. to obtain the war deaths amongst civilians in Kosovo and Bosnia. It is an accepted method.
All descriptions I've seen have described 100 000 *additional* deaths to the pre-war death-rate. They asked people the cause of death as well. They found that the leading cause of death pre-war were things like heart attacks. Post war it was violence esp. aerial bombing.
You obviously have only seen Fox news and not say actually read how they did the survey.
Quote:
a ss-Graves.Testify.To.Saddams.Evil-621193.shtml
"British Prime Minister Tony Blair puts the remains in mass graves at 400,000 so far."
I know that's not an anual number, but I'd say its a more reliable count than yours is.
From: http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/03/16/World/M