Slashdot Mirror
Bionic Bugs To Fight Terrorists
dptalia writes "Israel is looking to create a small robot, no larger than a hornet to follow, film, and kill terrorists. It's just one of a series of weapons the country is considering as an alternative to conventional technologies. Other ideas floating around include gloves that would give their user 'bionic strength', and ultra-miniaturized sensors to detect explosives on suicide bombers." From the article: "The research integrates nanotechnology into Israel's security department and will find creative solutions to problems the army has been unable to address, Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres told Yedioth Ahronoth. 'The war in Lebanon proved that we need smaller weaponry. It's illogical to send a plane worth $100 million against a suicidal terrorist. So we are building futuristic weapons,' Peres said."
Exactly. Governments use the excuse the topic du jour to justify advances in illegal monitoring, secret arrest, indefinite detention and torture. The means created today for the military will be applied to the general population tomorrow.
I was thinking to myself the other day of the same thing...
If you make a tank automous or at least remote controlled, then you don't really have worry about protecting the crew anymore. Hence you can replace the saved weight with something devoted to firepower, fuel, and speed.
In fact, why not make the tank cost $500,000 rather than $10 to $25 million and make a whole slew of them with mass production
Sure an RPG could kill it with one hit, but a well placed mine or RPG could immobilize the best armored tank anyways.
You could simply put these out as 24 hour sentries or suicidal armored spear heads without the risk of loss of life.
Considering how limited the manned tank crew's vision to the outside world is anyways, I can't see how having multiple cameras and a remote feed to a crew in a bunker somewhere can't be an improvement.
Can anyone think of downsides of remote controlled tanks?
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Israel couldn't knock out Hezbollah's tv station during the 34 day conflict nor could they disrupt the communications between Nasrallah and the troops in the field. For a good read on how Hezbollah defeated Israel, please see this journal entry which links to a three-part article from Asia Times Online.
I'm not trying to karma whore so please don't give me mod points. I'm just pointing out articles which answer the posters question.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The Merkava Mk. 4 is often cited as the best armored tank in the world, though I'm not sure that is accurate. It is the tank offering best survival for the crew within, however. This has been achieved by various intentional design decisions, such as placing the engine in the front of the crew compartment as extra armor, and having rear exits for evacuating soldiers, as well as some tanks serving as heavily armored ambulances, with special space reserved for emergency medical treatment. Anyhow, as for the discussion about the future utility of tanks in the face of modern anti-tank weaponry, which has proliferated to the point of being available to any determined interested buyer, see the Trophy system and Iron Fist, two Israeli anti-anti-tank systems (the first of which is operational, but wasn't installed in tanks prior to the Lebanon conflict out of budgetry considerations, which in retrospect was a poor choice, not sure about the second).
Not exactly. They want the same thing the Israelis want but in reverse. The Israelis want the region to be predominantly Jewish and the Palestinians want the region to be predominantly Palestinian. Both sides want the other side to just "go away". Of course, in practice that means some sort of ethnic cleansing to maintain and extend to existing segregation.
Unless, you're arguing for a one state solution free of absolutely all discrimination (no discrimination in immigration policies, geographical naming, etc.), then you can't really be claiming to be riding the high horse. That is, both sides advocate a "solution" that is unacceptable from the point of view of modern ethics (eg. no discrimination or segregation).
Yeah, I only know about Turing because I'm a dedicated Virtual Adept player.
Fight the Technocracy!
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction