Slashdot Mirror
Military Robots Get Machine Guns
javaxman writes "Next spring, the U.S. military is expecting to deploy Talon robots with machine guns. They can also be equiped with rocket launchers. Really, they're remote-controlled 'bots, not true autonomous 'bots, so you can save the Skynet jokes for, um, some day in the not-to-distant future. This is just the first, or maybe second step. As for me, I just want to see arena matches between gangs of these suckers. Robot wars indeed!"
The weapons these things are carrying are the M249 SAW. They are chambered in the 5.56mm NATO round spec and carry a 200 round box which it feeds from, but it can also use the regular 30 round magazines that the M-16 uses. The gun was developed in the 70s and has been used by the US, UK, and Isreali forces. Although the original ones could accept the M-16 magazines the latest Mk.46 mod.0 version doesn't include this option as to save weight on an already hefty 6.8 kg gun.
Creative Demolition
here
got sig?
These are controlled by people, so unless an enemy whacked the soldier and took his joystick away, this shouldn't be a problem.
I recall a PBS show (NOVA?) on the teeny weeny branch of the US military involved in actually manning the launch stations for cold war ICBMs (called missleers or something like that). It was interesting to note how deeply the notion of human oversight goes in that setup. While there is a computer involved for flight control etc., it is absolutely dependent on humans to start and monitor the process. The notion of "THE BUTTON" is pretty far off the mark. Its actually a series of phone calls that triggers this response of progressing through all these elaborate checks, double checks and bail out points, two people per missle IIRC. The entire core is based on the notion of absolute perfection in following protocol, complete with very routine exams, where a _single_ mistake equals a long break or outright dismissal. Creepy but oddly compelling.
Back in the army, I used to man an anti aircraft radar installation. The missile launch panel was protected by a series of locks / protocol codes for that day. The designers figured that this level of security (2 keys and a keypad) should be enough to protect the latch mechanism on the launch button, thus preventing soldiers from accidently launching missiles. Stick your fingers through a maintainance panel in the back, and you could manually unlock the latch protecting the launch buttons. So much for secure control panels.
Dont fool yourself, if someone maliscious wanted to bypass the security of "the button", they would. I'm 100% confident that there are workarounds for the regular launch process.
Revolution = Evolution
So because people can't control their aggressive tendancies we need to have wars?!?!!?
I see another solution that doesn't involve killing people, and spending billions of dollars of money.
Just take a deep breath....
In WW2, the British and to some extent the Americans put a huge dent in the German advance by having a very good understanding of the psyche of their opponents and of their command structure. Both sides had radar as far back as 1940, but the British used it much more effectively and designed a defense system around it that optimally combined what little resources they could bring to the situation at that time.
The various deceptions that were devised by the British went largely undetected by the Germans, and while their impact is difficult to measure in lives saved, there is little doubt that various decoys and false transmissions in the right places allowed the Allies to attack more effectively at a low cost in extra manpower.
The point is that defeating your opponent is as much (or more) a mind game as it is a matter of brute strength. Robots, even with remote control, aren't going to have the agility or cunning required to survive on the battlefield.
Less is more.
In Korea, robots are given the same rights as humans.
You know, if you'd taken a more regretful attitude, I would have been more inclined to be charitable, since much of what would otherwise be basic research is funnelled through military channels, but when I read something like "I think war is a necessary part of humanity" I can only conclude that your knowledge of history, religion, and psychology/neuroscience is horribly deficient. Citing the fact that all humans have a reptilian brain does not automatically imply that we as a species must be subject to war forever.
Have the grace to admit your ignorance, please. Did you major in psychology? Take lots of psych courses? I work in a neuro lab that studies emotion, and am applying for a job in another one that actually studies emotional control, and I can say for a fact that there are not "lots of people who will never master that trick".
Matthew
Go read a good book about this, namely: On Killing by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman.
He's a psychiatrist who considered the effects of different ways of killing on the mental health of the soldier and has come the conclusion that, while the US army has become extremely efficient at breaking down the natural inhibitions against murder it has not been as successfull in dealing with its aftermath. One step has always been the adding of physical distance between the soldier and his victim, in the progression you so proudly cite (have you ever thought about the "collateral damage" of a sword vs. that of a cruise missile?). Go read that, and then reconsider your opinion.
-- Language is a virus from outer space.