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"
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.
Good thing old Arnold is still around ;)
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!
"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.
Somehow, I have this feeling that anything which reduces the amount of outrage at a war is a bad thing. Why? Cause wars are bad things. Why? Cause killing people is a bad thing. Why? Well, I don't think anyone knows the answer to that. It's just a given.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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.
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...
I realize this may become flamebait, but I just gotta answer.
First, I agree with the relevant sentence: "..lower the bar for ethics and morality.." There is a danger that the ability to kill with impunity (in this instance, no danger to yourself) will lead to gross abuses of power. Sadly enough, it happens all the time.
Terminator sci-fi scenarios aside, however, I believe that the end result will be a more complicated battlefield with just another offensive/defensive capability. It's happened before, and it'll happen again.
Etc, etc. Technology (digital, material, nuclear, whatever) increases our killing power, but eventually everyone (relatively speaking) either gets to an approximate base of technology or it's abandoned altogether.
In the end, however, wars have always come down to a soldier/marine/Zulu standing on a piece of ground and saying, "This is mine." Technology simply expands the size of that piece of ground.
To back it up, I spent 16 years of my life in the Marine Corps and Navy, and we studied it, argued it, and practiced it. A lot of work and sweat goes into war (preventing or fighting one), but the basic principles always remain the same.
Magic 8-ball prediction: Lots of hype, overblown claims of success/failure/abuse, then a real application of the concept over the next 10-20 years.
(BTW, you can probably guess my thoughts on the first part of the above post.)
Never confuse movement with action. --Hemingway
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.
Anyone else realize that the acronym for this operation is SWORDS?
Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems.
Fun!
...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.
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 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
So by that logic we should throw out all the body armor, armored vehicles, medics, and anything else that makes our troops safer.
Hell lets throw out all that modern technology and go back to the "good old days" like during the Civil War, where over 50,000 died in one three day battle (thats around twice the total number of deaths in the entire Iraq war). I mean because of the horrors of war back then, people were so peaceful and never engaged in violence to settle a dispute.
Hey, while we are at it, lets stop all those researchers making drugs to help AIDs patients. The more horrible the disease is, the fewer people will engage in reckless sex and drugs.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
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.
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.