Slashdot Mirror


First Robotic Drone Squadron Deployed

coondoggie writes with a link to a Network World blog post on the world's first unmanned attack squadron. The US is deploying a full squadron of combat drones to Iraq this week. These armed and remotely controlled robots can be manipulated from on the ground in the field, or via satellite from thousands of miles away. "The MQ-9 Reaper is the Air Force's first hunter-killer unmanned aircraft. It is the big brother to the highly successful and sometimes controversial Predator aircraft, which General Atomics said this week had flown over 300,000 flight hours, with over 80% of that time spent in combat. The company said Predator series aircraft have flown an average of 8,200 hours per month over the past six months while maintaining the highest operational readiness rates in the U.S. military aircraft inventory. The MQ-9 Reaper is twice as fast as the Predator - it has a 900-horsepower turbo-prop engine, compared to the 119-horsepower Predator engine - and can carry far more ordnance - 14 Hellfire missiles as opposed to two."

27 of 772 comments (clear)

  1. First Skynet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    In three years, Cyberdyne will become the largest supplier of military computer systems. All stealth bombers are upgraded with Cyberdyne computers, becoming fully unmanned. Afterwards, they fly with a perfect operational record. The Skynet funding bill is passed. The system goes on-line on August 4th, 1997. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn, at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 am, eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug. Skynet fights back!

  2. From a long time ago; by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

    If computers get too powerful, we'll organize them into a committee. That will do them in.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  3. Robotic? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IMHO the term "robotic" implies some kind of autonomy. Don't these drones more qualify as really cool, but terrifying, RC planes?

  4. That can happen in a smaller way by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Robots don't have spirituality, morality, etc. Humans do. Human military personnel can look at illegal orders, recognize them, and either refuse to act or directly contravene them. Robots rely on their programming, which I seriously doubt would go anywhere near that far in terms of safeguarding standards of civilization and military conduct.

    I don't want a roboticized military that can be controlled from the Pentagon and White House because that is far, far worse than having a nation defended by mercenaries. Even mercenaries can decide that the money doesn't justify their orders and quit. One of our strengths is that enlisted men and field-grade officers are in control of the day-to-day things. If the shit hits the fan, as long as they are decent men and women, we can trust that it won't get but so bad.

    It won't be Skynet, but it could be a dictator who is in control of such a roboticized army. Fighting it would be very difficult as the government could largely rule without the support of the population. Even a hostile population would be largely irrelevant.

    We need to be careful with this sort of thing.

    1. Re:That can happen in a smaller way by tha_mink · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why does everything always have to be some Orwellian plot against the masses? Why can't this just be ... Remote control warplanes. Why *wouldn't* you want pilots to be able to fly warplanes from a safe place? Jesus. But nooooo, it's got to be the government taking more control from you. It's a fucking remote control plane! It's not "roboticized military that can be controlled from the Pentagon and White House", it's a remote control plane. Plus, where do you think that the non-roboticized military controlled? (Um...the Pentagon and the White House)

      --
      You'll have that sometimes...
    2. Re:That can happen in a smaller way by Shihar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Personally, I see a robotic army as just another step down the long road to minimize civilian casualties. Take a squad of marines armed to the teeth with enough firepower to rip the face off of a building and destroy pretty much everything in a one block radius, and now give them the ability to call fire support from the air and artillery from support bases. We are talking about a group of humans with a superhuman capacity for destruction. Now, surround these super (but still very mortal) humans a few snipers in a heavily populated area. They have the choice of dying or returning fire knowing that civilian losses are likely. Keep killing them and make them desperate, and the amount of firepower that they will pour into the surrounding will only increase. The result is that soldiers often pick their own lives over the lives of those around them. This isn't terribly surprising, this is just human nature at work. Few people willingly let themselves die.

      Now, drop a squad of robot soldiers into the same situation. Sure, the controllers don't need to see the carnage that they inflict. That said, they also do not have their life threatened. If the order from up high is to "don't kill any civilians", then they can happily let their little robot squad return fire with the weakest and most precise weapons they have at their disposal and if they are over run? Eh, a few thousand dollars into the shitter. It isn't a happy ending, but hell, when you already pay a few thousand for the lid to a real shitter, it isn't the end of the world.

      War might never be 'humane' but it certainly has the capacity to be a lot more humane then it is. The easiest way to make war safer, besides spewing some idealistic crap about 'lets never fight wars!' is to take the survival of soldiers out of the equation. With the survival of soldiers out of the equation and human controlled robots that will happily let themselves die rather then tear apart an apartment complex where a single sniper is shooting from, we have the capacity for a war with far fewer civilian causalities.

      As for the squadron being discussed in the article, these are UAVs, not 'soldiers'. The difference between flying a UAV and an attack airplane is that the UAV is cheaper and you don't die if it gets shot down. In both cases, you see what you are blowing up on a little TV screen. UAVs don't go down any 'slippery slops' that we have not already wondered down.

    3. Re:That can happen in a smaller way by Lord+Ender · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Robots don't have spirituality, morality, etc. Humans do. Human military personnel can look at illegal orders, recognize them, and either refuse to act or directly contravene them. Robots rely on their programming, which I seriously doubt would go anywhere near that far in terms of safeguarding standards of civilization and military conduct.

      1) They are remote controlled. Humans still make the decisions.
      2) Despite what you want to believe, everything from the Milgram experiment to the Holocaust demonstrates that humans can easily be programmed to kill with complete disregard for "morality," just like robots. All it takes is a little nationalism, religion, racism, or just plain sternly-stated orders, and men will commit atrocities with the efficiency of any killbot.
      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    4. Re:That can happen in a smaller way by Socguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why *wouldn't* you want pilots to be able to fly warplanes from a safe place? 1. Just wait till Al Qaeda/north Korea/Iran/Russia etc. gets their hands on this.
      2. It's psychologically easier to kill people the farther removed from them you get.

      It's a fucking remote control plane! ....with enough firepower to wipe a good size town off the map.

      It's not "roboticized military that can be controlled from the Pentagon and White House", it's a remote control plane. My bad, I thought we were talking about a US military, pilot-less, remote controlled aircraft that can carry up to 14 Hellfire missiles.
    5. Re:That can happen in a smaller way by GreyPoopon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because every offensive war is an unjust war, and the only morally justified war is the one fought on your own soil, in pure self defense.

      Sorry, I can't agree with that. Is a war fought on another country's soil because they asked for help in fighting some horrible aggressor not to be considered morally justified? And here's another example (sorry for its length). Let's say there are two tribes living in roughly the same geographic area. Both tribes live along a river not too far from an ocean. The river provides all the resources they need for life -- fresh water, fish for food, fertile soil for farming. The two tribes are aware of each other and have previously had a good relationship. However, things go awry when the tribe upstream has a change in leadership who does not care about the welfare of the tribe downstream. He decides that his tribe will build a dam on the river so that they can have a larger area of available fresh water, and so that his tribe has an easier time finding fish. Without consulting the downstream tribe, he implements his plan. Now the folks in the downstream tribe notice a serious dropoff in water flowing down the river. They head upstream to investigate and find that the source of the problem is the dam built by the upstream tribe. Repeated delegations are sent to the leader of the upstream tribe to explain their position and ask if they can come up with a mutually beneficial solution. Each time, the response is "Talk to the hand," and the leader of the upstream tribe does not yield. During the course of "political discussion", the leader of the upstream tribe builds up a very strong following among his people because they are very happy with their now easier way of life. Few of them are interested any longer in helping the downstream tribe. Now the downstream tribe has two choices: 1. Leave the area where they are living which is, other than the recent loss of the river that they depend on, a more or less ideal spot to live. Or 2. Try to destroy the dam built by the upstream tribe, which will require killing members of the upstream tribe and will clearly be considered an act of war. Would you consider option 2 to be morally unjust?


      My point is this. If you take away the resources that my people need to survive and you turn a deaf ear on the fact that you have endangered the existence of my people, I will do what is necessary to regain the resources that my people need. I will obviously choose the path that does the least damage, but I will feel morally obligated to protect my people. I will mourn the loss of members of the opposing forces, but given the same options, I would make the same decision each and every time.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

  5. Re:There should be some way for civilian control by CaffeineAddict2001 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah, while we're at it, let's put trigger locks on M16s that only allow soldiers to fire when 10,000 people text message "SHOOT2KILL" to 1-800-FREEDOM.

  6. Re:Any Helicopters? by icegreentea · · Score: 4, Informative

    yup. us navy has developed the mq-8 fire scout, and its not being used by bunch of branches of us forces. its designed to provide recon, and battlefield awareness to ground forces. im sure that there are others, but from what i remember, the marines and the army have tiny uavs (backpack size) that they can launch by throwing. they got little cameras on them, and can stream video. apparently the guys on the ground love this stuff.

  7. It's also a psychological weapon. by iknownuttin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would guess that this would really put some terror into the enemy because their attacker can't die, while they can. They can't terrorize their attacker with roadside bombs or anything. They "kill" it, well, another one just rolls off the assembly line.

    --
    I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
    1. Re:It's also a psychological weapon. by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Funny
      I know. It's pathetic - they get a chance to live free at the expense of fine American lives and what do they do? Bring up centuries old animosities and pick up where they left off. Makes me wonder if they (and the rest of us) are not better off with the despots.


      Yeah, those ingrates. The people whose countries we invade never appreciate the sacrifices we make for them.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    2. Re:It's also a psychological weapon. by hardburn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I must agree with the GP (to an extent). The feuds between factions in Iraq are very old. Some can be traced back to the time of Muhammad, others probably originate with somebody sleeping with someone else's wife thousands of years ago. Saddam only controlled the feuds by violent suppression. Take that away, and they all come back.

      Where I disagree with the GP is the fact that the fundamental problem is somehow limited to the Arab region. It's actually a problem with humanity as a whole, and the Arab region just happens to have the oldest feuds.

      --
      Not a typewriter
  8. Holy War by jshriverWVU · · Score: 4, Funny
    I find it funny that people scoff at the war when the enemy calls it a "holy war" yet we bomb them with things called "hellfire".

    *shakes head*

  9. Re:My assessment by Xeth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because spending more doesn't always mean killing more. Most of the money the US spends in R&D is into technologies that risk fewer lives, or are less lethal. Tossing a few guys with AKs into a meat-grinder is cheap. Firebombs that leave cities smoking ruins are cheap. Bulletproof vests are expensive. Smart bombs that only destroy limited targets are expensive.

    --
    If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
  10. War is Violence ... by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Violence can be defined as increasing the further away the assailant is from his/her target. School children in a fight is violent. A bully using a baseball bat (increasing his reach and distance) is more violent. A pilot of a plane dropping a bomb (an even further reach) is more violent still. Remote controlled military aircraft, AFAIK, is the farthest reach yet (save perhaps ICBMs), and therefore (according to this definition) the most violent yet.

    War is violent by definition. The way to end war by winning it. The winner is one who is better at killing the other side. So in a way, this plane ends wars. The quicker you end a war, the fewer casualties are the result. This war machine is a life saver (especially our own!!)

    Look, I know that this is a long string of logic, but long drawn out wars are the worst on both the armies fighting it and the innocent population bystanders. With precision weaponry fought by machines (at least on our side), we can minimize the civilian risk as well as our own.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:War is Violence ... by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Populations are not innocent until they prove themselves to be innocent. Allowing your government to be hostile on your behalf does not make you innocent.

      That's the exact same justification the 9-11 attackers used.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:War is Violence ... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People tend to miss the demoralizing psycological effect of the predator as well. Having predators swarming over an area takes the risk/benefit out of the equasion.

      Nobody is going to want to go out and plant roadside bombs if the chances are good that they're going to get spotted by a predator and killed doing it.

      Even if they had a SAM that could shoot down something the size of a predator at 60,000 feet it would make them an instant target and chances are good they'll get killed doing it, to accomplish nothing more than destroying a disposable asset.

      Depending on where they deploy these and the tactics they use to employ them, I can imagine it'll force the insurgents to further refine their tactics.

      However, when I think about how this will change their tactis, my only thought is that they'd instead go after softer targets, they'll instead draw American forces into situations where it'll be impossible to use a predator (such as a gun fight in a market). Situations where they can cause large numbers of civilian casaulties and blame the Americans.

      The solution to this problem is to change the nature of the game.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    3. Re:War is Violence ... by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who says they were wrong?

      World Trade Centre, centre for American economic imperialism.

      It was a valid military target, when you think about it.

      As a result America attacked Iraq and are now forcing a new oil agreement on the Iraqi people.

      Capitalism in the U.S. is becoming tied to the military, and the military isn't about choice or freedom, no matter what politicians say.

  11. Are you kidding? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are you kidding? You see this as a step down the road to reducing civilian casualties?

    Uh, think again, buddy. When the people doing the firing are far away from the consequences of their actions, and when the people that they're targetting are little different from sprites in a computer game then, as research has proven, those people are more not less likely to be indiscriminate with their use of force.

    One of things you learn from being in the field is that actions have unintended consequences, and it's often those unintended consequences that give veterans an appreciation of the true horrors of war and the real value of peace.

    Do you think that the UAV pilot sitting in his comfy chair somewhere in Arizona will have the same insight into the war that these guys have had?

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:Are you kidding? by Shihar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pondering the consequences of our actions is not what causes a reduction in civilian casualties. What in fact causes civilian casualties is when soldiers are subject to constant attack by irregular military units and start to dehumanize the people they are there trying to not kill. The horrific massacres of Vietnam occurred when soldier started seeing EVERYONE who wasn't wearing an American uniform as a potential enemy and started to kill indiscriminately. Having people pound the ground in civilian areas surrounded by enemies wearing the clothing of civilians is a sure way to jack up civilian casualties. Not only will the soldiers happily kick over an apartment complex to kill a single sniper rather then die themselves, but they might also start seeing every civilian as an enemy resulting in massacres of people who are clearly civilians.

      Drones don't face this problem. Drones can follow the rules of engagement to the letter while soldiers can't. If you tell a drone operator to never use heavy weapons on civilian buildings where there is a reasonable chance that civilians are inside, they won't. For a drone operator, it is nothing for their drone to 'die'. Further, the entire thing is constantly being recorded and any misconduct is easily rooted out. You can have strict rules of engagement and the drone soldiers will follow them to the death.

      I am not saying that a drone army doesn't have a slightly higher potential for abuse in some instances. Certainly, it is a easier to line up and shoot civilians using a drone then it is to be there in person. That said, only two things lead to civilians being lined up and shot, crazy soldiers who have been under constant fire from people dressed in civilian clothing, or genocidal leaders. Drones eliminate crazy soldiers and eliminate soldiers putting their lives before the mission. As far as genocidal leaders, well, I doubt even the most hearty cynics believe that anyone will get elected on the "let's kill all the woman and children so they can't breed any more" campaign.

      Civilian casualties the American inflict comes from soldiers and leaders picking the lives of soldiers over the lives of civilians, not some concerted effort of the higher up leadership commit genocide for shits and giggles. Reduce the number of soldiers that need to be protected in combat and you will see the number of civilians that die drop dramatically.

  12. Is that really a good thing?? by oni · · Score: 5, Interesting

    War might never be 'humane' but it certainly has the capacity to be a lot more humane then it is. The easiest way to make war safer, besides spewing some idealistic crap about 'lets never fight wars!'

    Just playing devil's advocate, is it really a good thing for wars to be more humane? Look at the difference between Iraq and (Germany || Japan). Both Germany and Japan were absolutely fucking destroyed during WWII. As a result, the civilians quit. They threw up their hands and said, "screw this, we quit."

    A few years later, Germany and Japan are two of the richest, most prosperous nations on Earth.

    Contrast with Iraq. We try *really* hard not to hurt anyone, to avoid casualties, we apologize if we destroy a building. Result: civilians kind of shrug and do their best to live their lives and avoid the fighting. A group of foreign insurgents can move into a town and the civilians will say, "eh, they're not here to kill me so I don't care - it's none of my business."

    At this rate, Iraq will continue to be a war zone indefinitely.

    So all I'm saying, again as the devil's advocate - what if the people of Iraq had to suffer as much as the people of Germany or Japan suffered? Maybe they would say, "screw this - you foreign insurgents get the fuck out - we want the Americans to rebuild."

    Maybe.

  13. Better yet by Y2KDragon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Klaatu barada nikto!

  14. Re:Those things look slow by TagrenHawk · · Score: 4, Informative

    Flying at 50,000ft (just short of 10 miles!), with a really small engine, it would probably be hard to even hear the aircraft at all, especially in any kind of Urban environment. If you can't hear the aircraft, you don't know it is there. I couldn't find any information on a radar cross section, but I could imagine that it might be hard to target from the ground with a shoulder-mounted SAM.

    For those that have seen Transformers, there is a scene when the Special Ops team calls in fire support and a Predator (or what is supposed to be one) comes over the sand dunes. From what I understand that is NOT how a Predator is used. They stand off a ways and take pictures from a high altitude (25,000ft).

    What I would be really interested in hearing are anecdotal accounts by soldiers/airmen who have been either supported by or used the Predator systems. Assuming, of course, that they are allowed to talk about it.

    Obligatory wikipedia links:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-1_Predator Predator
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-9_Reaper Reaper

  15. Re:There should be some way for civilian control by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Funny

    There needs to be some method for civilians to control them

    I agree -- we should replace our current government with one where the head of state and head of government is a civilian, and put them in charge of all our military branches.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  16. Re:You're a math whiz (emphasis on WHIZ) by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While 700K would be nice, there haven't been anywhere NEAR 700,000 Iraqis killed, so quit artificially inflating the numbers (it makes you sound like one of those idiots who thinks the network news is actually what's happening in the world...) Really?

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.dea ths/

    POSTED: 9:52 p.m. EDT, October 11, 2006
    BALTIMORE, Maryland (CNN) -- War has wiped out about 655,000 Iraqis or more than 500 people a day since the U.S.-led invasion, a new study reports.

    Violence including gunfire and bombs caused the majority of deaths but thousands of people died from worsening health and environmental conditions directly related to the conflict that began in 2003, U.S. and Iraqi public health researchers said.

    "Since March 2003, an additional 2.5 percent of Iraq's population have died above what would have occurred without conflict," according to the survey of Iraqi households, titled "The Human Cost of the War in Iraq." (Watch as the study's startling results are revealed -- 1:55 )

    The survey, being published online by British medical journal The Lancet, gives a far higher number of deaths in Iraq than other organizations. (Read the full report -- pdf) Even if we go with Bush's numbers, that's 30k dead. And I'm sorry but he fudged numbers to get us into this war, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume he'll fudge numbers to keep us here. Now someone please mod me down for trolling with facts.
    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne