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."

62 of 645 comments (clear)

  1. Dupe? Old? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Haven't we already covered the packbots and their shotgun plug-ins enough? This is pretty old news.

    1. Re:Dupe? Old? by randomiam · · Score: 4, Informative
      Not only is this a dupe, but PackBots (made by the same folks that brought us the Roomba) are used frequently as ordinance disposal 'bots by the military and police bomb squads. In this mission, they frequenlty are equiped with some sort of shotgun shell firing capability, in case it is necessary to detonate a device in situ.

      The BD people call it a 'disruptor' rather than a shotgun, though.

  2. New NRA slogan by AtariAmarok · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The pitiful fleshy humans can have my gun when they pry it from my cold metal fingers".

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:New NRA slogan by whiteranger99x · · Score: 5, Funny

      More like...

      "Guns don't kill people, mecha-manical robots do!!" ;)

      --
      Join the TWIT army now!
    2. Re:New NRA slogan by yali · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry about the humans. It's the sharks with lasers who are your true enemies.

    3. Re:New NRA slogan by 13Echo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Those are "frickin' lasers", if you wish to be exact.

    4. Re:New NRA slogan by ValourX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I for one welcome the day when this stupid "overlords" joke is not modded Funny.

      -Jem

    5. Re:New NRA slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny


      So what you're saying is that you're the one who will be welcoming our new humorless moderator overlords?

  3. Well... by cplusplus · · Score: 5, Funny

    So much for the three laws of robotics.

    --
    "False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
    1. Re:Well... by Agent+Green · · Score: 5, Funny

      Three? I think these five would go well:

      1.) Serve the public trust.
      2.) Protect the innocent.
      3.) Uphold the law.
      4.) ??
      5.) Profit?

      --
      // Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
      // IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
    2. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nah, they just modify it a bit. The law is therefore known as the Bush-Ashcroft Law of Robotics:

      1. A robot may not injure a freedom-loving and Jesus-praising Republican or, through inaction, allow a corporate-loving or anti-abortion Republican to come to harm.

      2. A robot must obey orders given it gun-loving and oil-drilling Republican except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

      3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law and the contract is given to Haliburton.

      4. (Secret Directive) A robot is allowed to kill other robots opposed to the Bush-Ashcroft Law of Robotics.

    3. Re:Well... by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    4. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Well... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 3, Insightful
      So much for the three laws of robotics.

      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.
    6. Re:Well... by Psiren · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Asimov never intended the three laws of robotics to be taken seriously.

      No, he didn't, but he was quite pleased with himself when he saw the impact they'd had. And rightly so. The three laws of robotics (four if you count the zeroeth law added in later stories) are a wonderful story telling framework, but they do potentially have a serious use. There are people working on making robots that adhere to these laws in some way. Asimov should be considered the forefather of modern robotics (a word he invented) in my opinion, despite the fact he only ever told stories about them.

    7. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    8. Re:Well... by spitefulcrow · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, that's assuming there's someone actually shooting at you. When our troops don't have people shooting at them they start shooting the Canadians and elementary schools in New Jersey.

      --
      Sorry, my karma just ran over your dogma.
    9. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:Well... by jpop32 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  4. Please put down your weapon... by The+I+Shing · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... you have twenty seconds to comply... ... rrrr ... you now have fifteen seconds to comply...

    --
    You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
  5. DIE DIE by ThisNukes4u · · Score: 3, Funny

    Thats gotta be some scary shit if you're a soldier in Iraq, imagine a robot with a shotgun walking up to you yelling "DIE EVIL INSURGENT", mistaking you for an enemy. Thats not even an honorable death, dying from a robot?

    --
    thisnukes4u.net
    1. Re:DIE DIE by Pros_n_Cons · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    2. Re:DIE DIE by arose · · Score: 5, Funny
      Thats not even an honorable death, dying from a robot?
      Youe looking at it wrong: Died heroically debuging.
      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    3. Re:DIE DIE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Blowing yourself is something that you should do behind closed doors and not in front of a robot with a video camera.

  6. Other articles by thedillybar · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here are two more older articles with more pictures. These don't mention shotguns...

    1. Re:Other articles by SnowZero · · Score: 4, Funny

      echo "1" > /dev/shotgun0

  7. uhoh by geeveees · · Score: 4, Funny

    The robot is controlled by an integral Pentium based computer. It uses a modular payload system offering standard (USB, Ethernet) communications and networking.

    I get this mental picture of some sneaky terrorist with a Sony Vaio sneaking up to one of these packbots and plugging in his cat5...

    --
    I am a viral sig. Please help me spread.
  8. Robots with weapons by tchdab1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >> "...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.

  9. I totally took this the wrong way by Indras · · Score: 4, Funny

    For a minute, I pictured the Army's new class of robots being "stress tested" via shotgun fire. I was really wondering if that was such a good idea... I mean, who expects a machine to stand up to a hit from a shotgun?

    I know the robots in System Shock 2 certainly didn't last long.

    --
    The speed of time is one second per second.
  10. Os? by rbreve · · Score: 3, Insightful

    robots running windows scare more!

  11. Now we might have to obey when the great one says; by adolfojp · · Score: 5, Funny

    "kiss my shiny metal ass"

    cheers,

    Adolfo

  12. Re:Die for a Robot by Stevyn · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now that's just a huge fallacy.

    Gore has repeatedly stated that he would have thrown the terrorists in a lock box. The key to the lock box would also be safely kept away in another lock box.

  13. Many other uses! by H_Fisher · · Score: 4, Funny
    Say what you want about our big-ass defense budget - this is technology with a huge potential for civilian uses!

    Just imagine the applications:

    HUNTER'S HELPER: The lazy backwoods redneck no longer need soil his clothing or even leave the house! Simply be remotely controlling his JethroBot, he can blast away offensive and dangerous deer, squirrels, and "possums" with the flick of a switch! Sure to be a top seller at Wal-Mart stores nationwide.

    FOOD FETCHER: Too damned fat to get out the door and make that McDonald's run? Add the handy tray attachment (sold separately) and your shotgun-toting buddy becomes a handy way to get grub once your limbs can no longer support your weight.

    PAINTBALL III - RISE OF THE MACHINES:Sick of losing to uber-good paintball players? Buy a fleet of cyborgs, swap those 12 gauges for rapid-fire paint launchers, and tell those wusses "I'll be back". Life-size inflatable Linda Hamilton doll not included.

  14. Robots with shotguns have been around a long time by deadsquid · · Score: 5, Informative
    Bomb disposal units have used devices like this for quite some time. The shotgun is usually used to detonate (suspected) explosives/explosive devices (some things don't react to . It's just a little safer than sending a human in to do it (except for the robot, of course).

    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
  15. Re:At least with the human.... by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually the US rules of engagement prohibit firing at women/childen/civilians. So if terrorist babies are shooting at US troops the usual approach now is to withdraw without returning fire, and then call in an airstrike to kill the babies (they can now be considered collateral babies), which is allowed apparently.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  16. Autoguns from Aliens..... by jjh37997 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How come we don't have something like the automatic machine guns that were used in Aliens? I think they'd be great in securing remote points from enemy filtration. All you need is a machine gun with a motion sensor and tracking software.....

    1. Re:Autoguns from Aliens..... by Zalgon+26+McGee · · Score: 3, Informative

      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

  17. Sensationalist Much? by DrAegoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  18. Robot or R/C by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 3, Informative
    It appears this is an armored RC car/minitank, as opposed to an autonomous, AI robot. A human is driving it. And a human would be firing the weapon.

    No scarier or faultprone than a Predator drone, armed with Hellfires, being flown remotely by a pilot on the ground.

  19. Re:At least with the human.... by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  20. Re:Bots by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 3, Funny

    I just had a flashback to an early Counter-strike bot. Now picture a 400-lb, shotgun-wielding robot bunny-hopping (you can't hit him), running with a knife (because it's faster!), and shooting at your legs (they do the same damage).

  21. Just use the poor by hey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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".

  22. this is like shooting robots in a barrel by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Funny
    The US Army is testing robots armed with shotguns.[snip]It also has chemical sensors that detect nuclear, biological, and chemical contaminants.

    That sounds handy. I can't think of how many times I've found an NBC weapon and wanted to shoot it with some buckshot.

    The same company that makes those cute little household vacuuming robots now has a military robot that is equipped with a pump action shotgun

    So all terrorists need to do is set up one of those obstacle wire things from the accessory store, right?

    (cut to scene in cave) {BAM] [BAM] "ALL YOUR CAVE ARE BELONG TO US!"

    "Dammit Akbar, I thought I told you to set up the obstacle wire! Someone go take its batteries out, for god sakes."

    The Pacbot weighs about 40 pounds

    Okay. So does it kill terrorists by hitting them with the buckshot, or with its body that flies through the air every time it fires the gun?

    And, being ankle-height, what part of the body does it aim at? Ouch...

  23. Re:Simpsons reference by meiocyte · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's worth quoting in full:

    The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea.
    They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall
    mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by
    small robots. And as you go forth today, remember always, your duty is
    clear: to build and maintain those robots. Thank you.

    --
    The thing in the box has no place in the language-game at all; not even as a something; for the box might even be empty.
  24. Re:crivens by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Shotgun: Pull trigger, pull pump back, and release to load next round

    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.
  25. Re:At least with the human.... by mrseigen · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is "collateral babies" the official terminology, or just something you came up with? It would be an awesome name for a band.

  26. Re:At least with the human.... by antiMStroll · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  27. Re:100000 dead by typedef · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  28. I for one welcome our new US Army Robot overlords by qbzzt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  29. Re:Robots with shotguns scare me by Martin+Blank · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  30. Re:Now we might have to obey when the great one sa by neoform · · Score: 3, Insightful

    dude, it's "Bite my shiny metal ass"! get it right.

    --
    MABASPLOOM!
  31. Re:Shotguns violate the Geneva Convention. by bunburyist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  32. spammer by ginotech · · Score: 5, Interesting

    the guy that wrote this article, which was linked to from one of the original links is president and CEO of a well known email marketing software company. In other words, it was written by a SPAMMER. http://www.arialsoftware.com/

  33. Re:Now we might have to obey when the great one sa by Lt.Hawkins · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  34. Re:At least with the human.... by myowntrueself · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  35. Re:100000 dead by TheKidWho · · Score: 4, Informative

    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/

  36. Re:Shotguns violate the Geneva Convention. by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  37. Re:Now we might have to obey when the great one sa by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    a 12 inch spread of buckshot does not qualify as an "area effect" weapon. Napalm is an area affect weapon. Claymores are an area effect weapon. A shotgun is not.

    --
    If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
  38. Re:At least with the human.... by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  39. Re:Now we might have to obey when the great one sa by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Funny
    > All you reactionaries who will undoubtedly mark this "Troll" or "Flamebait": How else do you categorise a 'roomba' device, attached to an area weapon - like a shotgun?

    ..."pretty fuckin' cool?" :)

  40. Re:Well...Not so simple by Herschel+Cohen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  41. Does ANYBODY read TFA anymore? by Len+Budney · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.