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."

Comments

The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer...

[TripMaster Monkey]

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).

Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer...

[Alien Being]

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

Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer...

[TapeCutter]

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.

Re:The Robot Apocalypse draws one step nearer...

[TapeCutter]

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

Circle?

[Xshare]

"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!

Re:Circle?

[return_of_ffalcon]

obviously, the circle is on a cone.

Robot Apocalypse of Nature is one step closer

[idonotexist]

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.

IFF

[GuyMannDude]

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

Re:IFF

[Kadin2048]

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.

You guys overestimate military technology

[CHESTER COPPERPOT]

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.

Re:Dumbest move ever

[X.25]

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.

Life on the DMZ

[Infonaut]

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.