Slashdot Mirror


S. Korea Considers Using Armed Robots Along DMZ

Slicker writes "S. Korea and N. Korea (aka the ROK and DPRK, respectively) share the most heavily fortified border that has ever existed. Now the ROK is considering deployment of armed robots." Not expected until sometime in the 2010s. From the article: "Robots with weapons mounted on their frames are each expected to be able to observe from 2 and 1 kilometers during the day and night, respectively, and will have the capability to record voices and take pictures in a 180-degree circle."

406 comments

  1. The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the article:


    "The ministry is considering robots which could detect, trace and hit targets automatically or be controlled remotely by operators," said Col. Shin Byung-chul of the ministry public affairs office.


    Remote-control sounds fine, but automatically? Do we have software capable of reliably distingushing between a civilian and an enemy combatant (at least as well as a human soldier can, anyway...)?

    Doesn't sound like the best of ideas. Also from the article:

    ...there are no electric fences, nor electronic sensors and surveillance cameras.


    Seems to me that the South Koreans might be better off upgrading their fences and perimeters (proven technology) than putting their faith in autonomous killer robots (unproven, scary, incredibly risky sci-fi technology).

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If there was an uncaring, twitchy finger robot guarding the border, would try and cross it?

      Thought not.

      A robot is perfect for the job, just as along as it only shoots IN the DMZ and can be shut off with a flip of a switch.

    2. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by kyle90 · · Score: 2, Funny

      And in other news, Google is taken over by the US Military; renamed Skynet... Robots are cool and all; and I certainly prefer if robots instead of humans are placed in harm's way, but this can only end badly. Either that, or wars will become some sort of farce, where robots go and battle each other without any human casualties at all. Better deactivate that learning chip though; else the robots will realize that it's pointless to fight each other and all become hippies.

      --
      Real_men_don't_need_spacebars.
    3. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Do we have software capable of reliably distingushing between a civilian and an enemy combatant (at least as well as a human soldier can, anyway...)?

      Do the N.Korean/S.Korean governments care?

    4. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      The Koreans are really good at video games, having placed very well in the last few Counterstrike faceoffs. Do they really need software? I mean, seriously. You can have soldiers who need to be deployed near a danger zone, or you can have geeks sitting miles and miles away.

      Hm.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    5. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since people in the DMZ aren't supposed to be there...it's safe to shoot them. In fact, in the abscense of humans it's become quite the wildlife refuge. All it has to do is tell a human from a crane, and issue a directive to stay behind the robots.

      That said, they're better off either moving Seoul out of artillery range, or completeing the National Defense Shield wonder.

    6. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Alien+Being · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Still, it's probably a better idea than landmines.

    7. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Bonhamme+Richard · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Remote-control sounds fine, but automatically? Do we have software capable of reliably distingushing between a civilian and an enemy combatant (at least as well as a human soldier can, anyway...)? Doesn't sound like the best of ideas

      From what I've heard about the DMZ in Korea, there aren't any civilians. Most S. Koreans don't want to live that close to where the invasion will come from (if/when it comes) and the N. Koreans aren't allowed to live that close to anywhere where they could escape. National Georaphic actually did a report about how this made the DMZ in Korea one of the worlds most impressive wildlife reserves...

      ...there are no electric fences, nor electronic sensors and surveillance cameras. Seems to me that the South Koreans might be better off upgrading their fences and perimeters (proven technology) than putting their faith in autonomous killer robots (unproven, scary, incredibly risky sci-fi technology).

      Eletric fences may work great against crime etc, but as a military option... a fence isn't going to stop a tank, or even a really determined group of foot soldiers. The Atomic Bomb was unproven, scary, risky and sci-fi, but it saved the lives of an estimated 1 Million Marines/U.S. Army, and an untold number of Japanese.

      (Yes, I would argue that it saved Japanese lives, based on Iwo Jimi, Okinawa, etc, Japanese soilders would have fought for every inch of Japan, and likely would have destroyed the country in the process, but this is an arguement for another post...)

      The point is, that this would take soldiers (some of them American, as we have promised to protect S. Korea, and have troops stationed there.) out of harms way. Automated defences are replacable, but our military men and women are not.

    8. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by FLEB · · Score: 1

      Remote-control sounds fine, but automatically? Do we have software capable of reliably distingushing between a civilian and an enemy combatant (at least as well as a human soldier can, anyway...)?

      Ever read Second Variety (Philip K. Dick)? Target anything that moves and doesn't have a valid RFID signature.

      OT: What was the name of that godawful movie they made out of that?

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    9. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OT: What was the name of that godawful movie they made out of that?

      Screamers

      Beware the Teddy Bear.

    10. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      Google for the book, click the wikipedia link.

      Screamers was the movie. It wasn't godawful, just very very bad. Compared to Robot Jox it was a wonderful film.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    11. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Do we have software capable of reliably distingushing between a civilian and an enemy combatant...?


      Inside the DMZ, it wouldn't matter. When I was stationed along the DMZ back in '91, that 1 km strip of land was pretty much considered a free-fire zone. Anyone who steps foot in it is a fair target for the use of deadly force.


      That open-season nature of the DMZ may be one reason why the south is even considering these armed robots. Sounds like the perfect place for them.

    12. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      It's war dude. They're not waiting for petty "terrorists", they're waiting for heavy artillery and missle batteries to make a power grab for the last few miles they need to put Seoul [the SK capital] squarely in their sites...

      It's an X [10-20] mile strip...when one side crosses it they'll be already shooting... current intel is that the can hit Seoul from behind lines... They've gotta have armed personnel ready to pull the triger...that's the point of how bad things really are.

      Unfortunately, there's not and easy solution. The north is hungry and basically has enough ammo to take everybody in the south out by hand... The south has US to back them up...but we rely on "smart bombs" and techonolgy to balance the field...so we can't ever fire first, espically after iraq, the UN would nail us for that kind of slaughter again. Hence the tension will build until it pops or somebody up north blinks.

      I am pleased to see advances in killer-robot technology... unfortunately, will inevetibly be uses against us... oh well..

    13. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Janitha · · Score: 1

      If robots are put to defend, wouldnt it be logical to think that Robots will be put to offence as well.

      Both countries are somewhat equal in their technology, and so is the rest of the world. This just might the time of the world, where for the first time, a war could be fought without losing a single life.

      Its actually really sad to see wars going on like this, in this tiny world, compared to the universe.

    14. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Funny
      Target anything that moves and doesn't have a valid RFID signature.
      I can just see it now ..
      Dateline: June 1st, 2008, South Korea

      Today South Korea was invaded by millions of North Koreans, who were able to bypass the robosoldiers by wearing RFID tags that identified them as WalMart Potted Plants.
    15. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by t0ny747 · · Score: 0

      Remote-control sounds fine, but automatically? Do we have software capable of reliably distingushing between a civilian and an enemy combatant (at least as well as a human soldier can, anyway...)? I don't think so, its going to be using a lot of ammo. Its going to be shooting at any thing thats moving like birds, squirrels, and other little critters.

      --
      Taco?
    16. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by NoMercy · · Score: 1

      If it's in the DMZ, it's a combattant.

    17. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by loraksus · · Score: 1

      Nothing says the cameras have to be on auto 100% of the time, and you could have one person monitor quite a few cameras at once. And, of course, have an "Oh fuck" button that they can press that fires at everything that moves a la Aliens.
      If you're going to do this in mass quantities, it won't really work out to be insanely expensive either (depends who makes it, I suppose).

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    18. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      So we're going to have a new winner in the most dangerous job category: Robot technician in the DMZ. No problem while "Mr. Roboto" is broken - but the only way you'll know that you fixed him properly is when he terminates you.

      Hey, maybe they'll give the maintenance contract to the N. Koreans, sort of kill 2 birds with one stone?

    19. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exactly would be the point of robots punching each others just for the heck of it? Don't kid yourself, there will always be lost of life and infrastructure destruction in a war.

    20. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      Do we have software capable of reliably distingushing between a civilian and
      an enemy combatant (at least as well as a human soldier can, anyway...)?


      Dunno, but it might be argued that a robot could do a better job than, say, a land mine...

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    21. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess I know who you voted for.. *sigh* stupid americans..

    22. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by tftp · · Score: 1
      wouldnt it be logical to think that Robots will be put to offence as well?

      No. Defensive positions can be prepared and equipped for robot patrols (such as predefined routes, 802.11, visible nav markers, clear direction of permissible fire etc.) None of that will exist in an offensive scenario, and efficiency of robots may be well negative.

    23. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by X.25 · · Score: 1

      The Atomic Bomb was unproven, scary, risky and sci-fi, but it saved the lives of an estimated 1 Million Marines/U.S. Army, and an untold number of Japanese.

      (Yes, I would argue that it saved Japanese lives, based on Iwo Jimi, Okinawa, etc, Japanese soilders would have fought for every inch of Japan, and likely would have destroyed the country in the process, but this is an arguement for another post...)


      Brainwashing works, it would seem.

      In 1999, NATO bombed Serbia. They were also bragging about 'human war', 'precision strikes' and 'military targets'.

      In reality, they got a chance to test new weapons. So they did it.

      They used graphite bombs in order to take down power plants. It worked for 2-3 days, then trick was found, and it took few hours to clean up mess after graphite bomb. What NATO did? They used real bombs and hit the power plants.

      So, how can any military option be about 'saving lives', when it has the same end result? (in this case, power plants providing electricity to people - destroyed; in Japan, impact was much more horrible)

      But I guess one of the hardest things to do is to admit horrible things your leaders/military/nation have done (as is also, noticably, case in Balkans for the past 10 years - for example). So, there is always a "logical explanation" which justifies those actions...

    24. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .so we can't ever fire first, espically after iraq, the UN would nail us for that kind of slaughter again.

      We can't strike until the neutron bombs at the UN headquarters are fully tested and deployed, that is.

      It's a sensitive issue, being that the UN is so close to so much important other infrastructure.

    25. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by tftp · · Score: 1
      current intel is that the can hit Seoul from behind lines...

      Actually, the current intel is that NK can hit California from behind the lines. In this light Seoul doesn't have a chance, not even against World War II artillery. It still exists only because NK has no good reason to wage a war (and hopefully it never will.)

    26. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, it's much better now that the land mines can chase you! The DMZ is a human free zone full of mines, anyone stepping into it is shot at from watch towers on either side. From the stories in the media it appears to be so effective that anyone trying to escape the North usually does so by crossing the border into China. The problem is not the technology, the problem is that this type of behaviour is considered normal for nation states.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    27. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      what is the purpose of war if you dont kill ?

      what is the purpose of war anyway ?

    28. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by rramdin · · Score: 0

      If I have 300 killing machines guarding my borders, are you going to send your troops in destroy them, or your own robots designed to take out your opponent's defenses? But knowing that your enemy is going to try to destroy your defenses with robots, are you going to build more robots to fend off the robots, or just send out your army?

    29. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "Automated defences are replacable, but our military men and women are not."

      since when?

      men and woman just cost more and are more dificult to train

    30. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1
      No. Offensive and defensive operations are by their nature different, and machines are incredibly suited to defensive ones and incredibly ill-suited to offensive ones.


      Defensive operations require never-ending patience and alertness, something that humans are notoriously bad at. Even the best-trained unit will be worn down with enough boring routine, and units have to be constantly rotated in and out of high-stress / low-action jobs like border monitoring lest they start to become lax.
      Machines, on the other hand, do not become tired, do not become bored, and provided they are well maintained, do not become lax over time. I wouldn't want to trust machines for my entire defensive strategy, because any intelligent enemy will eventually find ways to get around a mechanized defense, and human intelligence is needed to discern new types of enemy incursions and tell the computer what to watch for and what is noise.


      The offensive side of warfare, IMO will never be fought entirely machines. Barring the creation of sentient life in silicon, the limits of any computer's programming can be found and exploited by a motivated enough human adversary. (And because I know someone will mention it, war is not chess, and cannot be solved by brute force a la Deep Blue.)


      This is not to say that 'robots,' in the form of remote-controlled devices, will not be used in an offensive role -- they already are -- but I doubt they will replace humans at the controls for more than a very few niche positions. On the defensive side though, where there is less of a requirement for creative thinking and more need for absolute and uncompromising thoroughness and deficit-free attention, I could see many robot observers with one human master replacing a large number of bored PFCs in guard towers.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    31. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Stupid Americans, aye? India, China and Europe sure seem to enjoy the freedom of the seas provided by the Americans. As well as the jobs and technology provided by the Americans. As well as the relative peace and stability that exist at the present time. If India had an army of the capacities of the United States, it would use it to invade its neighbors. So would China. In fact, they both have.

      The people who are stupid are those who choose not to work with Americans. Americans are working to make money and to improve their lives. If you get in our way, we'll just have to improve your life as well. And you may not like to hear it, but that even goes for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. In thirty years, both countries will be infinitely better off for having the Americans invaded.

      Even India is better off. You're still using the British infrastructure. Lord knows you couldn't build your own damn railways.

    32. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      why dont you invade the UN too ?

      i heard there WMD hidden under Koffee Annan bed

    33. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by spuzzzzzzz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      (And because I know someone will mention it, war is not chess, and cannot be solved by brute force a la Deep Blue.)

      I would have thought that war is perhaps the only thing that is always solved by brute force.

      --

      Don't you hate meta-sigs?
    34. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1
      Your argument doesn't even make sense.


      In 1944, there were two options: massed invasion of the home islands of Japan with 14 combat divisions, widespread use of chemical weapons, etc. Or, try this new thing that the physicists had cooked up. Truman decided for the latter, a few weeks later the war was over.


      In the Balkans, again there were two options: blow the power plants into rubble with high explosives, or try these new 'graphite bombs' the R&D boys had cooked up. The commanders opted for the latter. It did not work. They went back and used the other option. It worked.


      The only thing your post says to me is that given the decision between a potentially less destructive but unproven technology and a more destructive but surefire one, we tend to choose the less destructive one, and keep the more destructive one in reserve. This seems like good policy to me.


      As for your conspiracy theory angle, sometimes the logical explanation which justifies an action is just that, a logical explanation. People who are faced with decisions of grave importance I highly doubt make them because of spur of the moment whims. Although one moment's logical explanation can be the next moment's fallacy, due to bad information or any number of factors, you need a lot more evidence to undermine the decision-making process in the first place.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    35. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you base your opinion on other than fear?

    36. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If not for the atomic bomb, I would not be here, end of story. My grandfather would have died on the mainland. I like the bomb.

      The grandfather post... does he have any idea of history... the men came back looking like prisoners of war, those that simply fought on the islands, the prisoners came back dead.

    37. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using the A bomb didn't save any lives, that is just bullshit history by US propagandists to posthumously justify the incredible mass murder of civilians. Japan was ready to surrender.

    38. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by tftp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Many battles were won against a stronger enemy, and many other battles were lost against a weaker foe. Brute force is absolutely not enough for a victory. To prove that you only need to open a newspaper.

    39. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Mahou · · Score: 1

      haha, what's that one short story? 'the feeling of power'?

      --
      if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
      ...te?
    40. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by back_pages · · Score: 1
      Brainwashing works, it would seem.

      If that's how you explain the remainder of your post, I'm inclined to agree.

    41. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that and it's aware that angering Russia, China, and the US simultaneously is a good way to be glowing in the morning.

    42. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "So, how can any military option be about 'saving lives', when it has the same end result?"


      What an obtuse and foolish statement.
    43. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 2


      War...what is it good for?

      Absolutely nothing.

      (Say it again.)

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    44. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Whatever is cheaper. For a totalitarian state with food shortages, I can guess at which will be cheaper.

    45. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      Pick one:

      War is the pursuit of diplomacy by more vigorous means.

      War is a regulatory instrument between states, that enables economically weaker states to feed on someone else's wealth and hence achieve balance.

    46. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1
      Maybe they could turn controlling these things into a video game? Might be kind of boring if there wasn't a war on, but I still bet you could get a lot of volunteers.


      More seriously, a distributed solution to processing all the data obtained by a network of observation drones and then fed to hunter/killer robots seems to beg for a distributed processing solution. Rather than create a bottleneck with one office processing the imagery or whatever, you could send each photo of a possible contact to several different people who'd review it in real time. They'd only have to be reasonably trusted, and if the system was set up right it could be very resistant to outside attack. (And wasn't that the point of the Internet anyway?)

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    47. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Both countries are somewhat equal in their technology, and so is the rest of the world.

      If you're referring to North and South Korea, the technology gap is actually enormous. North Korea makes up in numbers what it cannot do in technology. For example, the best fighters that the North can muster is about 20 or so MiG-29s. There are perhaps 350 or so other fighters, but those are largely MiG-17, -19, and -21, with a few -23s thrown in for good measure. These would face off against a couple dozen F-15K and about 150 KF-15 fighters, which would probably wipe most of the NK air force out of the skies. The same thing happens with their tanks and artillery (which will probably be wiped out in counter-battery fire within minutes of any opening salvo).

      It is this disparity that pushes Pyongyang to pursue nuclear weapons. They know they can't win a conventional war, so they have to make it suicidal to attack (not that anyone actually does want to). The robots just make it so that many fewer South Korean soldiers would go down in the opening of any attack from the North.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    48. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1


      Japan was ready to surrender.

      I'm not aware of the revisionist history that you and another post reference, but I would be interested to know how it explains why, if that's the case, Japan failed to surrender unconditionally even after Hiroshima. The dropping of the bomb on Nagasaki was required before Japan was ready to surrender unconditionally. How could it be possible that they would have surrendered without the use of any atomics?

      Or do you think that they should have been left with the territory that they seized from other Asian countries?

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    49. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know he's indian?

    50. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1
      I see two distinct possibilities:
      You could build a small number of very expensive, very heavily armed robots... something like an unmanned tank or Bradley but with a lot more sensors, and probably different weaponry. (I'm rather partial to these.)
      But given that the DMZ is a free-fire zone to both sides, and that anti-tank technology is pretty advanced and inexpensive versus the construction cost to build something like that, I'm not sure how good an investment it would be. I mean, two North Koreans, one with a good set of binoculars to keep an eye on it, and another with an RPG-7 (or an improved version of such) when they finally want the robot to go away, and there goes your defensive system.


      The more creative solution would be large number of mass produced, inexpensive, lightly armed robots. Either autonomous or remote-controlled, you'd put so many of them out there that the loss of one or two wouldn't be significant.
      I imagine something the size of one of those Roomba automatic vacuum cleaners, armed with one small rocket or missile and a hefty self-destruct charge.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    51. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      (Say it again.)

      Nah...Quark said it best.

    52. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brainwashing works, it would seem.

      This is why liberalism is receding in America. I'm beginning to understand why the Republicans control the House, Senate, Executive, and the majority of state governorships.

    53. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      They don't have long range missles... best estimates I've heard put them in the 50-100 mile range. If they even had SCUDs testing, we'd be there in a hot minute. They may have Nukes, but that's not an ICBM.. those are truely rare things. Even though they make the movies a lot.

    54. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by roadrunnerro · · Score: 1

      yeah, right... but what happens when one bastard decides to TK?

    55. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because everyone realized that the liberals are brainwashed.

    56. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Not even sci-fi ... at least the robots in the movies are generally self-aware and often more intelligent than the humans with whom they interact. The state of the art today is that of a mil-spec PC mounted on a mobile gun platform. Hardly science-fiction, and not something I'd be too comfortable with.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    57. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The atomic bomb did not save 1 million lives. That's old US government propoganda. Japan was nearly ready to surrender at the time the bombs were dropped. If we would have found a way to negotiate and let the Emperor save face the bombs would not have to have been dropped at all.

      This was us showing Russia we had the upper hand in the developing stages of the cold war.

    58. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares?

    59. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And *POOF* you appear from some other alternate universe, spouting some other alternate history of your universe. blahblahblahblahblah

    60. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by SQL+Error · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is not the technology, the problem is that this type of behaviour is considered normal for nation states.

      It isn't considered normal.

      The problem is that the leadership of North Korea is completely insane, and always has been. They starve their own people to death in order to prop up their army as a threat to South Korea.

      You said it yourself: People are willing to risk their lives to escape to China, which is hardly a paradise. That ought to tell you what a nightmare life in North Korea is.

    61. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by belmolis · · Score: 2, Informative

      The reason that Japan did not surrender immediately after the bombing of Hiroshima was that it took some time for the central government to realize what had happened. They learned fairly quickly that there had been a major air strike on Hiroshima, but the extent of the damage was not out of proportion to previous air raids on Japanese cities. US bombing had already caused a great deal of damage to major Japanese cities, including Tokyo. Incendiary bombing was very destructive since at the time most buildings were made of wood, bamboo, and paper. The Japanese only realized what had happened when they figured out that all of the damage was caused by a single bomb, which was not immediately obvious.

    62. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The smarter ones realize they're inhaling a little much from the bong.

    63. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do FIND this kind of stuff? HOW was Japan making serious moves to surrender? I call total BS, Japan wasn't willing to surrender. That just wasn't in their mindset. It was fight or die for the emperor. They'd commit suicide before becoming a POW, the civilians jumped off cliffs rather than living with their homeland occupied by their enemy.

      The atomic bomb had all to do with ending WWII, not a conspiracy theory.

    64. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know anyone anywhere cares about anything?

    65. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Nutria · · Score: 2, Insightful

      are you going to send your troops in destroy them, or your own robots designed to take out your opponent's defenses?

      Neither. I'd use mortars (indirect fire), or maybe concealed 20mm hi-speed cannons.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    66. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Nutria · · Score: 1

      War is a regulatory instrument between states, that enables economically weaker states to feed on someone else's wealth and hence achieve balance.

      But wouldn't the economically-stronger state know that, and build up it's own defenses? (Which it could better do, since it is wealthier.)

      Unless, like post-WW2 Western Europe, and Asian nations like Japan, it is shielded by an even stronger state. The US, in this case.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    67. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Trepalium · · Score: 1

      Defensive "robots" don't even need to be mobile, or self-propelled in any way. The article doesn't mention any movement capabilities, so they may just be stationary objects.

      --
      I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
    68. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Dobeln · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked there were no killer robots on the Sweden-Norway frontier. (Still, that might have changed) :P

    69. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How hard would it be for them to get a yacht that has a hidden missile launcher 50-100 miles off the US coast? You don't need missiles that can go any farther than 20-30 miles or so when you have boats that look just like civilian boats.

    70. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WWII as the rest of the world knows it had already finished.

      Maybe the A bomb had a lot to do with finishing the war in the pacific, but the war in Europe, which is what 90% of WWII had been about had been over for months.

      The war in the Pacific was just "Me too"ing by the Japanese

    71. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Oggust · · Score: 1
      They don't have long range missles... best estimates I've heard put them in the 50-100 mile range.

      They have longish range missiles. And unproven long-range ones.

      If they even had SCUDs testing, we'd be there in a hot minute.

      They certainly have scuds. The "No dong" (I kid you not, that's what they called it) is sort of an upgraded scud too (new engine, whole thing scaled up, but basic design still the same (same propellant, kerosene+RFNA), still have the jet vanes etc))

      Hell, they exported scuds to yemen a couple years ago.

      Scuds have tange of about 100km, the no-dongs about 1300 km (no-dong 1) to about 1500 km (no-dong 2)

      Their real ICBM is called the Taepo-dong. They tried to launch a satellite using it in 1998, but it failed.

      Wikipedia article"

      /August.

      --
      "An object declared as type _Bool is large enough to store the values 0 and 1." -- 6.1.2.5, C99 standard.
    72. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      1. Robots that punch each other for the heck of it
      2. Kids
      3. Christmas
      4. Profit!!!

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    73. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The great wall of China, Adrians Wall, The Berlin Wall, The DMZ, The Isreal Barrier. The behaviour is insane and common.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    74. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Yonoz · · Score: 1

      A defensive array cannot consist of mere barriers (fences, channels etc). Rather, these should be aranged so that they impede the enemy's movement and channel them into controlled zones where the defender has superiority. A fence is worthless unless it has someone watching it. The issue, therefor, is manpower. Keeping units simply for the sake of guarding borders is damaging to a military's combat readiness and to the nation's economy.
      I have not read the article but it seems there is no mention of the robots' autonomy. Being able to track and target automatically is one thing, giving the machine the burden of decision making is another. I would imagine that the machine, upon identifying a possible threat, would alert an operator which would then assume control over its fire systems, keeping the ultimate decision making in human hands.

    75. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do FIND this kind of stuff? HOW was Japan making serious moves to surrender? I call total BS, Japan wasn't willing to surrender.

      How about this:

      In his later memoirs, Stimson admitted that "no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb".

      In July, before the leaders of the U.S., Great Britain, and the Soviet Union met at Potsdam, the Japanese government sent several radio messages to its ambassador, Naotake Sato, in Moscow, asking him to request Soviet help in mediating a peace settlement. "His Majesty is extremely anxious to terminate the war as soon as possible", said one communication. "Should, however, the United States and Great Britain insist on unconditional surrender, Japan would be forced to fight to the bitter end."

      Stimson, like other high U.S. officials, did not really care in principle whether or not the emperor was retained. The term "unconditional surrender" was always a propaganda measure; wars are always ended with some kind of conditions. To some extent the insistence was a domestic consideration - not wanting to appear to "appease" the Japanese. More important, however, it reflected a desire that the Japanese not surrender before the bomb could be used.

      So basically, the atomic bombs were used on Japan to prove their effectiveness and to save face. It had nothing to do with making Japan surrender. Were all those civilian lives really worth making Japan give up the Emperor?

    76. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      Winning wars is not just about money. The Macedonians weren't that rich, but they easily defeated the whole Persian empire.

      It is more about tactics, training, morale, in short, people. Large differences in technology have tilted the scales somewhat, but people are still the most important factor.

    77. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by fbjon · · Score: 1

      The problem was that the a-bomb obliterated both people and communications. There was no-one to phone that there was an attack, but someone had to notice that comms stopped, and go take a look, then pass the message on.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    78. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Stregone · · Score: 1

      Just because a side is stronger doesn't mean they must use brute force. If the US was using brute force in Iraq right now they would be carpet bombing whole towns that gave them trouble.

    79. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by mikeabbott420 · · Score: 1

      I would suggest a third option. A demonstration of the new bombs power, one that didn't involve killing a citys worth of people, might have been tried first. It wasn't like japan had any capability to counter-attack by that time.

      --
      This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
    80. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Bonhamme+Richard · · Score: 1

      The problem was we only had two bombs operational, and they were damn costly to make (both in $$ and TIME). If we dropped one in demonstration, we would only have one more to use when Japan didn't give in. As it was, we bluffed. We dropped everything we had, and made as if we would just continue on destroying cities until they gave up.

    81. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1
      Well, although I suppose that a demonstration might have been an option, but given that it took the destruction of not one but two cities to force a surrender out of the Imperialists, I think it would have just been a lot of wasted time. And time was of the essence, because every day that went by was another day the Japanese had to solidify their home islands against the eventual invasion that would have to take place if the bombs didn't work.


      And it wasn't as if the atom bomb was a complete surprise, the Potsdam declaration was pretty specific when it talked about the "inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland" (cite). The method is of course not specified, but given the option to 'surrender or else,' they picked 'or else.'


      But mostly my problem with the whole 'there should have been a demonstration' line of thinking is that it's a moot point: the Imperialists didn't surrender even after one city was destroyed, and they almost didn't surrender after two. I can't honestly imagine that anyone thinks they would have surrendered after some offshore demonstration.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    82. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1
      Yeah really. Brings a whole new meaning to 'blue screen of death,' doesn't it?


      I do wonder though what operating systems the embedded military systems run on. I've seen a few of them and they look totally custom (at least the interfaces). I'm curious about the backend, though.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    83. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or use guided missiles to destroy the pylons. Quick, safe, and high shock&awe.

    84. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Or Robocop. Remember ED-209?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    85. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by Dogsbody_D · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find it's Hadrian's Wall.

    86. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I agree that "walls" can be effective for the "job its builder built it for" (keeping people in or out). I am simply making the observation that when leaders feel the need to build a "wall" it signifies a failure that has already happened (assuming a peacefull life is what people want).

      A border is an imaginary line draw by "leaders" to denote the poulation that they control. The rest of us are called upon to give our lives to protect and/or expand the control lines.

      I don't have any answers, I'm a synical 45 year old "ex-hippie" and completely understand that this is just "how it is in the real world". I even agree with Bush's sentiment that security is the first step towards peace and prosperity. However when considering the burdens placed on both nations separated by a "wall", I think the creation of "the job it was built for" is insane behaviour.

      "Imagine there are no countries." - Imagine, J. Lennon.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    87. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by tokabola · · Score: 1

      That may have been true in the days of swords and horses, but even then technology counted. The Huns kicked Roman but because they had a technology (the stirrup) that the Romans didn't.

      These days, the richest countries have better/more technology, and (as the US invasion of Iraq proves) while it may be hard to conquer a people, governments are fairly easy prey.

      Tommy
      --
      Open Source for Open Minds
    88. Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer... by tokabola · · Score: 1
      Seems to me that the South Koreans might be better off upgrading their fences and perimeters (proven technology)

      Proven to be vulnerable to anyone with a wire cutter. The border between North and South is rather long, and goes through some pretty rough terrain. Believe me, I've patrolled it. There are an incredible amount of other fortifications also. Things like huge concrete tank traps, and huge walls (and where the road goes through the walls there are massive cement blocks above the roadway with explosives to drop them should need be). There's thousands, if not millions of mines. Even so, North Korean special units cross the border on a regular basis. A passive defense (like a fence, electric and alarmed or not) simply doesn't cut it.

      Of course, with the North Korean penchant for digging HUGE tunnels (while I was there in '83 - '84 one was discovered that was big enough to allow an armored battalion every 10 minutes, it was a three lane superhighway under the ground) even these robots won't really stop an invasion.

      Tommy
      --
      Open Source for Open Minds
  2. skynet anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet South Korea armed robots only use old people who are dying like BSD

  3. In the post-9/11 world... by Silverlancer · · Score: 0, Redundant

    In Korea, Soviet robots use old people!

    Oh wait...

    1. Re:In the post-9/11 world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please go stand by the DMZ
      So I can protect you
      Go stand by the DMZ
      Grandma is protected

    2. Re:In the post-9/11 world... by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 2, Funny



      When the North has come
      And they're threatening Seoul
      And the States are the ony hope we see
      No, I won't be afraid
      Oh, I won't be afraid
      Standing here, on my side of the
      D-M-Z, so

      * Robot, robot D-M-Z
      By the D-M-Z
      Oh D, D-M-Z, D-M-Z

  4. robots? by uits · · Score: 0

    I for one, welcome our Korean Robot Overlords.

  5. OSQ by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The battles of the future will not be fought on a battleground or at sea, they will be fought in space. Or at the top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forward today, your duty is clear, to build and maintain those robots. Thank you."

  6. Circle? by Xshare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "will have the capability to record voices and take pictures in a 180-degree circle."

    Screw the armed robots, I just wanna see how they pulled this off!

    1. Re:Circle? by return_of_ffalcon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      obviously, the circle is on a cone.

    2. Re:Circle? by Linker3000 · · Score: 5, Funny

      In a spirit of mutual understanding, and in order to establish a tentative cross-border relationship, it was agreed several years ago that South Korea owns and maintains the bottom half of all circles and North Korea keeps the tops, so an 'official' circle in both countries is only 180 degrees and anyone caught drawing a full 360 degree circle is fined or sent for re-education. If you want a complete 'western-style' circle (or circular object), you have to send your part-work to the ministry of circumferences (MoC) in the opposite country where it is assigned to a worker for completion - this really frustrates infant schoolkids who draw pictures including a bright yellow sun.

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
    3. Re:Circle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Informative? Informative!? Taco, give us back the funny karma.

    4. Re:Circle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Obviously not. That would change pi, not the number of degrees.

    5. Re:Circle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Screw the armed robots, I just wanna see how they pulled this off!"

      Multiple cameras. There have been spherical video cameras made before that do this.

    6. Re:Circle? by StuffJustHappens · · Score: 1

      So the circumference of a circle in North or South Korea is (pi * r) + 2r !!!

      --
      --What's this sig thing all about then? Should I have one?
    7. Re:Circle? by InstantCrisis · · Score: 1

      At first confused, I then assumed that they meant the circle was the horizontal (XZ) plane (radius about a kilometer), and the 180 degrees referred to the vertical plane. So, each robot covers the top half of a sphere, but can't detect things underground.

      Or it's a really bad typo.

    8. Re:Circle? by tritab · · Score: 1

      Obviously?
      Is it an ice cream cone?

    9. Re:Circle? by RazorJ_2000 · · Score: 1

      Its pretty obvious.

      Cylons.

      --
      pi=sigma{n:0-infinity}[(1/16)^n][(4/(8n+1))-(2/(8n +4))-(1/ (8n+5))-(1/(8n+6))]
  7. Re:Brazil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Link ;)?

  8. PR campaign... by zxflash · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe they'll have robots in place by then, but it's more likely that Kim Jong Il will be dead or missing and the south won't have to worry about the north... Then again, who knows...

    --

    All the torrents you could want.
    1. Re:PR campaign... by rapidweather · · Score: 3, Interesting
      If the bird flu problem in North Korea cannot be contained, then DMZ robots would take a back seat to the greater problem of widespread infection, pandemic throughout Korea:


      Concerning the North's efforts to contain bird flu, the ROK has been asked to help/send assistance to the North. The threat of bird flu (H5N1) and the resulting destruction of an important food source does not bode well for the DPRK.

      Perhaps the South's robot technology can lead to robots that can spray disinfectants in the big chicken farms the North Koreans have (or had). Humans have to wear protective suits to do that.

      Check out what one scientist says about bird flu killing 1 billion people.

      Hope North Korea gets the aid it needs to contain the virus for a while longer.

      The US is sending testing kits needed to determine the scope of the problem.

    2. Re:PR campaign... by Suidae · · Score: 1

      Wow. I read a few of those articles and immediately thought 'This is ad copy, these guys are selling something'. Pretty quick comes up an article about how governments are stockpiling Tamiflu, which might not be effective against bird flu anyway. Oh, but the author has researched some herbal antiviral supliments and they are really powerful and better than Tamiflu anyway. Oh, look, some nice google ads for some herbal antiviral supliments.

      Don't miss the other articles, like "Vitamins are deadly! ...and other nonsense you will hear in the mainstream press"

      Then I notice the authors bio at the bottom of the page. He's a health nut with thousands of hours of studying nutrition etc etc, and has written all these books, etc, etc, and then:

      In the technology industry, Adams is president and CEO of a well known email marketing software company.

      Yes, thats right, he's a spammer (evidently a very healthy one, but a spammer none-the-less).

      Read it, but keep the BS detector powered up.

  9. Lower your weapons by Mipsalawishus · · Score: 1

    Scenes from Robocop come to mind when the mech unit has a "glitch" and wastes a guy during the demo.

    1. Re:Lower your weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have 20 seconds to comply...

      You now have 15 seconds to comply...

  10. Hey Laserlips, your momma was a snowblower! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Johnny Five unavailable for comment.

  11. ED-209 by Seek_1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Was anyone else really hoping that they'd look something like ED-209?

    1. Re:ED-209 by garwil · · Score: 1

      That would be pretty sweet but that thing couldn't negotiate stairs. Ed-209 had impressive weaponry but was about effective as a Dalek when it came to chasing people up stairs. And all they had was a sink plunger and an egg whisk!

      --
      If ignorance is bliss, knock the smile off my face.
  12. Reminds me of ROBOCOP by vchoy · · Score: 4, Funny

    quote......Robots with weapons mounted on their frames...

    Robot:YOU have 20 seconds to comply
    man: "What the!?!? But wait... I'm friendly..."
    Robot:YOU have 15 seconds to comply
    man: $&$&#%!!!!! Okay okay I have my hands up
    Robot:YOU have 10 seconds to comply
    man: TURN IT OFF!!!
    Robot:5,4,3...

    1. Re:Reminds me of ROBOCOP by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

      Soldier: "So what do we do if it attacks us?"

      Scientist: "Just reach behind you, pick up the big pile of shit and throw it at the robot."

      Soldier: "What if that doesn't stop it?"

      Scientist: "Reach behind once more and grab the bigger pile of shit, this time throw it in its eyes - that'll stop it!"

      Soldier: "Hang on, where is all this shit coming from?"

      Scientist: "It will be there, trust me."

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:Reminds me of ROBOCOP by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 1
      I love that bit of Robocop ; That, and the bad dude that gets acid all over him at the end of the movie, and having his skin fall off.

      Good ol' corny Robocop. :)

  13. What N. Korea in 2010? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Does anyone REALLY think we are going to let N. Korea to continue to exist in it's current regime. By 2010, it will be loaded with nuclear weapons and we might even have a few American cities brought to ground zero from these weapons sold on the black market.

    Please. N Korea is not going to last no more then another year or so. This whole article is a moot point

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:What N. Korea in 2010? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Please. N Korea is not going to last no more then another year or so.

      Uh huh. And pray tell, can you imagine a single scenario in which North Korea is regime-changed without launching its nuclear weapons? Now tell me again if you really want to see North Korea fall so soon.

    2. Re:What N. Korea in 2010? by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      "Does anyone REALLY think we are going to let N. Korea to continue to exist in it's current regime."

      Please define "we". The way I see it, North Korea is China's responsibility. Sanctions against China might convince them to do something about the lunatic Kim Jung Il.

    3. Re:What N. Korea in 2010? by 01000011011101000111 · · Score: 1

      Hmm... The reason IMHO that North Korea still exists and hasn't been flattened by the US is the same reason Taiwan hasn't been flattened by China - it's the protectorate of another superpower (more or less) - USA isn't going to risk war with China, any more than China is going to risk war with the states...

      --
      Programming is an Art. I am an Artist. Does that mean I get to wear a daft hat?
    4. Re:What N. Korea in 2010? by gbdc · · Score: 0, Troll

      Hi George, oops I mean Cheney. Anyways, please wake up, and be content with Iraq mess already.

    5. Re:What N. Korea in 2010? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's because they have a shitload of artillery within range of Seoul. If attacked, they'll level a large city full of our allies.

      Killer robots won't stop them either, unless they can hit shells mid-air.

    6. Re:What N. Korea in 2010? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      They're too far out for even china to reign in... China has a tenious balance at best with the west.. they carefully screen everthing that comes in to keep the "freedom" mojo down. North Korea is like East Germany... The DMZ has to fall.. Then ecomonic chaos will reign for 10 years...the "capitalists" will de facto win, then they just might make it.

      The only politcal gaurantees are that the guys in charge on BOTH sides are going down when it happens... look at how harsly the south deals with students that want some changes and you see it will never happen.

    7. Re:What N. Korea in 2010? by bcrowell · · Score: 1
      Does anyone REALLY think we are going to let N. Korea to continue to exist in it's current regime.
      "We" meaning the U.S.?

      OK, I'll bite. What do you propose doing? Do you realize that Seoul is within range of North Korea's artillery, and they have the capability to turn the whole city into one big pile of slag and rubble? This is a city with a population of 10 million. Basically North Korea is holding Seoul hostage. Any U.S. military strike against North Korea would result in the destruction of Seoul.

      A more realistic approach might be to make some kind of a bargain with China: rein in North Korea, and in return, we won't try to stop you from retaking the renegade province of Taiwan (which, pretty soon, we won't be able to stop them from doing anyway, because of their naval buildup).

    8. Re:What N. Korea in 2010? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it may be best if the North Korean regime remains intact. Imagine if whats happened to Iraq happens to a country which really does have Nukes, then the terrorists will find it easy to get hold of them as there's nobody to guard them. Thing is in a repressive military dictatorship its kind of difficult to steal nuclear weapons. If the northern koreans give/sell them to terrorists, who set one off and then its traced back to North Korea i'm sure north korea won't exist a few minutes after that.

    9. Re:What N. Korea in 2010? by macshit · · Score: 1

      look at how harsly the south deals with students that want some changes and you see it will never happen.

      In fairness though, the students are often every bit as nuts as the police putting them down. I have a friend who went to college in S.Korea, and changing your route to avoid molotov-throwing protestors was apparently just one of those things you did some days.

      In general I get the feeling that subtlety is not a strong point of most Koreans.

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    10. Re:What N. Korea in 2010? by X.25 · · Score: 1

      Does anyone REALLY think we are going to let N. Korea to continue to exist in it's current regime.

      Who is "we"? Gonna solve it the same way Iraqi people were 'freed'?

      As a sidenote - they already have nukes. What makes you think whatever "you" do will make those nukes go away?

      USSR dissolved, but dozens od thousands of nuclear warheads didn't disappear.

      At the end, anyone who understands the concept of "nuclear winter" knows that even crazy Koreans (or crazy Bush, or crazh whoever) won't start nuclear war.

      They have children too...

    11. Re:What N. Korea in 2010? by coopex · · Score: 1

      Do you even know with a certain confidence based on facts that DPRK has nukes? The science and engineering to design one is easy, it's the actual production of weapons grade uranium and plutonium. I think that the government would be doing all it can to prevent such an unstable regime from building nukes. Not to mention that there are at least 51 missiles lost at sea that could be salvaged, as well as buying one off the black market from Russia. The reason I want Bush as president is because the US needs a leader with a powerful image. The USSR and every corrupt regime will only negotiate with countries that they think are strong, and the only corrupt regimes existing today could be destroyed a thousand times over by America's stockpile, so nukes are just a political negotianting tool.

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    12. Re:What N. Korea in 2010? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      They have children too...


      A perfect example in fact. The way N. Korea rations food for the militery rather then it's vast majority of the children in the country side should really tell you how fucked up this country is. Hell, the government would rather have isolation then a free ecconomy to provide better.


      At the end of the day, it's all about the N. Korean regimes purpose to rule and control it's people...at ALL costs...including the lives of children.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    13. Re:What N. Korea in 2010? by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      At the end, anyone who understands the concept of "nuclear winter" knows that even crazy Koreans (or crazy Bush, or crazh whoever) won't start nuclear war.


      Given that Mr. Bush hasn't been able to acknowledge the possibility of "global warming" yet, it's not entirely clear that he understands the concept of "nuclear winter" either.


      Just a thought to brighten up your day....

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    14. Re:What N. Korea in 2010? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. They built several befrore and have been producing more since the 10 February declaration. The rate of production was also increased on 13 March as I recall. It now likely possesses more than 10 nuclear weapons of at least medium ranges. That is adequate to take any location in South Korea and in some areas adequate to take targets in Japan as well. Also the US under this administration has pledged that it will not attack the DPRK; that is unless the Daum agency in South Korea report on Rice's comments was simply disinformation from the US against South Korea as much as North Korea.

    15. Re:What N. Korea in 2010? by SA+Stevens · · Score: 2, Interesting

      'Student' is one of those slippery words, when it comes to underground political organizations.

      If a journalist had walked up to, for instance, the 'students' who occupied the US Embassy in Iran back in the day and asked what said 'students' were studying that quarter, there would have been some blank stares.

      I've been around some of those 'student' political activists on US campuses. I'm certain some of the other people reading this have seen them at work as well.

      The south Korean government is NOT dealing with 'students that want some change.' They're dealing the the same hardened cadre of Pied Pipers that blights the rest of the world's campuses. Just a more militant flavor.

    16. Re:What N. Korea in 2010? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry but Bush is not percieved as a powerful man. 9/11 happened partialy because he was not percieved as being powerful. Just read thru some old newspapers from when he first got into office up until 9/11. He couldn't do a damn thing. Couldn't get anything passed, couldn't get any of his stacked judges elected. Hell he was going to just be a footnote president in history until 9/11 happened (hell he still will be, but his "war on terror" is bout the only thing that will be of note for him which is so strikeingly similar with others like "wars on drugs"). Hell Oprah woulda been percieved as a stronger learder than him.

    17. Re:What N. Korea in 2010? by coopex · · Score: 1

      I only meant Bush as powerful as he was more powerful than Kerry, I'd prefer we had some 200 year old federalist dug up to rule for us. Also, I like opiates. Very much so.

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    18. Re:What N. Korea in 2010? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice arrogant post there. I didnt realise you had the right to destroy nations at a whim. Lets hope N. Korea does not also revoke the right of the US to exist by nuking every city along its west coast, eh?

      Because that US dictator also has thousands of WMD, is a proven violator of human rights and international law, and is a huge threat to the security of the world. Clearly, the case for the destruction of the US is one of the utmost urgency!

    19. Re:What N. Korea in 2010? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      point is that if the SK govt can refuse to consider issues from "militant" students....how the heck can they negotiate with the armed and starving people to the north? They gotta answer the "a-hole" questions the students keep brining up... They have to pick KOREA's side, not the US or China! For any "controlled" merging of north and south, the current govts need to ask the tough questions, piss everybody off, and be willing to walk gracefully away from it when the time is right...

    20. Re:What N. Korea in 2010? by DigiShaman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I'm arrogant, because I'm correct and have the knowledge and intelligence to back it up.

      Second, The US is not based on a dictatorship.

      Third, your attitude is exactly why I defend the USA. And if provoked, I would not hesitate to attack you.

      When freedom and democracy are in danger. MIGHT IS RIGHT to defend it!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    21. Re:What N. Korea in 2010? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not much different than "Dear Leader", are you?

      Know what? Since you two have so much in common(are you him?), I'm glad you're wallowing in a shithole of lunacy. You deserve all the paranoid persecution you can stir up. Good day.

    22. Re:What N. Korea in 2010? by mwlewis · · Score: 1

      No, they really are students. South Korean students have demonstrations like American students have keg parties.

      --
      JOIN US FOR PONG!
    23. Re:What N. Korea in 2010? by coopex · · Score: 1

      What evidence do you have for DPRK's nuclear program? Did you defect, are you in the intelligence community? Are you an international arms dealer? Are you an eccentric billionaire that's salvaged a nuke off the sea and sold it to them? It's quite a difficult task to create weapons grade uranium/plutonium so extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    24. Re:What N. Korea in 2010? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite difficult and complex in 1945, at first, marginally difficult in 1949 for fission, and then 1952 for fusion at first, again marginally difficult in 1953. North Korea signed but later withdrew from the NPT, had facilities that before inspection were unknown to other nations, and has the motivation. Refusal of support from China could not prevent all transfer of information from North Korea as the quick transfer from the US to its constant enemy of the CCCP took only 4 and 1 years respectively. Evidence: the sharp spike in seismic detectors that at the time was excused internationally as large conventional explosion last September. Very different IR when weapons are there. Politically required as threats to its sovereignty were made by a power with more troops than they had. The US did the same against the CCCP for the same reason, what makes you believe it would be different response now from any nation?

  14. Robot Apocalypse of Nature is one step closer by idonotexist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The DMZ is a wildlife paradise --- hopefully the wildlife is not extinguished by armedbots because the wildlife merely moves throughout the DMZ. I would like to see the armedbots recognize the difference between human and animal before going robocop.

    --
    "There ought to be limits to freedom"
    1. Re:Robot Apocalypse of Nature is one step closer by servognome · · Score: 4, Funny

      I would like to see the armedbots recognize the difference between human and animal before going robocop.
      If it's anything like most engineers' experience with technology development...
      The original proposal was for a fully functional AI that could positively identify the target type, the threat level, and respond appropriately. It would include lethal and non-lethal force responses for enemy targets, as well as not disturb civilians or wildlife that wander through the area. The AI would require a team of 30 engineers and 16 months to fully develop and test.
      But of course to save on costs, management decided to go with a simpler and cheaper AI they feel will meet the customer's needs: "If it moves, kill it"

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    2. Re:Robot Apocalypse of Nature is one step closer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But of course to save on costs, management decided to go with a simpler and cheaper AI they feel will meet the customer's needs: "If it moves, kill it"

      Then they outsourced it to North Koreans, who would work for food and national pride.

    3. Re:Robot Apocalypse of Nature is one step closer by Armadni+General · · Score: 0, Funny

      The DMZ is also currently one of the most tense places on Earth. When two nations, one with the backing of the United States, and one with nuclear weapons, are on the brink of war with millions of lives at stake, there's no room for your environmentalist prattle.

    4. Re:Robot Apocalypse of Nature is one step closer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the instance of the DMZ you are perhaps correct that environmentalism has less value for humans than preserving the tenuous balance that prevents fall into either north invasion or south invasion and death of millions either way; this point however, does have a limit due to scope. Larger environmentalism, so far as model supported, has the capacity for preservation of billions of lives and in that instance any millions for a loss would be acceptable. That is fortunately not the case here, so there is no problem-I only wished to qualify the sentiment of the comment that you made.

    5. Re:Robot Apocalypse of Nature is one step closer by izomiac · · Score: 1

      Great, now all someone has to do is get one of those clay pigeon launchers and keep launching until the thing runs out of ammo. You could even take bets on how often it hits the pigeon. Of course, any civilian that wanted to walk upto the shoot-anything-that-moves killing machine, well... I think I'd chalk that up to natural selection.

    6. Re:Robot Apocalypse of Nature is one step closer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well sure, if you ignore the big freaking minefield...

    7. Re:Robot Apocalypse of Nature is one step closer by NanoGator · · Score: 0, Troll

      "The DMZ is a wildlife paradise --- hopefully the wildlife is not extinguished by armedbots because the wildlife merely moves throughout the DMZ. I would like to see the armedbots recognize the difference between human and animal before going robocop."

      They weren't terribly clear on this topic, but they don't actually say anywhere that these robots would actually go rolling around looking for targets. Frankly, I can't imagine they'd be anything but stationary. (1 - 2km visual range?)

      In that case, some animals may die, but they'll learn quickly not to hang around there. I'll be honest, though, I don't expect this to go live without human interaction. They'll probably be set up with a dude sitting in a shelter somewhere watching video feeds and responding to alarms.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    8. Re:Robot Apocalypse of Nature is one step closer by qualico · · Score: 1

      lol, that is so acute!

      Now how about that wildlife consumption?

    9. Re:Robot Apocalypse of Nature is one step closer by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 2, Funny

      I resent your remarks...

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
    10. Re:Robot Apocalypse of Nature is one step closer by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Anything discharging firearms indiscriminately is going to cause a massive conflict.

      Think about it. If either side hears gunfire in the DMZ, and either side doesn't realize it's an automated device terminating a deer or bird, you run the risk of drawing both sides quickly into a conventional conflict.

    11. Re:Robot Apocalypse of Nature is one step closer by Surur · · Score: 1

      After it happens for the twentieth time I think no one will care any more.

      Surur

      --
      Information is the location of things. Computation is moving things around.
    12. Re:Robot Apocalypse of Nature is one step closer by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not NK and SK arn't blood thirsty for war against eachother. NK would much rather attack Japan with its nukes. NK considers SK its people. They of course do want to take over SK, to "unify the country". Many of the SK also want to unify the country, initially the south was willing to roll over to NK communism untill the US stepped in an stopped them. I've personally been told by a SK that the only thing they fear from the north is an economic collape that would send millions of refugees flooding into the south.

    13. Re:Robot Apocalypse of Nature is one step closer by mxyzpltk · · Score: 1

      > The original proposal was for a fully functional AI that could positively identify the target type, the threat level, and respond appropriately. It would include lethal and non-lethal force responses for enemy targets...

      So, ED-209, then?

    14. Re:Robot Apocalypse of Nature is one step closer by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      I just tend to wonder how long anything would last in the DMZ. I mean, it IS a free-fire zone ... how many minutes will it be out there before some NK border guards decide to use it for target practice? The DMZ isn't that wide, you can pretty much shoot anything inside it from the edges (where hopefully the robot wouldn't be programmed to shoot into, lest it start a war). And low tech as they may be, I'm sure the North has anti-tank (anti-robot?) missiles or rockets somewhere.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    15. Re:Robot Apocalypse of Nature is one step closer by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      He IS a clay pigeon you insensitive clod!

  15. Still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looking for Sarah Connor are we? ::dumdum dum-dumdum, dum dum dum-dum-dum, dum...::

    1. Re:Still... by chris234 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      We need a new moderation level, "inane movie reference".

  16. Nobody has posted it in the thread yet... by Anne+Honime · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... but I wonder if sharks with laser beams attached to their heads wouldn't be an ideal device along armed robots to guard the coasts while robots care of the land.

    1. Re:Nobody has posted it in the thread yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In case sharks are unavailable, we have a supply of ill-tempered mutated sea bass on standby.

    2. Re:Nobody has posted it in the thread yet... by coopex · · Score: 1

      That's Chilean sea bass, there's the only kind that are ill-tempered enough,

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    3. Re:Nobody has posted it in the thread yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you already forget about Roboshark?

  17. 2010? by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If the ROKs are planning on deploying these things by 2010, count on events having made their plans obsolete. The regime in Pyongyang is tottering, while the military balance of power continues to slide ever more in favor of wealthy South Korea.

    A better bet is that by 2010, the principal problem on the Korean peninsula will not be the brittle truce between the two regimes, but the economic crisis caused by South Korea inheriting the crumbling husk to their north. That's a lot of mouths to feed.

    Those robots, assuming the project isn't abandoned, will more likely be guarding the border with China instead.

    --
    "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    1. Re:2010? by Enoch+Root · · Score: 1

      You're awfully optimistic if you think South Korea will reunify with the North by 2010.

      The North wants it with Kim Il Song in place; the South have seen Berlin and know how it would crush their economy for a decade; Japan and China don't want a reunified peninsula if it means the US will do the rebuilding.

    2. Re:2010? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean Kim Jung Il and then later, his own son

  18. meee meeeee meeeee mee mee meee by Subliminal+Fusion · · Score: 1

    Cartman: "meee meeeee meeeee mee mee meee"

    Stan: "Did you get it?"

    Cartman: "Hold on, I'm checking for robot guards. - meee meee meee meeee meee mee"

    Stan: "THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY ROBOT GUARDS, RETARD, JUST GET KENNY"

    Robot Guard: "beeep beep, meee meeeee meeeee mee mee meee"

    1. Re:meee meeeee meeeee mee mee meee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually kyle said that not stan :-P

    2. Re:meee meeeee meeeee mee mee meee by Subliminal+Fusion · · Score: 1

      I was posting from memory, but here's a source that agrees with me:

      http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/GuidePageServ let/showid-344/epid-207846/

      ERIC: *takes out a device and waves it around* Beep, Beep, Beep, Beep!
      KYLE: What the hell are you doing, fat ass?
      ERIC: I'm searching for robot guards.
      STAN: There won't be any robot guards, you retard! Now get that urn and we can leave!
      ERIC: *looks at Stan and takes the urn. He climbs out of the window*
      *Afterwards, a robot appears*
      ROBOT: Beep, beep, Beep, beep!

  19. Um... what? by Man+in+Spandex · · Score: 1

    The robots were tested with larger .50 caliber machine guns as well as rocket and grenade launchers.

    Isn't this solution a _little_ extreme? I think the koreans had a few too many hollywood action movies. Seriously fuck this is real life, not a simulation. Sure lets build robots instead of trying to cooperate. Now I am aware of how hostile those two nations are but I mean comon, once both sides have robots, what next? It will get worse before it gets better and I'm sure thats no surprise to slashdotters.

    1. Re:Um... what? by Strenoth · · Score: 2, Informative

      That would be the robots in Iraq were tested with those weapons. By us. This is merely part of what gave S. Korea the idea to use robots themselves.

      --

      "It takes a very long time to count to 2 in binary." ~'Fourlegged'

    2. Re:Um... what? by forkazoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      I dunno... If I had an army of killer robots, I think a lot of people would learn to cooperate with me.

    3. Re:Um... what? by servognome · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now I am aware of how hostile those two nations are but I mean comon, once both sides have robots, what next?
      Bigger robots

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    4. Re:Um... what? by Ernesto+Alvarez · · Score: 1

      Oh, man. Had you posted that 3 days ago, I would have modded you +1 insightful.

    5. Re:Um... what? by Andy+Gardner · · Score: 1

      what next?

      Obviously a couple hundred of these with a .50 cal machinegun and rpg upgrade!

      .........Of course they will have to tarmac over the DMZ so the mecha's can walk (read 'shuffle/slide') about...

      For anyone who missed it a slashdot article from a couple of days ago

    6. Re:Um... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The aim is probably to allow American military R&D dollars to help South Korea develop their robots and simultaneuously bankrupt North Korea by forcing them to join in a robot arms race they can't afford.

      risky if ...

      "Today on planet Earth, WWIII kicked off due a 'glitch' in Windows. Microsoft patches can be downloaded from Bill's orbiting platform".

    7. Re:Um... what? by cpghost · · Score: 1

      Bigger robots

      Robots running Linux?

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    8. Re:Um... what? by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      If I had posted it three days before the story was posted, you probably would have needed to mod me off-topic! :)

  20. What will they look like? by cy_a253 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Man, if the robots patrolling the border look anything like that forget about N. Korea ever messing with S. Korea again.

    But no. They'll probably look like trash cans on wheels with poles sticking out.

    1. Re:What will they look like? by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      They'll probably look like trash cans on wheels with poles sticking out.

      Dr. Who won't be far behind.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    2. Re:What will they look like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately Austria has nothing to worry about.

  21. Useless anyway by jaymzter · · Score: 1

    Everyone knows the DPRK uses tunnels anyway. At least robots can stand up to the axe attacks better.

    --
    If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
  22. I, for one... by i_will_frag_u_all · · Score: 0

    I for one am a little cautious about what people could do with such robotic power. "Oops, we ordered our robots to attack their's. Oh, it was a technical faliure!" Sometime, something's going to go wrong there. And it might be the robots that do it. It might be microsoft as well...

    1. Re:I, for one... by Compulawyer · · Score: 1
      Well, I for one welcome our new robotic protectors / overlords.

      Sorry, it had to be said.

      --

      Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.

    2. Re:I, for one... by Joe123456 · · Score: 0

      Comeing soon windows skynet

  23. Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Build a robot with quantum logic and a spin of 1/2. Duh.

  24. Good Timing on Announcement by [cx] · · Score: 1

    Gives the North Koreans a good 5 years to make robots of their own, or just make some good magnetic weaponry that can disable robots from a satellite or from a plane flying overhead.

    North Korea is far crazier than South Korea, they are extreme about control, no doubt this "consideration" is either an attempt to bait them or a bad leak.

    [cx]

    1. Re:Good Timing on Announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the North Koreans getting hold of the manual and finding where the off button is!

    2. Re:Good Timing on Announcement by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      As the U.S. learned from the history of the Soviets, if you drive your people in economic oppression and starvation for long enough, soon enough, you will no longer be in power. GWB and our US policymakers are hoping Stalism will repeat itself in NK.

    3. Re:Good Timing on Announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the current USA economy, the Bushies may very well learn that lesson refers to them as well.

  25. 'social ethics' & warfare by xiaomonkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder how the 'social ethics' warfare will be effected by using autonomous robotic soldiers.

    On one hand the people of a country using such robots could become less apposed to using military force against another country. That is, no longer will your son/daughter/friends be put in harms way.

    However, for the people in the country being attacked, such machines would probably be seen as monstrous cold killing machines. Something that accidentally below away your 6 year old since it confused him/her for an enemy combatant.

    1. Re:'social ethics' & warfare by 01000011011101000111 · · Score: 1

      The 6yro would be easily explained - "Glitch, it's the software contractors fault" goes the gov't, "DoD contract, we can't be held liable - gov't's fault" goes the Software house, Poor person gets screwed as per usual...

      --
      Programming is an Art. I am an Artist. Does that mean I get to wear a daft hat?
    2. Re:'social ethics' & warfare by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      So at some point an army of robots would be a "weapon of mass destruction"...

      once it's classified like that "guerilla tactics" are OK to take it out..it's the only option when you have to win all-the-way and first. By george's own definition our american revolution was "terrorist"... and at the time they were treated as such by the British

      But you're right, the US in particular is way to bloodthristy, and way to used to "war by proxy"... Bush is the poster-child for that line of thinking and he's sitting on the most powerful army in the world...

    3. Re:'social ethics' & warfare by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I wonder how the 'social ethics' warfare will be effected by using autonomous robotic soldiers.

      Such as no cheap batteries for roboPOWs and no turning them into vibrators?

    4. Re:'social ethics' & warfare by coopex · · Score: 1

      The "bloodthirsty" US tried being isolationist and letting the rest of the world do what they want, but that didn't quite work out, so now if we want to live peacefully, we have to fix the problems caused by others. (specifically, europe as in most all of africa, vietnam - the french, stopping germany's attempts at world domination, stopping the soviets)

      If you have an arguement that convincingly makes war unnecessarily and is pragmatic, I would be glad to hear it. I did wear a costume peace sign though two years of high school.

      Hoping to hear from you.

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    5. Re:'social ethics' & warfare by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's long past time for us to really bring our armies home. Most of the places we've been involved in the last 100 years have been strictly for american corporations, often going directly against the democratically elceted govts whey they told us off. The mess south of the boarder is directly our doing! "our" dictators have killed more people than the "commies" dictators have. The more old news I read, outside the USA the US acts very evil toward people...if we don't straighten up the "arabs" are the least of our worries.

      scary to say, but we need to keep americans at home more... It's the only card we have against the multi-nationals. We value "corperate" rights over the individual rights of people all over the world. Why do thing Iraq is getting "freedom" but the very basics of OUR freedoms they don't get..unions, free trade, etc.. they're being farmed as "serfs" We've conveniently not overturned some of Saddam's more "dictatorlike" laws because the military thinks their convenient. ..soon we'll be in another bad situation again. the world has things to sort out...and we need our noze out of it. Otherwise we become everybody's target. Unless we seriously change our ways we will be the bad guys of the next war!!!

    6. Re:'social ethics' & warfare by coopex · · Score: 1

      >Most of the places we've been involved in the last 100 years have been strictly for american corporations, often going directly against the democratically elceted govts whey they told us off. Major US conflicts 1905-2005 WWI: stopping german agression WW2: stopping german agression Korean War: stopping communist agression Vietnam: fixing France's screwup/stopping communist agression Gulf War: stopping Iraqi agression >The mess south of the boarder is directly our doing! "our" dictators have killed more people than the "commies" dictators have 13 million killed by Stalin, 11 million by Mao http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html As I said in the original post, the US has tried being isolationist, and it has failed in 1917, 1939, and god knows what would have happened if we'd tried being isolationist against communism. It's nice to know that on slashdot you still don't need facts, you can just use emotional agruements.

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  26. Honestly.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was more hoping for AWESOME-O

  27. Re:The only question that matters to me is... by finker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You might be joking, or you might be serious, but let me take a stand for a minute and ask a serious question: Why is that the only thing that matters to you? And, please, if you're going to reply with "LOL OMG BSOD WILL KILL SOMEONE ROFL," save yourself the trouble and refrain from doing so. I'm very curious why you, and a number of other people, think that the only thing important is if a piece of technology runs Linux or not.

  28. Re:MOD PARENT DIAGONALLY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The parent is an obvious troll. >:(

  29. Some things I believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I try not to believe all the propaganda that is being thrust at me. I try to evaluate the facts from as many sources as I can. Most Americans would think of me as an extreme pinko commie. I can easily find the good points about Fidel Castro.

    North Korea is being run by a nut case. I can't find anything good to say about 'our dear leader' (do I have the father and son mixed up here?) South Korea has very good reason to worry about North Korea. I think it's a fine idea to kill anything that moves in the dmz. It's a great place to test killer robots.

    North Korea is like China's rabid, barely controlled dog that should have been put out of its misery long ago.

    Now that I've got that off my chest, I think I'll smoke a nice Cuban cigar while I stare lovingly at the poster of my hero Noam Chomsky.

    OK maybe I exageraged a bit for dramatic effect. You get the picture though.

    1. Re:Some things I believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear leader is the sun. Great leader is the father. And that is a whole other ball of crazy.

      Imagine growing up in a world where you didn't have any food, let alone electricity, and had to thank George W Bush for providing the sunshine that made flowers grow, and your schooling consisted of how to inform on your parents (which would result in 3 generations of your family, and your neighbors being tortured to death, you included), and how George Bush senior made the US out of whole cloth and singlehandedly defeating the Japanese with his Dragonball Z superpowers. And EVERYONE believe every single word of it.

  30. "rock-in-fence" defence by Zapraki · · Score: 1
    "Some of the fences have rocks stuck into gaps, so that if the fence is bumped they will be dislodged and show possible intrusion. But there are no electric fences, nor electronic sensors and surveillance cameras."
    So, let me get this straight... Right now, they have rocks stuck into gaps that fall out when somebody bumps the fence?

    Ya, how about building a better fence before going about constructing autonomous killer mechs. Although they would be a lot cooler...

    1. Re:"rock-in-fence" defence by Andy+Gardner · · Score: 1

      So wait, they use a high tech system of...... rocks...... to repair their fences.

      Well obviously the logical progression would be to implement a network of autonomous robots controlled by a computerised surveilance system. My only concern is if they have enough rocks to build this perfectly plausable system......

  31. Re:The only question that matters to me is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the DMZ, you run!

  32. IFF by GuyMannDude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Remote-control sounds fine, but automatically? Do we have software capable of reliably distingushing between a civilian and an enemy combatant (at least as well as a human soldier can, anyway...)?

    Well, no, but that wouldn't be necessary. I'm sure the robots would use some form of Identification Friend or Foe [IFF] method. I'm not saying those arne't foolproof but that doesn't really require any type of automatic target recognition (ATR) or image recognition software.

    Note, I'm not saying that IFF makes these robots a great idea. I'm just pointing out that the idea isn't completely idiotic.

    GMD

    1. Re:IFF by coopex · · Score: 1

      In regards to your sig, what about discrete mathematicians?

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    2. Re:IFF by swillden · · Score: 1

      In regards to your sig, what about discrete mathematicians?

      They do it discreetly.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:IFF by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      An excellent point. Something which I don't think is discussed enough, especially in relation to the (IMO lame) arguments over Predator drones, is that aircraft shoot at each other all the time when there is no possible way of observation except through some equipment-mediated method.


      With over-the-horizion air-to-air missiles, satellite-guided bombs, and long range artillery, there are lots of situations where a human being can be there at the weapon pulling the trigger and have the exact same knowledge that someone in a bunker 5,000 miles away might have. And quite possibly less. And quite certainly they're a lot more distracted/frustrated/tired/sweaty than someone who's entire job that day is to fly the [bomb/drone/artillery shell] to its target on a computer screen.


      With the exception of infantry and special operations units, who still get to meet their enemies up-close and personal on a regular basis, many groups of warriors on the modern battlefield never see their adversaries with the naked eye, and hunt, engage, and destroy them through the intermediary of a computer or other electronic viewer. UAVs, taking one example, just take the wire between the camera/sensor on the outside of the aircraft (i.e. the FLIR) and the pilot's display, and extend it from 15' or so, to a few thousand miles. The decision is still being made the same way.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    4. Re:IFF by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      In regards to your sig, what about discrete mathematicians?

      They do it discreetly.
      And don't forget constipated mathematicians - they work it out by hand with a pencil.
  33. Philip K. Dick by tsch · · Score: 1

    So who else out there's read "The Second Variety"?

    No one in Korea? Hm...Maybe we should send them a copy.

  34. Well... by 50m31sl4sh. · · Score: 1

    Do they run ...?

    Imagine ...



    ... nevermind.

    --
    Rediculous is ridiculous!
  35. You, sir, are deluding yourself. by Faust7 · · Score: 1

    Please. N Korea is not going to last no more then another year or so.

    They seem to have persisted pretty strongly these last few decades. Yes, they're the last Stalinist regime, propped up by foreign aid since they lack the resources or desire to take care of their own... but they have the one thing that will prevent an unprovoked invasion: weapinzamassdestrukshin. Anyone attacks, South Korea and Japan are dust. Which are unacceptable losses.

    1. Re:You, sir, are deluding yourself. by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it's simply a matter of waiting. The N. Korean government is killing off their own population. It's a war of attrition, and they're pretty much contained.

  36. hmm by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

    I guess that's one way to keep people in your boarders.. set all robots to kill and go "you're now a citizen, try and leave and your plane gets targeted by the new MS-07B, good day sir".

    --
    I like muppets.
  37. Dude, have you been watching the news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By 2010, it will be loaded with nuclear weapons

    Will be loaded?

  38. Hackers? by Gamzarme · · Score: 0

    I just hope North Korea doesn't have very good hackers within it's borders to take over the bots.

    --
    Pat
  39. The Sentinels! by YeEntrancemperium · · Score: 1

    Master Mold is going to take over the Earth.

  40. EMP? by dshaw858 · · Score: 1

    I know it's stuff out of sci-fi movies, but wouldn't a large electromagnetic pulse render the robots useless, leaving the DMZ wide open to a foreign military?

    - dshaw

    1. Re:EMP? by 01000011011101000111 · · Score: 1

      Such as the one created by a Nuclear Airburst perhaps? Good think the N. Koreans aren't working on nucl... oh wait...

      --
      Programming is an Art. I am an Artist. Does that mean I get to wear a daft hat?
    2. Re:EMP? by rebelcool · · Score: 1

      EMP can be shielded pretty easily. Most military-grade electronics are shielded. After all, it wouldnt do to have the very planes that drop nuclear bombs fall out of the sky when their payload detonates...

      One of the things I thought about when i first saw the matrix was, what, they forgot how to shield EMP in the next 200 years?

      --

      -

    3. Re:EMP? by imsabbel · · Score: 2, Informative

      EMP works well against electronics, but NOT as well as oceans 11 makes people believe :)

      To make a long story short: If the robots are even lightly shielded against emp, you would need to bring it so close that you could just use a normal bomb and get similar results.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    4. Re:EMP? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

      Shit, and here I though Ocean's 11 was a realistic, well-researched movie. Well, looks like that trip I was planning to Vegas is called off...

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    5. Re:EMP? by scheme · · Score: 1
      Such as the one created by a Nuclear Airburst perhaps? Good think the N. Koreans aren't working on nucl... oh wait...

      Look, if it gets to the point where North Korea uses a nuclear airburst then the robots or any other forces are useless. North Korea would toss a few nukes at the west coast, Alaska, and Hawaii as well as Japan and reduced Seoul to rubble with artillery before it uses a nuke to create an emp.

      If that's the case then any forces at the border are going to get destroyed and South Korea and the US are falling back to regroup and launch a counterattack on the DPRK forces.

      --
      "When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
    6. Re:EMP? by UlfGabe · · Score: 1

      emp is disabled by any sort of metallic shielding around the outside of electronics, this is called a faraday cage, and to be 100% effective no part of the electronic can be exposed to the outside EM field,

      due to the skin effect, the potential difference between the skin on the outside(the cage in this case) is equal to the potential differnce inside the cage, both are zero.

      emp is easy to defeat if you enclose something in metal(tinfoil anyone?) but hardening electronics is something different entirely, and explains why the shuttle still uses computers from 1980's

      --
      Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
    7. Re:EMP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EMP might be easy to defeat but I guarantee the blast wave from a nuclear bomb will easily destroy those robots. Since non-nuclear EMP devices have a maximum range of a few hundred feet at best a nuclear explosion would be the only way to generate an EMP large enough to do what they want.

  41. The Terrible Secret of Space by mazarin5 · · Score: 3, Funny

    How are they going to push anybody down from 2 miles away?

    --
    Fnord.
    1. Re:The Terrible Secret of Space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This reference should never die. +1 Funny

  42. Cries heard along the DMZ... by stubear · · Score: 0

    "Number 5 is alive, Number 5 is alive".

    1. Re:Cries heard along the DMZ... by 01000011011101000111 · · Score: 1

      Ahh... that would be the church of the new epo^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H North Koreans and their electric whips then?

      --
      Programming is an Art. I am an Artist. Does that mean I get to wear a daft hat?
  43. they got gypped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the problem with military spending: their circles are built by the lowest bidder.

  44. Starcraft is their specialty by Sebadude · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...South Korean Zergling Rush?

    --
    Eh.
    1. Re:Starcraft is their specialty by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1
      ...South Korean Zergling Rush?

      KIM: kekekeke DPRK rush ^_^

      ROK: no fair we said 60 yrs no rush

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
  45. Windows by soniCron88 · · Score: 0, Troll

    God, I hope these robots aren't running Windows...

    1. Re:Windows by 01000011011101000111 · · Score: 1

      Hey, look on the bright side - M$ already control most of the world's machines - this would just be their method of ensuring you adhere to the EULA... (And I really want to play with the security holes - First I'll crack myself into an army, then I'll dDos the other side... Victory is Mine!)

      --
      Programming is an Art. I am an Artist. Does that mean I get to wear a daft hat?
    2. Re:Windows by Flamekebab · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Will they suffer from spam?
      More importantly, will we still have to deal with people forgetting to pay for another year of Norton Anti-virus updates?

      *Blam blam blam dakka dakka dakka*
      Oops.. I knew there was something we forgot to update..

  46. Re:Insert skynet comments here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The Korean Armed Robots Bill = The K.A.R.B

    In Korea, robots smoke you!

  47. Why you are a moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    30 seconds into the war with North Korea Seoul will be under the most awesome (in the very bad sense) artillery display the world has ever seen. A million civilians will be dead in the first minutes of the war.

    So basically the options are:

    a surpise all or nothing submarine launched premtive all out nuclear strike on all North Korean assets. The fallout from which will kill at least tens of thousands koreans, and chinese.

    wait for north korea to start a war out of desperation

    Peace, the price of which is essentially writing off the more or less innocent but indoctrinated North Korean populace.

    1. Re:Why you are a moron. by Whyte · · Score: 1

      "Why you are a moron."

      With the grandparent's opinion, the significance of Bush's National Missile Defense Network and analog air- and space-based counterparts have a more prophetic purpose. Right or wrong, he isn't alone in sharing this viewpoint. Missile Defense technology could introduce the post-post-MAD age. Such a development has been long predicted, even if the technology isn't a proven fact today.

      --
      -- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
    2. Re:Why you are a moron. by coopex · · Score: 1

      Informative? Man, I gotta get the name of the moderators brand of crack. It took 3 years of the most devistating attack on a city (Stalingrad) by the most powerful army ever to kill 2 million. North Korea barely has power to light all of its people, Germany is the second largest economic power. How exactly is the DPRK going to do anything of note in history?

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    3. Re:Why you are a moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      err correct me if i'm wrong, but when exactly has any of these actually stopped the u.s. military from intervention?

      the actual reason, which you tactfully fail to include, is that there is no oil there with the addtion that china is too close

    4. Re:Why you are a moron. by tftp · · Score: 1
      It took 3 years of the most devistating attack on a city (Stalingrad) by the most powerful army ever to kill 2 million.

      You have your dates slightly wrong. "The Stalingrad Battle lasted 200 days and nights - since July, 17 of 1942 up to February, 2 of 1943." - here The Soviet Army lost 1.1 million over all this time.

    5. Re:Why you are a moron. by Whyte · · Score: 1

      "The Stalingrad Battle lasted 200 days and nights..."

      Also keep in mind that July 17, 1942 wasn't the first time Stalingrad was attacked. It was only the beginning of a military offensive within the context of a larger campaign.

      --
      -- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
    6. Re:Why you are a moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Aside from modern military being far more effective. I think I should point out that Howitzers run on gunpowder and Calories not electricity. Also, Seoul has ~10 million people, all of whom are completely dependant on very reliable city services. To say nothing of chemical and biological weapons deliverable from the more than 10,000 North Korean artillery pieces.

      But don't take my word for it, listen to the South Koreans:
      "If North Korea's long-range artillery are fired, some 25,000 shells per hour would rain down and destroy one third of Seoul within one hour," opposition lawmaker Park Jin said at a parliamentary audit last week, citing a recent defense report.
    7. Re:Why you are a moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, I bet one of the big laments of the Chinese communists is that they helped out Great Leader, crazy bastard he turned out to be.

      The oil itself is a ruse. Haliburton doesn't make money off oil. They make money by selling reliability of availability. Uncertainty and shortage makes what they sell more valuable. And just look at oil industry consolidation. They merged conglomerates, and bought up independant refineries, then closed them for "modernization" and to "control costs". They planned to make a cartel, because they knew that if it was small enough, they wouldn't actually have to coordinate their plans. Their "competitors" would naturally follow suit, creating a shortage and raising margins along with prices. Thank god I bought a variety of oil stocks.

    8. Re:Why you are a moron. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I totally agree. But to not do something is simply not an option. No one likes war, not even me. But I'm also not going to blind myself with the realities that we are all having to deal with regardless.

      Like most of slashdot (based on how I was modded), I'm either seen as nutjob or someone induced with peranoia. But official news in regards to Al-Qaida looking for a nuke only adds more weight to my logical fears. The problem isn't with ICBMs like in the cold war. The problem is a nuke smuggled in and driven to a city with the device laying in the back seat of a van or SUV.

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7446744

      So what do you suggest we do as Americans? Should we really wait for such a horrific act to happen only to THEN deal with the issue. I can only imagine the total ecconomic collaps and further errosion of our freedoms in exchange for a false sense of security. Not to mention the least of the untold lives that would be lost.

      One thing is for sure, Bush will be burned at the stake. If he sits back and do nothing, or invades. However, the fact Bush doesn't give a damn about world opinion of him in favor for American national security really does make me respect this man. Regardless of what personal and corporate motives he has, his actions really speak of general concern. So far, he and this administration seem to be doing a good job. But again....so far. The tables just might turn on him and America for the worst if we are not carefull.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    9. Re:Why you are a moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, here's how I see it.

      The North Koreans aren't really crazy. It how they handle diplomacy. If they weren't always on the brink of war of causing WWIII, they'd be less relevant than Liberia. They act crazy, and because we're rational, we have to take them seriously, even if we basically know they're not crazy.

      The nuclear weapons (and thanks republican congress for crapping on national security, AGAIN) would stay in North Korea at least until their government implodes. With those they can demand more economic aid, and force the US to sit at the table. The North Korean leadership doesn't want war with the US. They probably did a little before 1991. Then came Kosovo, and then came Iraq the revenge. Each time they've seen our military capabilities take MASSIVE leaps forward while theirs has stayed the same or perhaps even diminished. With nuclear weapons, they seek to use economic pressure from China, Japan, South Korea, to force the US to end the Korean war an provide some sort of iron clad assurance of North Korean security.

      If one got out, no matter how much they got for selling it, even if the US can't prove it was them, WWIII just got REALLY cheap. It's already here. (I don't think they fully understand how serious it would be. If LA went up in a mushroom cloud, I think it would pretty much be open season on all Muslims everywhere and the North Koreans, and Cuba just to be sure. Even a nuclear weapon Kiefer'd to an unpopulated area would probably have a majority of Americans calling for the extermination of all our enemies on general principle.) Either way, they're at the top of the list and they know it.

      I think, if we're willing to turn our backs on all the innocent North Koreans, and just let them be exterminated, and spend a few tens of billion putting some form of sustainable economy together in North Korea, we can buy a lasting stable peace. It's evil, and it may or may not be lessor, but I think that it's undenibly cheaper than the other options.

      Honestly, I think the only real problem facing American national security is religious nationalism in all it's forms. McVeigh to Bin Laden. I think it's a problem with a solution. Their similar to the North Koreans in some respects. The difference is the North Koreans know where that line is, and they want to be right up on it, to hold our attention, but they NEVER want to cross it. And the current power of their brutal stalinist regime makes this possible, and to an extent reliable. With the religious extremists, they want to cross the line. That's their end game. But they do make implicit assumptions with their strategy, that they require to threaten the US. The first and foremost is that we are always going to be more reasonable than they. They know that our position in the world demands that we act reliably (which is really what pisses off the foreign leaders if not people when it comes to Bush.)

      That said, it's not like problems like these have never come up. Gengis Khan solved them well. Conquer the people you would work with, annihilate everything else. And while it's not the happy face we prefer, it's not like this isn't a fundemental facet of American history. Witness the extermination of the Native American nations in the name of "manifest destiny", or Sherman's march. I think it's a part of the American character. A cultural willingness to accept "scorched earth as a last resort" where peace cannot be had is probably one of the root causes of why the US is so ahead of the curve on violence statistics.

      That said, render their assumption false. Slaughter the muslims dispassionately like any other conquered people who resisted throughout history. Use the most effective tools including biological and chemical weapons. Kill everyone, until those that have mannaged to survive don't care about anything, not even their God or dignity, but seeing tomorrow. If they're willing to accept something so horribly unacceptable like the 'reservations' or forced conversion to another,

    10. Re:Why you are a moron. by coopex · · Score: 1

      Ah, I was thinking of Leningrad, my mistake.

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    11. Re:Why you are a moron. by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      I'm far more worried about some group of politicians in Washington getting the bright idea that they could smuggle in a nuke and set it off, then blame the terrorists for the attack. What better excuse for imposing martial law across the country and stripping the populace of the few freedoms they still have? How many Americans would refuse to even consider the possibility that members of their own government were responsible for the attack, and would blindly support the "New Order" no matter what sort of heinous activity it engaged in?

      If a nuke goes off I'm much more likely to believe that the culprits are Americans sitting in Washington dreaming of dictatorship than a bunch of unwashed religious fanatics from the Middle East.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    12. Re:Why you are a moron. by 01000011011101000111 · · Score: 1

      Especially given the old suitcase nukes the russians "lost" - how many got bought by the NSA for "safe keeping"?

      --
      Programming is an Art. I am an Artist. Does that mean I get to wear a daft hat?
  48. Neat... by Jack+Johnson · · Score: 1
    As soon as I read the article, Gasaraki came to mind.

    I'd like to know more about the "aEgis robots" mentioned in the article. I wonder if this is a spinoff of the Aegis naval weapons system (Some kind of super-duper anti-air targeting/firing system) technology that US/Lockheed sold to S.Korea a few years ago?

    South Korean troops deployed in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil used two aEgis robots mounted with rifles between November 2004 and February 2005 for surveillance, along with mine-detonating robots.

    Sounds cool. Personally, I hope these Aegis robots look something like this.

    1. Re:Neat... by FuturePastNow · · Score: 1

      Here it is. Sorry to disappoint you, but it's basically a motorized tripod with a machine gun and an infrared camera on it. No relation to the Navy's Aegis system or to anime.

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
  49. Uh, fellas, you should know what to do... by dimplemonkey · · Score: 1

    I mean after all, it was laid out pretty clearly! Just go to the Skynet labs, retrieve the robot arm and futuristic chip, blow the whole building to smithereens, then throw the pieces (along with futuristic robot companion) into the vat of molten steel. Now the future of humanity will be spared. Boy, you guys are so freakin' stupid!

  50. A mine that moves... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is still just a mine. The Navy's been using "smart" mines for years that use IFF and programmed sonar signatures to detect, track, and release a torpedo at a ship from a static mine. No BS.

    It was only a matter of time for someone to put wheels on the concept.

  51. I just lost the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn.

  52. Ha! Yah right, they're too busy playing starcraft by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 2, Funny

    South Koreans don't have time to build robots, every single one of them is sitting in front of a PC clicking 100,000 times per second to become a starcraft champion.

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
  53. Hey hippy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You can't build a robot out of prayers for dear leader. It takes industry. South Korea has a monopoly on that.

  54. DIY by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1, Troll

    They should just use a bunch of pissed off ex-prisoners freed from North Korean captivity.

    Really, why does the US perpetuate the Korean stalemate that has now produced a raving nuclear terrorist, while South Korean government subsidies provide their residents with telecom systems vastly superior to ours? I don't know about replacing our thousands of troops there with robocops, but that situation really is perverted, and clearly has solved nothing.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:DIY by jmichaelg · · Score: 1
      You might consider reading General Singlaub's take on North Korea and who's responsible for the stalemate.

      If you don't want to read the whole thing, scroll down until you get to The Communists unleashed their provocation with brutal efficiency on the morning of Wednesday, August 18, 1976.

      It's an eye-opening read.

    2. Re:DIY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yowch, Oldboy is one hell of a movie. You wouldn't want to mess with an angry Korean after seeing that one - good guys OR bad guys. They'll wade through hundreds of you armed with a claw hammer... Or something much, much worse!

    3. Re:DIY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, it's kept South Korea from being overrun by the North. I'm sure there are a couple of South Koreans glad for that. Seeing their distant northern cousins surviving on grass and bark probably tempers any doubts.

      And you're jealous of the friggin telephone system? Christ.

    4. Re:DIY by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Singlaub was a sleazy scammer, running his part of Iran/Contra for lucre while helping build the nuclear threat that Iran is now becoming - up there with North Korea. Sure, the North Koreans are responsible for their half of the civil war, as the South is for its half. But 50 years of stalemate, leading us to nuclear confrontations while our army is spread around the world and overworked in Iraq, is the responsibility of the planners at the Pentagon. Which would include Singlaub. Their job is to eliminate threats like this, and they haven't.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:DIY by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Better background on Singlaub (though the facts about him in that weird page are accurate). Singlaub has made a career out of fumbling "anticommunism" into boondoggles, while lining his pockets and mouthing excuses. He's not trustworthy to protect the US, or to explain why he isn't.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    6. Re:DIY by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      No, I'm unhappy that we're deep in debt here in the US, with our military stretched across the globe, while SK has surplus capital to invest in their citizens' consumer habits. We're skimping here while they reinvest there. For a half-century. I want my money back, or a resolution to *their* civil war. That's too much to ask?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:DIY by Anarkhia · · Score: 1

      Huh?

      I assumed that your were linking to Silmido, not Oldboy. Silmido is a movie about sending death-row inmates in to kill Kim Il Sung.

    8. Re:DIY by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 1

      According to current articles, South Korea has a hand in maintaining the stalemate, as otherwise they'll inherit a warped, and starving, North Korea. It's the Pottery-Barn Foreign Policy again; you break it, you bought it, and even at discount, nobody wants to buy North Korea.

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
    9. Re:DIY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having all of Korea run by Kim Jong Il is hardly in our national security interests.

    10. Re:DIY by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm not surprised the S. Koreans are way ahead of me in this tawdry little fantasy. Go get 'em, tiger!

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    11. Re:DIY by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      They're all involved: N. Korea, S. Korea, the US, China, a globeful of arms dealers... the list goes on. But Germany swallowed its Eastern/Communist half, and after a decade of retooling (in which Eastern Germany hasn't improved so much, except politically) they're running Europe. Which they'd been trying for a century: political integration, and control of the Continent. But now we like how they do it, and they even make us look like fascist world-dominators. Amazing what that kind of political education can do for a country. Now if only we could get on that program with Cuba...

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    12. Re:DIY by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      And that resolution is hardly what we've paid the DoD, CIA, NSA, APEC and a long list of other invoicees, for half a century, to get us.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  55. dr. who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    is anyone thinking daleks?

    exterminate!

  56. SWORDS by wordisms · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here is a link that describes the Talon robot and the SWORDS project a little more.

    1. Re:SWORDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its funny in the "not the best, but not the worst" phillip k dick book to movie "Screamers", the autonomous combat robots that evolve and eventually become such a problem are called SWORDS. And in that SWORDS is also an acronym. Coincidence or is there a PKD movie fan at DoD? The original PKD short story didn't call them swords though, just that screenplay.

    2. Re:SWORDS by yoelst · · Score: 1

      Do the chickens have large talons?

  57. Intrusion protection or new Berlin Wall? by Ernesto+Alvarez · · Score: 1
    I was RTFA (well, someone has to do it) and found that interesting bit.


    The envisioned computerized system came about after mysterious holes were cut in three layers of wire fences in southern boundary border fences in October. The ministry said the holes were cut by an unidentified South Korean civilian defecting to the North.


    I wonder how much deterrence is the DMZ against people defecting to the north, and how many South Koreans would go to North Korea if there was no such barrier in place.

    I really was expecting some sort of intrusion from the north as the reason to increase the DMZ's security, not the other way around. Was anyone surprised like me when reading the article?
    1. Re:Intrusion protection or new Berlin Wall? by 01000011011101000111 · · Score: 1

      Not really - a) The west is not that much better if your poor, keep your head down & don't cause trouble & b) What if the unidentified civilian's brother worked for the S. Korean DoD & he'd pinched a bunch of "interesting" files? In all probability it wasn't, but the chance is still there... Which is scary enough for governments to want to do something about it...

      --
      Programming is an Art. I am an Artist. Does that mean I get to wear a daft hat?
    2. Re:Intrusion protection or new Berlin Wall? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      "I wonder how much deterrence is the DMZ against people defecting to the north, and how many South Koreans would go to North Korea if there was no such barrier in place."

      About the same number as Americans that would smuggle themsleves *into* Mexico.

  58. Re:The only question that matters to me is... by Flamekebab · · Score: 1
    In Soviet Korea, linux runs you!

    Seriously, it's a joke. We always ask if any new hardware will run Linux, remember?

  59. Re:The only question that matters to me is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it does then its probably the most "evil" use of Linux to date. There has been talk about banning the use of GPLed code in certain evil applications like this or censorship systems. Linux has been quite popular on a few robots recently (see linuxdevics.com) so its not impossible that these could end up under linux control.

  60. Wow, I'm glad idiots like you aren't in charge... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh wait, they are.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  61. 250 robots per kilometer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is my math wrong, or would that be one every 4 yards or so? Why bother making them mobile, just set up automated gun turrets with motion sensors and do not walk in front of 'em. Ever. (Don't worry, things will quiet down in a day or two, there aren't that many animals in that area.)

  62. Well.. by shbazjinkens · · Score: 4, Funny

    Anything that will ease tensions between North and South Korea is fine with me.

    I think killer robot patrols are a great start, personally.

  63. Re:s korean robots.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if what you mention in your sig happened the way you say, which is doubt with your bias and troll-like history, it wasn't a crime moron. That would be a mistake, a crime would need a possible charge that could be brought. Hard to bring a charge for trying to hold a peace negotiation.

    Oh and BTW, I fail to see how the values of the people of S. Korea could be considered "right-wing"

    Apart from the sex trade, the rampant bootlegging and the rasicm against the refugees from the north that is.

    SEOUL - "False expectations - that's how I put my life in South Korea, now," says North Korean defector Lee Min-Sun (not her real name), who works in a restaurant in the capital.

    "It's like a marriage to lover who makes false promises," recalls Lee, who made her way to South Korea in 2001.

    "It started with a sweetheart who promised a decent house with a fountain spring. But in reality the lover could only give a hut without even a bathtub," the 35-year-old told IPS.

    "Life's so hard in South. I'm discriminated against because I'm from the North and I can't even get a decent job," laments Lee. Most people will not acknowledge me when they find out where I am from, and I have received many beatings.

    FOAD you shot glass full of santorum.

  64. Re:Ha! Yah right, they're too busy playing starcra by Flamekebab · · Score: 1

    Huh.. funny.
    Anyway.. what about Legend of Mir?!

  65. 15 tons of robot.. by Nikkodemus · · Score: 1

    10 foot gun barrels.
    $2000 of armour piercing rounds.
    2 seconds of madness.

    Pfunnng Pfunnnng Pfunnnng..

    Feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhh....

    Brrroooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

    Squirr el.. terminated.

  66. Doesn't that ... by Marko+DeBeeste · · Score: 1

    ...sort of take the "D" out of "DMZ"?

    --
    Faith: n. -- That human impulse that drives them to steal appliances when the power goes out
    1. Re:Doesn't that ... by lxw56 · · Score: 1

      They're stationed just outside the DMZ, like the current forces, I'm sure.

  67. Robocop vs. Jesus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which would you rather have saved, Seoul or your soul? :p

  68. Cost-saving measures by cgenman · · Score: 5, Funny

    "The robots will be remote controlled," said the South Korean ministry of defense. "Thus allowing for operational efficiencies far beyond what is possible today."

    A reporter raises his hand. "You mean, you're setting up remote call centers?"

    "Yes, we're outsourcing to China. There, thousands of workers costing us just pennies a day will patrol our borders with giant armed robots, thus fulfilling our defense needs and the needs of the Chinese population as expressed through their arts and animation."

    "Any word on the North Korean Reaction?"

    "Yes, and this brings better news." interjects the Ministry of Finance. "North Korea has decided to setup their own robot army and, being years behind everyone else, has decided to outsource to us for their remote defense needs. Now we could simply take their billions of pounds of rice and make a tidy profit," said the Ministry of Finance, "but South Korea is the most advanced nation in the world. We have decided to setup an online community of people willing to pay for the priviledge of protecting a theoretical Kingdom from invading barbarians, inside of a communial, multiplayer environment."

    "A Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game?"

    "Yes, a MMPORPG. A MMPORPG so grand it will make Lineage look like Everquest."

    Everyone in the room laughs, except for the American who looks confused.

    "And you too for just 15 dollars a month can be the last line of defense against a rampaging horde of demons. They're very expensive demons, funded by Satan himself. Demons who want to ravage your women, kill your pets, and give you low-paying jobs without benefits while preventing unionization.

    "As border skirmishes are rare, won't this game be incredibly boring?"

    "People pay to play Star Wars Galaxies, don't they?"

  69. Why China will Never Take Taiwan. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Part of our settlement with Taiwan for the dismanteling of their nuclear weapons program in 1992 (which if discovered by the Chinese would have started WWIII, thank you CIA) is a promise to defend them in the event of Chinese invasion. And while the Chinese have a lot of ships they have some big problems.

    Their worst is Taiwan is an unsinkable aircraft carrier, and those aircraft don't need to fly very far. And it's fairly militant in it own right. They will defend their homes VICIOUSLY. And perhaps with nuclear weapons we don't know about.

    Beyond that it's the F-15. That alone would assure Japan (which would be mightily opposed to Chinese militarism) and US forces would establish not air superiority but air dominance. The chinese would have not just no air support for their forces, only their anti-aircraft missles to shield them form opposing air forces. So unless they plan to swim across to Taiwan, it's a losing proposition. Before navies are even discussed.

    Of the navies involed, only one of them is a true blue water navy. One of the navies is brand new, and expanding quickly. So they'll make mistakes. And in war, those will have tragic consequences.

    The news. The US is testing a variety of anti-missle systems including theater defense missles, lasers, and, of course, the F-22 Raptor.

    China will talk a big game, but they're not going to play unless they have reason to think that Taiwan is close to actually deploying a real live nuclear weapon. The very act of rolling the dice could very well destroy their military, and all the recent gains they've made. Oh they're evil. But they're by no means foolhardy.

    Everytime China bullshits about how they're going to invade Taiwan what they're really saying, is "GOD DAMN IT!! WE'RE FUCKING STARVING FOR CASH!!! It helps you too, look at our economic growth!!!!"

    1. Re:Why China will Never Take Taiwan. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not "bullshit." The anti-secession law passed clarifies procedure such that if Taiwan politicians declare independent Taiwan, the military will put down those politicians and any citizens giving active and vigorous direct support to them. Legally. It is a threat to sovereignty, it will be dealt with that way by the national government.

    2. Re:Why China will Never Take Taiwan. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The chinese would have not just no air support for their forces, only their anti-aircraft missles to shield them form opposing air forces.

      So they've been making more military purchases than any other country in the world for years now, and somehow forgot to buy any airplanes?

      Well, that's a relief.

    3. Re:Why China will Never Take Taiwan. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in case of war China would level Taiwan, Japan and the US

      they have the tech and they have 300 million men ready to fight

      can you do the math?

    4. Re:Why China will Never Take Taiwan. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea and exactly how are they going to transport those 300mil people in any effective way? Yea I thought so...Only way China has any way of invadeing the US is thru launching a whole lota Nukes. Missles are about the only thing that can get accross the ocean without being most promptly shot the hell down and at that we have a fairly good chance of takeing those down probably. As for tech the US would mainly just hang back and just bombard the country with missile launch after missile launch until the infastructre was so badly beaten the people would be more likely to revolt against thier own leaders because they can't get any food.

    5. Re:Why China will Never Take Taiwan. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite the idealised scenario there. However, it is more likely that the vast numbers of ships including destroyers, carriers, and battleships would be capable of transporting a vanguard of 200.000. into the US relatively easily and defend itself effectively en route so long as China first allies closely with Russia to sequester oil supplies and with India to isolate both the Black sea deposits and to project interference with transport from Asia minor such that the Pacific fleet would quickly run out of oil, and the secondary goal of taking Panama would isolate the Atlantic fleet from the Pacific for six months until it travels around the tip of South America. Following the vanguard weekly transports each of 200.000 or more would also quickly defeat resident defense forces. The US would be forced to surrender or the capital destroyed within a year of outset.

    6. Re:Why China will Never Take Taiwan. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, they don't have the tech, and they don't even have 3 million ready to fight(MUCH less). Currently, they don't have the military power to overtake Taiwan either. It will take a LONG time to modernize their whole military up to Western standards.

    7. Re:Why China will Never Take Taiwan. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Airforces are very expensive.

      The F-15 112 combat engagements. 0 losses.

      Industrial powers like Japan and the US have the resources to field a very professional, dedicated, airforce that's exceptionally well trained. More over they're afforded more flexability and expected to rely on their own judgement and training that centralized military command structures.

      And the F-22 makes the F-15 look pathetic. If it ever came to war, they'd put plenty of planes in the air, but the opposing forces would put them right back down.

    8. Re:Why China will Never Take Taiwan. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That convoy of ships could be completely wiped out by one ICBM. Even if you are right and they do invade the US has enough nukes to destroy both China and the US (think scorched earth). China wouldn't have a chance.

    9. Re:Why China will Never Take Taiwan. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taiwan won't do that until they have nuclear weapons. (And 5 minutes later Beijing should have a crater to store all that soot.) China isn't going to do more than saber rattle for various economic and political reasons because they know that even if the world left it to it's own devices, a war with Taiwan would ravage China's fragile economy. Furthermore, the knowledge that Taiwan nearly developed a working nuclear weapon, that their are essentially no gaps in their knowledge preventing them from making another, that the US is obligated to defend Taiwan, and would brutally maul their military much like what happened in Iraq, Kosovo, and Iraq, they're just not stupid enough to roll the dice. Then know that once they do it's game on, and there is no victory possible for them. It's one of the major reasons the US should be more proactive about the trade deficit, and it's one of the reasons we're not. I'm sure policy people are well aware that match that started the War in the Pacific was the US refusing to export oil to Japan. It's certainly a Catch-22.

    10. Re:Why China will Never Take Taiwan. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      It depends on how spread out the ships are. But yes, you are correct. A few low-yeild tact nukes on cruse missles would take care of the job. And if your luck enough to have all the ships close togeather, just one 80+ MT Hydrogen bomb will due the job.

      Ever wonder why so many nuclear testing was done using an old feet of ships? In fact, they even tested nukes on subs. The hydrostatic shockwave will CRUSH anything that is filled with gas like paper cup in your bare hands.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    11. Re:Why China will Never Take Taiwan. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In your scenario China, having a large cache and launch capabilities itself, would not launch in advance of invasion forces? Casualty counts are only numbers to the admiralty, so long as 20 years of casualties are less than the aggregate increase in forces from each year of youth being born, raised, trained, and sent to fight. Perhaps it will become a constant war with severe environmental degradation resulting-still the populace of the US outside of the hardened facilities would quickly be killed leaving assets open for other nations to take as desired. The downfall of the US only requires a bit of planning to overextend its forces for a sufficient length of time.

    12. Re:Why China will Never Take Taiwan. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's put it this way. China has enough nukes to make any fight for their survival expensive. The US has enough nukes, even at the greatly reduced levels, to end all industry and agriculture, and let the very few "survivors" starve and die of radiation poisoning.

    13. Re:Why China will Never Take Taiwan. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And be assured that on signs of such massive launch by the US every single nuclear capable nation, including not only Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea, but also India, France, China, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Latvia and possibly South Africa and Brazil would launch their own caches to destroy the US command and control for that launch as even such as would result the separate but effectively joint action would be less than from the three hundred thousand sum that the US might launch at the far end of estimates.

  70. Not Good Enough by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

    From the article: "Robots with weapons mounted on their frames are each expected to be able to observe from 2 and 1 kilometers during the day and night, respectively, and will have the capability to record voices and take pictures in a 180-degree circle."

    That's great and all, but if the robots can't also slip across the DMZ to play cards and drink beer with the other side then what good are they really?

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  71. Bender units by skingers6894 · · Score: 3, Funny

    What they really need is a bunch of Bender units instead. Everyone might learn to lighten up a bit over there...

    1. Re:Bender units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.
      As everyone knows, killbots have a preset kill limit anyway, so the North Koreans could just send wave after wave of their own soldiers until the border-patrolling killbots shut down. A Bender unit wouldn't make the same mistake.

  72. Demilitarised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it is demilaterised how can they have armed robots patrolling it? Unless they are civilian armed robots I guess?

    1. Re:Demilitarised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word "along" is apparently not in your vocabulary.

  73. Dumbest move ever by John+Seminal · · Score: 1
    Does anyone REALLY think we are going to let N. Korea to continue to exist in it's current regime. By 2010, it will be loaded with nuclear weapons and we might even have a few American cities brought to ground zero from these weapons sold on the black market.

    I hate to say it, but using robots is dumb. The USA has the best hackers ever! We'll hack your robots and make them turn on you. Will it be running on Microsoft Windows? *grin*

    Seriously, I think that if I was the country of North Korea, I would be arming myself to the teeth too. Imagine being the "different" kid on the block. All of a sudden, the big boy named USA decides to kick the snot out of the avarage sized boy called Iraq. This kid named USA is even taunting others, like your buddy Iran. The only other large kid who would have a chance in a fight with the USA is out with the flu, and it does not look like he'll be back any time soon. So what do you do? You start filling your pockets with rocks. You look for the biggest stick you can find. And you try and do it very quietly.

    But back to the OP. Do we really think the USA is the only country that should show off its muscles? Should other countries be allowed to have the same level of military power?

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    1. Re:Dumbest move ever by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      One problem though. N. Korea is not democratic. So the power of the entire country and it's militery might is in the hands of a few people.

      Iraq and Afgan WERE in a state of oppression. Not anymore thanks to the US. Now they are free and democratic.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Dumbest move ever by gnarlin · · Score: 1

      Your kidding right? Are you seriously saying that the military might of the USA is NOT in the hands of a select few? If Bush wants to go to war then all the public has to do to stop him is, oh wait...

      --
      A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
    3. Re:Dumbest move ever by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      No, it's about accountability. We the people ellect our officials.

      N. Korea's government is self-anointed. The public in that country have no opinion. Hell, even if you speak against it, you and your family will be thrown into concentration camps.

      At least in the US and rest of Eurpope, it's citizens are held accountable for both good and bad actions brought about it's own country.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:Dumbest move ever by X.25 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One problem though. N. Korea is not democratic. So the power of the entire country and it's militery might is in the hands of a few people.

      I always wanted to understand something.

      What is the difference of N. Korean people not wanting military to be used against S. Korea (for example), and Spanish /British/Italian/etc. people not wanting military used against Iraq (for example)? Get real, in democracy is military also in control of few people. You don't put top generals in place if they're not "your men". Anywhere.

      What does democracy have to do with it, when in democracy it all takes one prime minister to decide military goes to Iraq - and thing is done.

    5. Re:Dumbest move ever by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 1

      There exists the War Powers Act of 1974. Read it.

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
    6. Re:Dumbest move ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always wanted to understand something too. Then I understood that I never would, so I gave up.

      Oh wait...

    7. Re:Dumbest move ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's pretty fucking simple

      nothing happens to those Spanish/British/Italian civilians who protest against sending their military to war and can elect different politicians to end their involvement.


      The Koreans will end up dead and the ones left alive have no control over where their country is going.

    8. Re:Dumbest move ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there is also something common between these countries.

      In both cases, the protests don't really do anything against the war.

    9. Re:Dumbest move ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple. If the goverment of a democracy does something to displease the masses, the masses kick them out at the next election.

    10. Re:Dumbest move ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that Tony may not be around after 5th May because of his choice ...

  74. Wow, what a bizarre idea by lesv · · Score: 2, Funny

    'caus we know how much more effective fences & robots are against Nuclear weapons. :)

    Some of the fences have rocks stuck into gaps, so that if the fence is bumped they will be dislodged and show possible intrusion. But there are no electric fences, nor electronic sensors and surveillance cameras. The ministry will discuss with defense-related research and operational commanders how to develop the new programs and will earmark budget funds for the programs in 2006.

  75. That's not a circle! by prezkennedy.org · · Score: 1

    "Robots with weapons mounted on their frames are each expected to be able to observe from 2 and 1 kilometers during the day and night, respectively, and will have the capability to record voices and take pictures in a 180-degree circle."

    Wouldn't 180 degrees be a semi-circle?

    --
    It started back in Team Fortress Classic
  76. Please? Please. by MacDork · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Does anyone REALLY think we are going to let N. Korea to continue to exist in it's current regime.

    Do you really think China would continue to prop up the US dollar and fund America's war machine if we pissed them off? China would kick our American asses back into the great depression for thinking about it. Considering America is:

    • $8 Trillion dollars in debt
    • Dependent on foreign loans, primarily from China and Japan because our leadership can't balance a f'ing checkbook
    • Dependent on China/Korea/Tiawan to manufacture all our fancy electronics, cloths, consumer goods, and well... everything else
    Then yes, I do think N. Korea will continue unhindered by American interference.
  77. Old Glory Insurance by riker1384 · · Score: 0

    It sounds like North Korea needs to purchase Old Glory Robot Insurance before the metal ones decide to come for them.

    http://www.robotcombat.com/video_oldglory_hi.html

  78. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    then the robots will kill each other and we won't have to worry about them hurting the wildlife :)

    Sounds kind of fun really... someone should make a video game of that! "Duel other battle robots in the wilderness of the DMZ of Korea!"

    I dunno... some marketing droids need to get on that 'cause it might be a little hard to market. maybe if we put them in subsaharan africa? Lions as match distractions. Sounds kind of fun really.

    Good idea! Let's go out and buy some drinks while the graphic artists get started on the concept art.

    1. Re:Good by nounderscores · · Score: 1

      no. after that comes clone soldiers. They respond creatively to problems.

  79. It's been a long time coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

  80. Re:Old Glory Insurance -LO RES link by riker1384 · · Score: 0
  81. IS ROBOT PATROL OLD STORY? by tthach79 · · Score: 1

    I thought they robot patrolling in Israel.

    1. Re:IS ROBOT PATROL OLD STORY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Korea, only old robot stories patrol the border.

  82. Forget sanctions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell China if they don't reign in North Korea and make them get rid of their nukes, we'll just have to help Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan get nukes too. That'd get Chinese attention because it would flush Chinese dreams of dominating East Asia for the next century down the tubes really quick.

    After all, the US stopped Taiwan from developing their own nukes in the 1980s - the Red Chinese owe us.

  83. Deus Ex... by Rainbird98 · · Score: 1

    Shades of Deus Ex. RPG anyone?

  84. save myself trouble?.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL OMG BSOD WILL KILL SOMEONE ROFL

    yeah, I can see it now. Something terrible will happen.

  85. Easier than you think! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    North Koreans wear little pins with a portrait of the Great Leader on their shirts at all times. As long as the robots can pick those out of a scene, misidentification should be minimal!

  86. 3 letters by X.25 · · Score: 1

    Only 3 letters required.

    EMP

    This is waste of money, and it certainly will be too 'dodgy' to deploy (one mistake could cause incredible mess).

  87. The real question is... by PoderOmega · · Score: 1

    Will it leave it's post to find Sarah Conner?

    1. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're talking about the "Singer", I'll fund that particular project personally.

  88. Cyberpunk reference bandwagon... by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 1

    Target anything that moves and doesn't have a valid RFID signature.

    "You're looking at the future, Mr Grossman: people translated as data." (Bryce, Max Headroom)

    --
    Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
  89. Bad Idea by earthbound+kid · · Score: 1

    There are two ways to run these robots, either by remote control or automatically. If you run them by remote, then all the enemy has to do is to hack your control signal and control your robot themselves. If the DRM/anti-DRM skirmishes have taught us anything it's that all signals can be hacked if there's enough will on the part of the hacker. If they run the robots automatically, then they're asking for an even bigger disaster, since robots today have enough trouble telling a soccer ball apart from a field. There's basically no way they'd be able to distinguish a friend from a foe. Even if you made your uniforms easily recognizable, the enemy could just start wearing those uniforms too and walk on by. So, if you then give up and put the robot into "shoot anything that moves" mode, you've basically reinvented the landmine, only now it's standing up in the middle of the field where anyone can see it with binoculars, and easily call for an artillery hit before they walk through the area.

    Dumb idea.

    1. Re:Bad Idea by tftp · · Score: 2, Informative
      easily call for an artillery hit

      No need. Any anti-tank weapon made in last 50 years will do the job. For example, PTRS (designed in 1941) fired a steel-cored 14.5 mm round from a five-round box magazine and could penetrate 25 mm armor at 500 meters. Modern weapons are much more powerful, but even with that PTRS, what is the chance that the robot will recognize a green-painted and green-clothed soldier laying in grass 500 meters away? And what is the chance that the robot wears 25mm armor?

  90. imitating wild animals by krunk4ever · · Score: 1

    wouldn't it be quite easy to imitate a wild animals to bypass robot security? if that's the case do u think n. koreans are more of the "kill 99 innocent men along so that 1 guilty man be punished?" or "free 99 guilty men, so that 1 innocent man won't have to die?"

    for some reason, i dont think the understand the former philosophy too much.

  91. bomb dropped unnecessarily (too late) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Actually, according to a lot of other sources, the bomb has been dropped while the Japanese were already ready to surrender.

    It is very likely that it has been done as a way to test this new technology and also to establish the "pecking order" in the world after WWII.

    1. Re:bomb dropped unnecessarily (too late) by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1, Insightful


      The Japanese failed to surrender after the dropping of the first bomb--it took two bombs to bring them to the table on our terms.

      The fact that we were temporarily able to intimidate the Russians surely was also a factor, but I don't believe that it was the over-riding rationale.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    2. Re:bomb dropped unnecessarily (too late) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh yes, those civilians sure got what they deserved!

  92. You guys overestimate military technology by CHESTER+COPPERPOT · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know this is a technology centric website but let me say, as someone who has worked in the military with pretty high-tech gear, you guys are overestimating military technology. Some of you out there might say "But I seen military technology work all the time." Well that's nice, but I've seen how the triumvirate of scientist/engineer contractors, military officers and shitty technology can come together to make a terrible economic and time wasting mess.

    I state the overestimation for a number of cynical reasons:

    1. A lot of military technology doesn't get tested in warlike situations or complex terrain and when the technology is put into 'war-like' operations or complex terrain it doesn't live up to its hype. Bureaucracy also plays a part in slowing down projects and making them unrealistic.

    2. Hyping the machine. This is what military officers and the contractors do. They hype up the technology to whole new bullshitting levels. The officers do it for their promotions and careers and the contractors do it for the money.

    The terminator scenario won't happen for a very very long time.

  93. Not A Good Idea by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    First you give them weapons and the next thing you know they're unionizing and demanding voting rights. Next thing you know they're sticking your entire species in fluid filled pods for power.

    Besides, all Il has to do is lob a nuke over the border (And he would, too) and all your robots get fried by the EMP. You can pretty much bet that if he decides to invade, you'll be stuck fighting a footsoldier battle in fallout.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  94. These are not the prototypes you are looking for . by Alien54 · · Score: 1
    As noted in another thread:

    Neogentronyx is currently in the process of constructing a Bipedal Exo-Skeletal Robotic Vehicle, known as a Mech and designated NMX04-1A. The purpose of the NMX04-1A is proof of concept and to make the first bold step towards full production of Mecha vehicles, affordable to civilians and not just commercial entities. There are plenty of pretty pictures and info here. See also these larger more recent pics

    Another fine product of Alaska, approximately 18 ft tall (7 meters)

    As someone noted:

    Bring a few cans of WD-40. Looks like they are assembling this thing out in the open! No building to put it in!

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  95. "Robots" - a term with misleading connotations by crucini · · Score: 1

    By calling these machines "robots", we imply that they're autonomous and mobile. But from the article, they will be placed every kilometer along the border. And there is no mention of autonomy.

    These are more like remote-controlled guns with video cameras. Maybe they'll be mounted on telephone poles. No new technology really needed here - it could be built with 1970's tech.

    The driver here is not to have a more effective border patrol, but to free up lots of troops so they can spend time training rather than guarding the border.

    1. Re:"Robots" - a term with misleading connotations by tftp · · Score: 2, Interesting
      These are more like remote-controlled guns with video cameras.

      You know that Berlin Wall had remote-controlled and/or automated machine guns? This development has deeper roots than one would think.

  96. It's A Trap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obligatory, It's A Trap!

  97. Life on the DMZ by Infonaut · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The point is, that this would take soldiers (some of them American, as we have promised to protect S. Korea, and have troops stationed there.) out of harms way.

    Agreed. Perhaps many Slashdot readers don't really understand what the DMZ is like. In the 1980s and 90s, live ambushes were a fact of life along the DMZ (they may still be, but I'm no longer in the Army so I don't have inside info about it). The North Koreans for decades have poked and prodded the border: They've sent infiltrators into South Korea, have created elaborate tunnel systems below the DMZ, and attempted to assassinate the South Korean president, among other provocations. Troops stationed along the DMZ for good reason keep an extraordinarily high state of readiness. Over 100 Americans have died along the DMZ since the armstice (I don't have figures for South Korean soldiers).

    So while from the comfort of Ft. Livingroom, it's easy to say that using armed robots to patrol the DMZ is a bad idea, the soldiers on the ground are probably pretty happy about the notion. That's not to say that the robots will work as advertised, or that they should replace existing defenses. The South Korean government may be motivated by cost considerations, but if the end result is that fewer South Korean soldiers are likely to die in the line of duty, it seems worth trying out some form of automated defense.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:Life on the DMZ by nutshell42 · · Score: 2, Funny
      So while from the comfort of Ft. Livingroom

      Hey, don't insult Ft Livingroom, home of the 101st Keyboard Division under the command of General Twenty T. Hindsight. Best unit ever.

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    2. Re:Life on the DMZ by Infonaut · · Score: 1
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

      Well, at least you didn't use your Wand of Automatic Missile Fire. ;-)

      --
      Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  98. sadists by JeremyALogan · · Score: 1

    "... Robots with weapons mounted on their frames..."
    "... will have the capability to record voices..."


    So, these killer robots will be recording the screams of their kills? I can just imagine it back at the barracks.
    R. Champlis 03872: Check this one out I got today.
    -Recorded voice sreaming in agony-
    R. Smith 53975: Oh that's nothing. Check out THIS one.
    -Recorded voice of a blood curdeling scream.
    R. Smith 53975: Now THAT's a kill.

    I for one welcome our sadistic killing machine overlords (sorry).

  99. At this rate by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

    In Korea, nothing will happen to old people, because there won't be any. Robots will kill them young.

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  100. Nope, no civilians up there by Amata · · Score: 1

    Actually, at a point not terribly far north of Seoul, only military (and resident) traffic may pass. There's still people that work the fields and whatnot, (the Koreans are damn good at farming any remotely flat chunk of land) and people that go on tours of the DMZ.

    I actually had to go up there recently, and noted that there was quite the impressive collection of wildlife running around (especially given that I'm stuck in Seoul, where pigeons are about all you see)

    That being said, a real easy way of IDing friend or foe: assuming you can track every humanoid, the ones that started on the other side of the border, are definitely foe. The ones that entered the field of vision on this side, need to be kept under watch.

  101. The Koreans are ten years behind. by bombadier_beetle · · Score: 0, Troll

    The Americans are already using armed robots to kill, er, I mean, free Iraqis.

    --

    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
  102. Re:Ha! Yah right, they're too busy playing starcra by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
    But when they DO build them...you will FEAR them. Who else would be better commanding a remote army of robots than the S. Koreans? Looks like we'll need to get an elite team of piloted robots and send in the Japanese.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  103. This will stop nuclear war by Hao+Wu · · Score: 1
    " ... and will have the capability to record voices and take pictures in a 180-degree circle."

    Fantastic protection against attack from nuclear-incineration holocaust.

    --
    I suggest you read Slashdot
  104. Re:Ha! Yah right, they're too busy playing starcra by Nimloth · · Score: 0

    If you'd RTFA, you'd know by now that they have already built their Factory, and getting the Armoury done... Goliaths are on their way.

  105. Re:The only question that matters to me is... by Inthewire · · Score: 1

    But how are heretics qualified to quantify evil?

    --


    Writers imply. Readers infer.
  106. the fine article crashes firefox by dcd · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Did anyone else see firefox crash while reading the article?
    http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/html_dir/20 05/04/09/200504090026.asp

    1. Re:the fine article crashes firefox by reverius · · Score: 1

      It doesn't crash mine.

      Firefox 1.0.2 on linux.

    2. Re:the fine article crashes firefox by cobrabyte · · Score: 1

      Yes, it crashed me as well. Not sure what that is about. Maybe the extensions that I have installed?

      BTW, Running 1.0.2

      -cobrabyte

  107. This just in... by Alpha_Traveller · · Score: 1

    ...."South Korea plans to outsource DMZ Robot customer service to India, China and Canada. South Korea is also considering plans to outsource 24/7 remote pilots for the robots some time in the next year. Our sources say it's likely the remote operations contract will go to a small town in Honduras, who are so hopped up on cocaine they never sleep. More on this as information becomes available".... ..."This just in...the small town in Honduras offering 24/7 pilot services has decided to change their name to "Skynet". More on this story as it progresses"....

    --
    "Love is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important." (Lisa Hoffman)
  108. Re:The only question that matters to me is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    There has been talk about banning the use of GPLed code in certain evil applications like this or censorship systems.
    Why would this be considered an evil application? If you consider this evil you have a lot to learn about the world.
  109. 180 degrees... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm, just got to get it from behind and whack it with a baseball bat from the top down - whackamole...

  110. will these persuade the US to give up mines? by belmolis · · Score: 1

    The main justification given by the US for its refusal to join the civilized world and give up land mines is that they are needed in the DMZ. If robots replace land mines, will the US finally agree to the land mine ban?

  111. Not entirely true by xswl0931 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hi roshima_and_Nagasaki Others contend that Japan had been trying to surrender for at least two months, but the US refused by insisting on an unconditional surrender--which they did not get even after the bombing, the bone of contention being retention of the Emperor.[13] (http://www.nuclearfiles.org/hitimeline/1945.html) In fact, while several diplomats favored surrender, the leaders of the Japanese military were committed to fighting a 'Decisive Battle' on Kyushu, hoping that they could negotiate better terms for an armistice afterward--all of which the Americans knew from reading decrypted Japanese communications. The Japanese government never did decide what terms, beyond preservation of an imperial system, they would have accepted to end the war; as late as August 9, the Supreme Council was still split, with the hardliners insisting Japan should demobilize its own forces, no war crimes trials, and no occupation. Only the direct intervention of the Emperor ended the dispute, and even after that a military coup was attempted to prevent the surrender (although it was easily suppressed).

    1. Re:Not entirely true by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1


      That is incorrect. Japan did in fact surrender unconditionally to the Allied powers as did Germany.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    2. Re:Not entirely true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that is what you are taught as part of the great american education system. Typically you don't actually begin to learn the truth until you study the facts and actual documents at the University level.

      Oh well.

    3. Re:Not entirely true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their military rolled the dice against a more powerful foe and lost. They wanted one glorious last stand that was so brutal that the Japanese people would live on in the legends of their enemies. Dropping the bomb was merciful and saved essentially every japanese life from the end of WWII on. The fact remains, they started the war, and had plenty of opportunity to end it before the second atomic weapon. Aside from the little episode in the Philippiens it was white hats all around for the Americans, and we became the most, or rather only, benevolent superpower in the history of our species.

    4. Re:Not entirely true by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

      Ok then, please point me in the right direction. If Japan did not surrender unconditionally then I'd like to know that and would welcome any help you could provide me in learning this truth that's been denied me.

      You do of course understand that there's a difference between making a claim and proving it right? My evidence is rather obvious. The second paragraph of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender states clearly

      "We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under Japanese control wherever situated"

      Of course if you could substantiate your claim then you probably would not have posted in the classic "AC" form. I'd read the document you're claiming to have learned all about at the "University level" before spouting off in the future.

      Fucking moron.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  112. Hyndai, Samsung, Kia or LG by Embedded · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually if I were the South Korean's I would do this. You have a buit in test site. You have a incredible industry. You have a business opportunity! You now get the 5 tigers into the arms business and further diferenterate yourself from the Chinese. And who in North Korea (or for that matter South Korea) can complain!

    Honda, Sony look out!

    --
    Vista, the single biggest argument for Desktop Linux! It doesn't "Just Work"(TM).
  113. Most blind reply award by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 1

    .. goes to the parent. Notice how the grandparent talks specifically about civilians.

    A Friend/Foe identification requires all participants to carry some sort of transponders, and can at best recognize friends, and just cannot recognize civilians at all, and in addition it cannot recognize South Korean reinforcements that might be moved into the area, since such reinforcements would have no transponders that the regular border troops might have. Also you might want to switch your transponder off in combat since it gives away your position to the enemy.

    A better argument would be that human troops cause friendly fire too, so that it doesn't make much difference.

    --
    I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
  114. Cool, let the US pull out soon then! by otis+wildflower · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The new generation of South Koreans are f---ing whiny ingrates. The US should be completely off the Korean peninsula, with a nuclear umbrella treaty. The US presence is only a small percentage of the force anyway, and all I ever hear is the Euro-style whining about it. Pull back and redeploy.

    Same goes for Germany and Okinawa too.

  115. In the news in 2010 by Chris+Kamel · · Score: 1

    A dramatic accident happened in South Korea when a software glitch caused the death of 10 people and the injury of 15 others....

    --
    The following statement is true
    The preceding statement is false
  116. This is way off topic, but... by Eatmorecake · · Score: 0

    You know, this is one of those things that people will just always argue over, until we can get some SERIOUSLY unbiased teachers in our public schools.
    I think there are four kinds of High School History class right now:
    1) Ignorant, Liberal: Atomic Bomb Bad.
    2)Ignorant, Conservative: Atomic Bomb saved lives! It good!
    3)Mediocre, Liberal: The Atomic bomb was used, unfortunately, even though the Japanese had already offered their surrender. Unfortunately, just as the Japanese failed to communicate a declaration of War, they failed to go through proper channels of surrender. If we'd only listened!
    4)Mediocre, Conservative: The Atomic Bomb was used because.... (See above post)

    I actually have the feeling that it was the fact that none of the Japanese were willing to tell their Emperor (i.e. their god) that part of the agreement of surrender was, in fact, surrender of the Emperor himself! How does one surrender a god? On the other hand, while no other political leader would ever ask to surrender himself in this way at the end of a war, the U.S. knew that without this condition, Japan would never truly stop fighting.

    --
    Don't you mean.. BIZZARO! ..Signature?
    1. Re:This is way off topic, but... by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Actually according to a show on the history channel I watched a while back. The US knew that Japan was trying to surrender, but the cold war had already started brewing and Japan was trying to surrender to Russia and not willing to surrender to the US. That would have turned Japan into a Russian colony, something we wern't willing to accept. Thus the continued attacks untill they surrendered to the US.

  117. ROK plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you smell what the ROK is cooking?

  118. Perhaps it's cheaper to install 1 robot every 400m by nounderscores · · Score: 1

    than to replace miles and miles of fences, layers deep, in mine infested terrain.

    the aEgis robot looks like a pretty straight forward design.

    Perhaps automatic targeting can be enabled only when a large number of infiltrators have been detected and verified by a human operator.

  119. Hightech vs. Lowtech? by cpghost · · Score: 1

    It's amazing how easily one can fool high tech equipment with low tech techniques and tricks. What did the Iraqis 1990 to fool heat sensors? They put camping methane burners inside tank decoys to attract missiles. And guess what? It worked great!

    How do you fool robots? What about airplanes dropping huge loads of water on them? They may be isolated against water, but think of all the mud all around: that could easily render them useless. And who said it has to be water? What about acid? You get the idea.

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    1. Re:Hightech vs. Lowtech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have a source on the use of methane burners in tank decoys ?

      As for your other ideas and flippant dismissal, I suggest you try to remember the last time a 3d grade brainstorming session beat an army.

  120. This is fucking hilarious by dsanfte · · Score: 1

    I guess nobody noticed the ocean surrounding North and South Korea. The "fortified border" is utter bullshit when THE NORTH KOREANS CAN SWIM AROUND IT.

    --
    occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
  121. Re:Ha! Yah right, they're too busy playing starcra by Aerion · · Score: 1

    operation cwal

    Now they'll have the robots by next year!

  122. Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    S. Korea and N. Korea (aka ROKkem and SOKkem, respectively)

    till their heads pop off...

  123. Japanese Surrendered in a way dividing of Korea by Slicker · · Score: 1

    Korea was occupied with one Japanes army in the North and antoher in the South. The Northern general surrendered to the Russians and the Southern genreal surrendered to the United States. The Kurril islands of Northern Japanese were taken by force by the Russians and remains occupied by Russia today.

    The DMZ is definitely civilain free, except for a few small areas where a special class of dual-citizens live and farm. I'd really be nervous to live there... Clashes between heavy machine guns often flare up betweent he two sides, all along the DMZ.

  124. New math? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    I don't know what sort of alternate reality the poster is from, but in my world circles are comprised of 360 degrees. Or maybe the Koreans are cutting costs by dividing circles into half as many segments.

  125. hmmm by drjenk · · Score: 1

    The robots will see in a "180 degree circle". That wil truly be a feat.

  126. Vietnam Again by frsmith · · Score: 1

    Seems the USA tried this in ' Nam ' with the detectors outside camps.
    Didnt work! If humans struggle to assess a threat how's software going to do it?
    Sounds like there running out of ideas over there. Bob

    --
    It Seems I've developed an aversion to proprietary software
  127. Military Public Relations by Yanray · · Score: 1

    I think that calling these things robots is little more then a public relations ploy. The Korean Government is more likely to appove large appropreations for this project if the guilible masses think they'll have a marching army of robot warriors on the front line.

    From reading the article it sounds like these are actually little more then an automated defense perimeter. These will be simply replacing the manned patrols that are likely very expensive and not as effective.

    Actually the idea of an automated defense perimeter is SO much cooler then robots. To demonstrate let me reconstruct an invasion senario using Dune 2000. North Korean "Freeman" Units against the rocket towers and walls of the South Korean Troops.

    --
    --"Sorry for the inconvience." Gods Last Words to his Creation
    DNA, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish
  128. Re:Please? Please. by Suidae · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, if the US was not indebited to other nations, would they be more likely to feel obligated to build up a military to rival that of the US? It may be that US military power is partly counterbalanced by economic dependence. The result is a sole superpower that can keep do most of the military heavy-lifting when the UN decides its necessary, but that is effectively powerless against its creditors.

    All we have to do over the next few hundred years is complete the corporate take-over of the US government and then have China acquire it in a massive merger.