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."

19 of 417 comments (clear)

  1. gah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    All, excelent, in a decade we will have cylons. Anything for freedom!

  2. Hmm by Kagura · · Score: 4, Funny

    'The war in Lebanon proved that we need smaller weaponry. It's illogical to send a plane worth $100 million against a suicidal terrorist.'

    Maybe it's just me, but that sentence makes it sound like we're running terrorists over with our jets. Teehee

  3. This is SOOO futuristic that it won't happen soon by Salvance · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We've been hearing about this type of thing in science fiction books, then movies, and then in magazines like Popular Science for at least the past 20 years. While I think we probably have the technology to create the hornets, I seriously doubt we have the technology to have them fly very far then deliver some type of lethal force (e.g. poison) to a specific target.

    Plus, it's reasonable to assume that $100's of millions would need to be invested in such a "nanohornet" for it to be feasible. Heck, the current world's smallest flying robot is massive compared to a bee, and can only fly a few minutes (yes, this link is from 2003, and the the robot is still considered the smallest working prototype of a flying robot).

    In my opinion, the israelis need to invest in far better armor and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. During their conflict with Hezbollah, the UAVs were a huge success. Also, wouldn't highly armored robotic vehicles be better than a hornet? For example, maybe an armored ball (kind of like those hamster balls) that would essentially be indestructable and roll around doing reconaiscence and shooting things. Just a thought.

    --
    Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
  4. So ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... what's Hebrew for "Skynet"?

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  5. Saw this once before... by Tmack · · Score: 3, Insightful
    ...a small robot, no larger than a hornet to follow, film, and kill terrorists.

    Sounds like the flying robotic syringes in Dune, they silently fly around to find their target, then fly directly into them and inject some sort of fast acting poison (the spice?).

    tm

    --
    Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
    1. Re:Saw this once before... by WillAdams · · Score: 4, Informative

      In the original _Dune_, the young Paul Atreides is threatened by a ``Hunter Killer'', a small, repulsor-driven device directed by remote control which would ``burrow through his flesh'' if it managed to successfully attack him. (He grabs it when it attacks the housekeeper, the ``Shadout Mapes'' who is sent to summon him and smashes its nose against the wall).

      William

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  6. Cowardly by FathomIT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's very unfortunate. It will not be only for terrorists. We will soon have "terrorists" and our political and business leaders simply picked off by a small, unseen remote controlled insect carrying a poison payload.

    1. Re:Cowardly by chriso11 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree. This is extremely disruptive, and very easy to abuse. Not to sound like some utopian, but it is really sad that we use so much of our technology to develop 'better' ways to kill one another.

      --
      No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
  7. Greeeat. by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 3, Funny

    As if the world's oppressed peoples didn't have enough to deal with, now they've got to look over their shoulders for paparazzi hornet-bots and Lee Majors in a Nintendo Power Glove as well? What next, motherfXckin' snakes?

  8. Futuristic you say? by styryx · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes, what a fantastic plan... that is until the terrorists invent rolled-up newspaper! Then whatcha gonna do?

    FFFFFFFFFFACE!!

  9. Israel, why must you have such wretched PR? by schnooka_boy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a staunch Israeli supporter, this really frustrates me. Yes, it will reduce civilian casualties. Yes, it will be able to destroy missle launchers without having to go in and do any fighting. Yes, it will render the Hamas tactic of hiding amongst their own people useless. But no, there's no way you're going to establish trust with a people when you have killer robotic hornets flying around their homes.

    1. Re:Israel, why must you have such wretched PR? by schnooka_boy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If Israel really wanted to commit genocide in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, I don't understand why they'd be wasting their time and own people performing targetting operations when they could just as easily send in bombs to take out the entire region. Israel's doing an equally bad job "squeezing out" Arabs if they're withdrawing from the Gaza Strip and southern Lebanon (may I note, that in both these cases the withdrawal was used to send missles into Israel).

      So far Israel hasn't been moved by the humanitarian suffering of the Palestinians

      Now this is an outright lie. Israel has been supplying the West Bank and Gaza strip with fund money to build schools (which are then used to teach anti-Israeli retorict) and help its people for decades. It also offered a whole ton MORE of fund money in negotiation agreements to create the country of Palestine. They only recently cut off this funding to the Gaza Strip since its people decided to elect Hamas into government, and allow the organization to send missles, and perform terrorism kidnappings. Is Israel supposed to continue to give its money to Gaza when it's being used, in turn, to attack Israel?

      While they are still in a strong negotiating position, they should make peace with the Palestinians, Syria and Lebanon. It's another lie if you think Israel has not attempted negotiations. Do you understand how difficult it is to negotiate with organizations who will only accept terms that will severly damage Israel? "Right of return" expects Israel to give up most of its country to create Palestine. This isn't a negotiation, this is a peaceful request to collapse the country of Israel. Whomever is in power for Palestine (be it Hamas, the PLO, etc.) is never negotiating but only demanding. Those in power do not wish to coexist with Israel. Please tell me how you negotiate with this.

      Over the past years, Israel has been effective at demolishing the Palestinian civil society

      That's because over the past years, terrorists have refused to give up their practices. You tell Hamas to stop attacking Israel, and you see how long Israel will continue to perform any sort of military insurgency.

  10. Great inventions! by Roadmaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If only they were this creative and imaginative when sitting down to try to solve a conflict peacefully. This goes for both sides, and it applies in most conflicts.

    Remember, no matter how intelligent the weapons inventors are, it's still violence; and "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent".

  11. There's high tech and higher tech... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wouldn't it be easier to call on God to deliver a plague of locusts? Worked for Moses.

  12. Already here. They already use them. by tocs · · Score: 3, Informative

    Bullets ARE about the size of a hornet and already follow and kill people.
    If the bullet was following someone cleaver enough to move out of the way, it is very very cheap to send another.

  13. Re:This is SOOO futuristic that it won't happen so by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Informative

    In my opinion, the israelis need to invest in far better armor and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. During their conflict with Hezbollah, the UAVs were a huge success. Also, wouldn't highly armored robotic vehicles be better than a hornet? For example, maybe an armored ball (kind of like those hamster balls) that would essentially be indestructable and roll around doing reconaiscence and shooting things. Just a thought.

    Well you're right the UAVs worked great, and you're right that they need far better armor if they want to continue using armor. The RPG-29s and guided missles used by Hezbollah did a number on the IDF's Merkava MBTs, considered one of if not the most heavily armored tanks in service. Between those relatively cheap shoulder-fired infantry weapons, and the shaped-charge mines Hezbollah had sprinkled throughout their territory, it was demonstrated pretty conclusively that today's armor isn't standing up to even the guerilla weapons. More armor is needed, though I'm not sure that's the right tack to take.

    First, tanks aren't that great in the kinds of environments we're talking about: hilly terrain with valleys and choke points that can be littered with mines and give attackers on the ridges an ideal firing line to hit the tank's weak point, and cities and villages that have basically the same properties. A slow moving tank with an enemy on high ground is vulnerable.

    Second, there is no such thing as "essentially indestructable". In the ages-old battle between weapons and armor, weapons always win eventually. There have been times that armor would have a brief period of success, but then the weapons would advance one generation and the armor would fall behind. This is just the nature of the beast: it's easier to destroy than to resist destruction. It's easier to focus a large amount of energy on a small area, whether the tip of an arrow fired from a longbow or the shaped-charge explosive of an RPG, than it is to build a material that can resist that energy, whether steel armor or the advanced composites used in MBTs. Reactive armor was designed to defeat the shaped charge rockets, so the rocket designers responded by simply adding a smaller charge ahead of the main one to defeat the reactive armor so the big charge can hit the main armor with full force. Just as the cannon signalled the end of the castle, the RPG-29 and ilk are signalling the end of MBT armor.

    Not that tanks aren't useful and further armor developments serve no purpose, it's just that you aren't going to get much of a lead even over non-state-militaries like Hezbollah. An autonomous tank would be nice because when it gets destroyed you haven't lost a tank crew as well. Plus you could design it to be more robust than a manned tank (where breaching into the crew compartment is basically all you need to do). But it isn't going to be an indestructable ball of death, that is for sure.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  14. Remember Bugs, anyone? by ettlz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nice to see the Israeli military get some of their best ideas from an eleven-year-old TV show.

  15. Re:Side tracking on the subject of tanks. by ILikeRed · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Can anyone think of downsides of remote controlled tanks?
    1) DOS attack
    2) stealing the tank remotely
    --
    I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress -J Adams
  16. Re:This is SOOO futuristic that it won't happen so by stvip · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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).