Slashdot Mirror
Pentagon To Send Robot Soldiers to Iraq
conJunk points out this AP story carried by Salon (also covered by various sources linked from Google News) "about the Pentagon's plan to send robot soldiers to Iraq in March or April. The program, Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems, uses Foster-Miller TALON robots, and is said to be "years ahead of the larger Future Combat System vehicles currently under development by big defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics Corp." If it's successful, maybe our men and women in uniform will have to team up with the United Auto Workers to fight the robo-threat to their jobs." Note that (whatever other considerations you might have about such deployment), the Rules of Robotics that some readers have linked to don't really apply to remote-controlled drones, which is what these are.
I, for one, welcome our new...oh never mind... I'll never trust a robot with a gun. It's like trusting a redneck buffoon with the presidency of the United States...oh wait...
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.
I miss Douglas Adams.
This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
Note that (whatever other considerations you might have about such deployment), the Rules of Robotics that some readers have linked to don't really apply to remote-controlled drones, which is what these are.
Uh, more like note that the "Rules of Robotics" don't apply in real life.
Somehow I don't think the men and women of the armed services would really put up that much protest if their jobs in Iraq were outsourced by robots.
Just wait, they'll control these using a 1337 brigade of FPS players, then some asshat will TK our entire military presence. Shortly thereafter whatever enemy we happen to be fighting at the time will send us the gift of nukes with "pwned" spray painted on the side.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
...until some pencil pusher decides it's more cost-effective to have the humans sacrifice themselves to protect the robots....
This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
I do not think that the Iraqis will welcome their new robotic overlords. Or their guns. Probably not the bullets either. In fact, I think they may get kind of pissed...
Equipped with breaching tool, light anti-tank weapon launcher, 12-gauge shotgun and 40mm grenade launcher I must admit - for a moment I reflexively considered my available credit.
Democratic societies seem to abhor seeing their sons and daughters killed in war. Just think about a hundred years from now, the outcry that would be raised when a rear base of drone operators had actually been killed. Robot war machines let democracies exersize their will without actually having to dirty yourself with the experience of war.
Whether or not thats a good thing, I don't know.
Shh.
Good thing old Arnold is still around ;)
Robots replacing humans may not be as cost-ineffective as you think.
Anyone else think this image of the new robot/soldier looks like Johnny 5?
In the movie Johnny 5 had Apple hardware... does this real one perhaps have a G5?
Is it running Darwin (insert darwinism joke here)?
It could broadcast what it's eyes/camera's see via a QuickTime Stream. It's voice can be done using text to speach. It can even sing (better than the movie) thanks to iTunes.
Oh boy. I bet I'm right!
And isn't that the reality of military discipline? Soldiers are meat, fodder, expendable. I suppose having machines will lower the bar for ethics and morality when it comes to how much we care about the human beings which we are told are our enemies.
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
Soon it will be 1984, a never ending war. All metal will be reclaimed from the battlefield and all parts will be modular, meaning these wars could go on forever. It will be the perfect war, controlling your population but with no outcry over bloodshed. Then we get into androids with real skin, and all rights are taken away in the name of "making sure your neighbor isn't a droid". May god have pitty on humanity's future, for it is bleak.
"The TALON robot can be reconfigured in the field by operators using simple pin mounted components and plug-and-play subsystems."
Just so I understand this...
We're giving automatic weapons, and license to kill, to remote-controlled robots that are not only hackable and abusable but that use PLUG'N'PLAY?!?!
I can see the future general now... "Bring me Bill Gates!"
They will never stop until somebody makes the
Seriously, unless these bots have 360 degree vision, some sort of self destruct mode you are going to quickly see these bots, and their guns being put into the other sides hands.
Robots have no loyalty, they obey the RC.
How soon till we have robowarrior-takedowns.
EXAMPLE:
Some dude walks up behind this bot and using Cloak, drill, and Tinfoil! covers up the bots recieving antenna and cameras. Takes the 200K POS apart and sells the gun(whats the going rate on the armament of these things, anyone?)
Brainwash complete!
I think people are the best weapon, and the cheapest.
Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
This way the U.S. will finally win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Go, America!
The Viet Cong beat the most powerful, strongest nation that has ever existed. They did it with things like dung covered stakes in pits. Totally low tech.
High tech works only if the enemy is stupid enough to stand in one place and fight you face to face. A million of these robots won't win the war in Iraq. Sorry Uncle Sam but if you want peace on your terms, you're going to have to kill everyone else on the face of the planet. If you are willing to commit genocide then these robots will be a great help. Otherwise; well, good luck.
no no no, it's:
...
Dun dun dun dun-DA-dun dun-DA-dun;
Dun dun dun DUN-da-dun dun-DA-dun.
DA dun! DA dun da da-da dun.
etc.
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
I'm not sure if these robots can replace real AMERICAN soldiers...I mean have they been properly programmed to fire at allies as much as at enemies?
Did the terminaotr ever stop and ponder these precious 'laws'? Did skynet think Hmm maybe not? Just like those fictional events, its all fiction. In the real world people get killed. We've just gotten pretty good at doing it. :|
Battles are determined by folks who don't have the cojones to actually fight. Modern warfare seems to have become the occupation of the true coward....
They are robots. They'll require soldiers to operate them. In fact, I hesitate to call them robots. They're more like glorified waldoes. I suppose if the mass of hydraulics that assembles cars can be called a robot, so can these.
But they are not soldiers. There's a lot more to being a soldier than combat.
REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.
(actually, the video is an "old" CG animation clip called Tetra Vaal. Still gives me goosebumps to imagine what the powerdrunk elite would probably do if commanding a better-than-human army without a conscience.)
Power to the Peaceful
Yep, dehumanize the enemy, first rule of war.
Have you ever fucking considered what despair might take to put yourself into the situation of a suicide bomber?
If only one side has drones, it sanitizes slaughter entirely too much. It would actually distort the meaning of democracy altogether. I would like to think a "democracy" is a nation where its people would be willing to place their lives in danger to protect their freedoms. Robot armys would seem to me to be a tool for empire building, and of tyranny.
Democratic societies seem to abhor seeing their sons and daughters killed in war.
And all societies with different government structures don't???
It's not like wanting your offsprings to live is a basic human trait, or a basic animal instinct common to most critters on earth or anything, no no no, that's specific to democracies!
You can't take the sky from me...
Having recently watched Fahrenheit 911 I find it interesting that the Carlyle Group is mixed up in this. Are George Bush Sr and Jr still part of the Carlyle Group or are they now only friends and former business associates with its investors?
Bush is not a hick, he's from Connecticut. He's a prep school boy, went to Yale, Skull & Bones... make no mistake, this guy is part of the ruling class.
The comment at the end of the intro is absolutely lame, even though it was hopefully in jest. Being a soldier is not, and should not ever be, an industry. There should be no fighting for jobs in the military.
If the national defense could be effected without risking any lives on the front line, that would be great from the perspective of reducing loss of life.
That being said, I would only support it if the wars we fought were just. Since the US is mostly involved in wars based on lies and deception to further one agenda or another, I see the loss of life of soldiers as a necessary part of sustaining anti-war sentiment. Wars with no loss of life on the aggressor's part simply serve to increase the likelihood of further aggression with little regard for the consequences.
Serving your country "for the money" is not serving your country. Military service should be about serving your country for the sake of service. I have no sympathy for those who complain about the bad effects of military service simply because they wanted a paycheck and a free ride through college, for those who never expected to see combat.
Anyone else realize that the acronym for this operation is SWORDS?
Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems.
Fun!
You seem to be under the impression that a "MacGuffin" is "The high concept summary of what makes a plot interesting." In other words, the gimmick.
MacGuffin at Wiki
"A MacGuffin is a plot device that holds no meaning or purpose of its own except to motivate the characters and advance the story."
A huge cybernetic tank with micronukes that fires upon the opposing team is certainly *not* a MacGuffin. It has a definite purpose. It is used to kill things.
A good rule of thumb for MacGuffins is "Can I replace the item with the word 'MacGuffin' and have the plot remain essentially intact?"
"We're going to steal the MacGuffin from the art museum. I'll need a seven man team."
"Professor X holds the MacGuffin formula in his hands. It's up to us to save him."
Clearly "you have an army, and your opponent has a nuclear MacGuffin" is ridiculous, though it's a game I'd gladly play. The nature of the item itself matters too much to play the game seriously under those circumstances.
...kill terrorists on the other side of thw world from the safety of your own home. All the fun, none of the risk and only half the guilt for only $49.95. Log on at www.crusade.gov Any advancement in technology that helps protect and or save the lives of an American soldier get a big thumbs up from me.
For example this system is remotly controlled at the infantry level out in the field by an operator that controlls the movement, behavior, offensive opperations etc according to the Rules of Engagement.
The big corps strayegy and the DOD think tanks on the other hand belive that futore robots, weapon platforms, systems needs to be more independent and able to operate autonomously.
The prime example here is the Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft (currently on hold for budget issues?). The goal is to connect it to other units through the FCS and make it possible for it to operate without a base station with a controll crew. With the UCAR taking care of target indentification, engagement, movement and BDA there will still be a man in the loop to authorize weapon release. The DOD uses a "rating system" to describe the level of ability to operate autonomously. Level 3 and 4 is where most of the currect UAV are and I think this robot if it can be classified under the same system would be placed. AFAIK the UCAR will be level 6. (?)
As the systems becomes more advanced with more sensors, "better AI", social understanding, more network sharing etc. the man in the loop will become somewhat irrelevant and reduntant as his information will come from the systems ability to indentify the opponent. Imagine if this robot in the future is stationed in Falluja and is tracking down some Freedom fighters| guerillas|terrorists|insurgents|civilians inside a building. Since there will be some delay between the operator and the robot it will be tempting to just "leave it to the robot to decide" aka "send the robot into the building and let him take care of it". Operating a M240 can be done much faster without a man in the loop. With IR, X-RAY, optical, laser, NV etc the robots can (in the future) track down the enemy much more efficently without the operator delay.
So in the future I think the Military-Industrial Complex will seek to make robots that will violate all the three Laws of Robotics.
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
So you're sitting safely in the bunker in the middle of friendly territory driving your killbot around out there at the front when suddenly you lose signal contact. Reports start coming in that the enemy is jamming communications. What to do? Hmm, guess we're gunna have to send in the real soldier right? Nah, you're commander orders you to kit up, hike out to the front and get a line of sight on your killbot. 10 minutes later you're on the top of a grassy hill, face down in the dirt trying not to be seen and at the same time set up a laser link with your killbot. Once set up you've got the job of driving your killbot to find that jamming equipment and blasting it so your squad can get back online. This is harder than it sounds, after all you've gotta keep one eye on the screen (it would be a bit hard not to seeing as it is strapped to your head) and the other on your six so you can make a run for it if someone spots your forward position. Just another day in the new automated fighting brigade.
How we know is more important than what we know.
You're joking, right?
A robot could commit war crimes, and it could easily be blamed on a 'technical fault', the manufacturers, or anyone other than the military.
You also forget that a robot would follow every order given to it, without question. Think about that for a moment.
I'll admit I was being a bit flippant, but if you think about it, there are already machines out there where it's already considered cost-effective to lose a few humans than to lose the machine.
If there were something on a battlefield like an Ogre (large autonomous tank from the Steve Jackson game by the same name), it might be of such strategic importance that a human would be required to sacrifice her or his life for the robot - and the other humans, and the battle.
Let's face it, war forces one to make ugly choices. Of course, when a company decides it's cheaper to pay the liability claims for the deaths and injury than to correct the product, the same decisions are made - and there's no war.
This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
I agree, but I think the side that has the drones will not...
certainly, they will only be used to secure democracy, free enslaved peoples around the world, and protect against WMD's.
Really, I live in the US, I was out at happy hour at Mackies in DC when Bush made the announcement that we were going to invade Iraq.... everyone cheered. They bought rounds of shots for eachother. It was disgusting- you don't celebrate the start of a war, you celebrate it's end. We are already as sanitized to the violence, pain, and suffering of others. Just so long as it doesn't happin "on our soil".
Here's to finally giving Bush his exit strategy in November
I'm sure it is not a coincidence that these robots were named after the robot "autonomous mobile swords" in the film "Screamers." This was a terrible 1996 sci-fi film, in which the robots evolved beyond their initial design and went on a planet-wide killing spree. I'm sure the Iraqis feel safer already. The film was based on Phillip K. Dick's 1953 short story "Second Variety." Michael Crichton's recent novel "Prey" is also a remake of this short story.
Well, if I were an Iraqi national going to the polls, I'm pretty certain that having one of these things patrolling around the voting booths instead of a couple of marines would be very welcome.
Why? In the type of war we're fighting in Iraq, marines are just one more target for a terror-bomb. By contrast, how fired up do you think some suicide-bomber candidate is going to get when told to "eradicate the infidel's Aibos! No robots will withstand our wrath!" Much harder sell, seems to me.
Another aspect is that, unlike on-the-spot humans, the guy controlling this sucker is off in a bunker somewhere. So when bullets start flying, less adrenaline comes into play. Perhaps this will make for more measured responses than firing at anything that moves, which would be a pretty natural response when coming under fire.
I hear what you're saying about the video-game aspect. It does seem like shooting someone should require more interaction with your victim. But I don't think it's all negatives.
Looking for a Rails developer in Chapel Hill?
And remember, persons denying the existance of Robots may be Robots themselves.
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
RFC 1925
Sending robot soldiers to war might seem practical, but just tell that to the robot spouse who gets a machine language letter from the government telling her that her robot soldier husband has been lost in action, leaving her to raise the widgets on her own.
Now imagine you're hiding in a building, waiting for your chance to repel the evil americans storming your city. You've heard the american forces are well organized and have amazing technology, but you're entirely unprepared for an armed robot coming in after you. One of your fellow soldiers in another room opens fire with his AK-47, but succeeds only in damaging the robot's treads, and giving away his position. The robot returns fire with its rocket launcher, and at this point you feel desperation like you've never felt before.
Sorry for the dramatic scenario, but I think it's worth noting that these robots could really inspire a sense of despair in the United States' enemies. I believe that it often takes a desperate person to view civilians as acceptable targets, and suicide bombers may often chose to be suicide bombers due to a feeling that nothing else will work.
Also, I know the thought of killing other humans doesn't deter a lot of people from joining militias and armed forces, but it will be that much harder to feel any sympathy for invading forces if the face of the enemy is a slow-moving robot that has deadly accuracy.
The reality of military discipline is that you have to do what you're told, because you can't manage complex military operations on the basis of nuanced discussions. But that doesn't mean that the people in the US military are considered expendible.
The truth is that in wars people die. As a soldier you know you might loose your life, but American doctrine has never relied on sheer numbers. For better and sometimes for worse, Americans apply technology to minimize casualties. We go in after downed airmen. We mount rescue operations for captured soldiers. Americans tend to fight well because they know that their commanders will not send them in to die like fodder.
Does war dehumanize its participants? Yes, to varying degrees in varying conflicts. But particularly in an all-volunteer army, to say that soldiers are simply fodder is not an accurate representation. Ask American soldiers if they think their commanders are doing the best they can to safeguard their troops, and the results would be strongly positive.
One of the interesting things about the 1990s is that it made us all so used to near zero-casulalty wars that we grew used to the notion of sanitary combat. We kill thousands of the enemy and loose none of our own. But that's not how it works most of the time, and the current situation in Iraq is proof that you can't alwyas win with technology alone. A pity President Bush didn't figure that one out before he invaded Iraq.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Callin Dubya a commener is like calling a rockefeller a "good ole boy".His kin are more from the eat hamptons than east texas.While I HATED dumb@ss kerry,Bush is nothing but a giant buffon.He ran every thing he ever touched into the ground.Is the country better than Bill left it?HELL NO!Bring back Bill!I wouldn't care if he screwed hookers on the white house lawn as long as he kept the economy humming.And now el presidente is talking about iran?How many countries CAN he get our boys killed in?While he gives all his buds defense contracts?I guess we have ANOTHER four years to find out BOZO THE CLOWN could run this country better.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
While it is true that Terrorism is asymetrical warfare it is not true that they are waging a lawful or legal law -- and I use the terms lawful and legal very loosely.
The West, as most modern societies do, self-impose basic rules of engagement and behavior. These rules of engagement are based largely on our values system.
This is why the news of captured terrorists being abused in the form of light interogation (light mental and physical discomfort, with no real threat of permanent physical harm) is bigger news and overshadows the video taped beheadings of their captures. This is why we have a different threshold for our behavior vs. their behavior.
When the French were engaged in very similar situation in Algiers, De Gaul was prescience in his conclusion that the French could not win a war against the Islamunist insurgence in Algiers -- not because they didnt' have the firepower and manpower but because the brutality that would have been needed would not have been acceptable by Western standards. So France withdrew and the Islamunists went on to massacre 100's of thousands of unarmed non combatants comprised of 2nd and 3rd generation French colonists, not being contrained by the Wests self-imposed values.
Somewhere in there lies the definition of terrorism, not your simplistic view that it is dependent upon whether they are attacking military targets or civilian targets.
But Fundamentalism isn't a very popular (large segment of society) hobby.
In order for Fundamentalism to infect a large portion of society, you need a large portion of society to be (or believe it is being) affected by the evil threat.
Fundamentalism is catching in the mid-east because more and more of the people there ARE affected by "The Great Satan". Either directly or through someone they know.
That is the problem with our continued military response to the insurgency. When we accidently drop a 500# bomb on a house and kill a family, then we've given all the friends of that family a reason to hate / fear "The Great Satan".Pretty much. The problem is that they're over there and we're over here. They can "win" this simply by outlasting us. Just like Vietnam.
But that will breed even more Fundamentalism over there. They will have driven out The Great Satan and they will have proof that there is a "war" against them.
The only way to stop this is to show the masses that we aren't really as bad as our recent and past actions have indicated.
But that takes time and focus and money. None of which our populace seems willing to invest when we are promised quick, cheap "victories" over the "bad men".
Rather than "spreading democracy" in the mid-east, Bush's wars will end up spreading Fundamentalism, anarchy, political assassinations and world wide terrorism.
And no amount of remote controlled gun-bots will be able to change that.
But if that is the definition of democracy, then Communist China, and even Iraq are democracys because the population consents to the rule. (Before y'all fling yourselves at you keyboards, I don't believe they are democracies. I am merely questioning what I believe is a flawed definition.)
In Canada, the definition of a democracy is responsible government. They who govern us must answer to us. And it isn't just the election every few years that holds them in check. We also have the fact that the Prime Minister has to answer to his caucus and his cabinet. They can depose him by several political means. He has to answer to the House of Commons every day that it sits and then some.
And who in the countries cited above in the first paragraph could say "Nay" to the leader. That's what made them non-democratic.
Damn robots hiding under my furniture with shotguns!!
411 Y0UR 8453 4R3 8310NG 70 U5!! -NSA
Would that be a General Protection Fault?
If it is your contention that city dwellers should subsidize land consuming industrial farms that burn fuel and generate waste in order to buy more subsidies, it truly is time for NYC to declare independence. We've got ports - I'll happily rely on imported food to be done with the rest of this nation. We've got the largest intelligence and civillian police force in the nation. We've got all the capital generation we need. The money we'd stop exporting to fools like you would be more than enough to cover the rest.
Long thrive the Godless Heathen's Republic of NYC!
Want to bomb us? That already happened, and is being used as an excuse for the last few years of insanity, funded with our money.
I forget what 8 was for.