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."
>> "...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.
robots running windows scare more!
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?
-- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
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.
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.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
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".
The pump action would be just a single actuatior... Pull triber, activate eject mechannism.
The advantage of a shotgun is that it doesn't require as much in terms of aim.... As long as you're in the general area, you get some sort of hit. I'm expecting that the purpose of the thing is essentially cover-fire, not hunt and kill.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
The rules of engagement become tricky in a "war on terror", where the opponent looks like any other civilian and aren't afforded the normal protections of the Geneva Convention. See "enemy combatant" and Guantanamo.
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.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
The thing is... our troops have a hard enough time *in person* identifying friend from foe. Now we're going to have robots (even if there are people remotely operating them) do it? I mean, for god's sake, aren't we killing enough civilians already?
"Now we're getting to Science -- I love this!" -- Dr. Steven Chu, Energy Secretary confirmation hearings.
dude, it's "Bite my shiny metal ass"! get it right.
MABASPLOOM!
Compassionate conservatives believe that killing is wrong, and thus will do everything in their power to protect the unborn WHITE American child. Oh, they also believe in killing as many innocent people in Iraq as possible. I see no conflict.
Jerk, listen up! Just because the people you're fighting aren't constrained by the geneva conventions, doesn't mean you arent....by your logic, the geneva convention or ANY measure for that matter would be totally ineffective because if anyone were to challenge it, it would immediately die...you dig? Americans are constrained by the geneva convention, the insurgents are not...don't like it? don't go to iraq.
since when is a shotgun an area weapon? Or are you basing this on your experience sniping with the super-shotgun in Quake 2?
-- My Sig is a P228.
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.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
I'd have thought the rules of engagement in a war on fear were obvious; if it scares you, shoot it or blow it up.
And thats whats happening.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
You may not have been paying attention, but pretty soon "don't like it? don't go to iraq." isn't going to apply to alot of us.
We shouldn't treat all people like human beings because we expect others to reciprocate. We must treat other people like human beings because we are the Shining City on the Hill, and we must set the example for others.
In any case, a better argument for the Geneva Convention would be Abu Ghraib: look at what a wonderfully effective marketing and recruiting tool those photographs were for Al-Qaida's global franchise...
[o]_O
I for one welcome the day when this stupid "overlords" joke is not modded Funny.
-Jem
That comment may have been modded down as "flamebait," but it's actually very true and insightful. Think about it for a second...how can an administration be both anti-abortion and pro-clusterbombs at the same time? Anyone who thinks clusterbombs only kill "enemy combatants" needs a serious whack with a board of education.
Don't worry slashdotians, I fully expect this to be modded down as either offtopic, flamebait, or troll soon enough, so don't get your panties in a bunch, mmkay?
Actually, that's incorrect. It doesn't matter if they're women or children. If they point a weapon at us, they're no longer a non-combatant and we're allowed to shoot them by whatever means available. We just tend to play nice.
It's like the mosque thing. We aren't normally allowed to attack religious buildings(why would we? It's a waste of munitions). But the moment they start using one for military purposes, like storing weapons, quartering troops, basing weapons there, etc, we're allowed to target it.
I don't read AC A human right
I would hazard to guess that modern warfare kills fewer civilians now than ever. In WWII we CARPET BOMBED Germany. We literly flattened entire cities. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed. I totally agree that any civilian death is a tragedy but it happens in war. Could you please accept that the military goes out of it's way to minimize civilian casualties instead of making it sound like they are aiming for the civies instead of the enemy.
Look up an article about the U.S. Marines being cut to pieces by the U.S. Air Force while taking enemy fire (NYT). Messages were sent to the AF pilots to cease, but they continued to attack. I guess they were having to much fun. [That is not completely my snide observation.]
I bring this up because, the marines have a unique vehicle that should have been recognizable from the air. Moreover, this is a repeat of experiences of the first Gulf War. Supposedly these problems were solved. However, those among the honored dead are in that state due to persistent screwups. If saying it isn't so suffices for you, then you are totally misinformed or are a true believer.
We have real problems that robots alone are not going to solve. When you have idiots at the controls at the very highest levels and a media that repeats their stupid assertions. How can they ever recognize they have created a situation that can only progressively worse? Hitting the right target is not easy particularly when your enemy understands you better than we them. It appears to me we have a prescription for disaster. This is spoken by a person that believed that the Iraq adventure could possibly be successful and benefical to the Iraqi populous.
If ignorance is your guide it is all to easy to repeatedly hit the wrong targets whether by remote control, robotic or in person. That's where we are now.