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."
All, excelent, in a decade we will have cylons. Anything for freedom!
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
... what's Hebrew for "Skynet"?
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
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.
Yes, what a fantastic plan... that is until the terrorists invent rolled-up newspaper! Then whatcha gonna do?
FFFFFFFFFFACE!!
Wouldn't it be easier to call on God to deliver a plague of locusts? Worked for Moses.
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