Carnegie Mellon Gets $14.4M to Build Robo-Tank

coondoggie passed us a NetworkWorld article, this one discussing new developments in the state of robotic warfare. Carnegie Melon is now hard at work on a tank set to join its brother, the already much-discussed Unmanned Areal Vehicle, on the modern battlefield "Ultimately unmanned ground vehicles would be outfitted with anti-tank or anti-aircraft missiles and anti-personnel weapons to make them lethal. Part of the new award budget is also slated to help the university prove that autonomous ground vehicles are feasible in future combat situations."

Comments

This Won't Work

[dukw_butter]

This won't work for a variety of reasons. Mainly, though, it won't work because they picked one organization and handed them $14 million dollars. They should learn from NASA or other DARPA challenges and just open it up and say "create an autonomous tank and the winner gets $14 million dollars." That's a much better investment of the money, and it doesn't take a genius to figure this out. I predict this project goes the way of the ill-fated M247 Sargeant York.

Re:This Won't Work

[krel]

I imagine building a robotic tank is considerably more expensive than building a robotic car. CMU probably got the contract because they won the DARPA challenge.

Where's the full scale combat-ready Diesector?

[Locutus]

http://www.mutantrobots.com/html/diesector.html

And when it comes bearing down on a pickup truck full of bad guys, it should have a camera in the jaws to capture that "kodak moment". ;-)

Re:Where's the full scale combat-ready Diesector?

[Dunbal]

And when it comes bearing down on a pickup truck full of bad guys,

      We're using the US Army definition of "bad guy" which means "whoever was in the pickup truck", right?

Re:Is this what is called pork ?

[timeOday]

Pork is in the eye of the beholder (c.f. "waste"). Seems like a decent project to me, and it's not like they awarded the contract to some unqualified fly-by-night outfit (despite what Stanford will tell you :) Tanks could be so much faster, lighter, and cheaper if not for the need to protect the soft, chewy middle. Make 'em 80% cheaper than the M1 and deploy 3x as many to make sure the job gets done.

Also, "unmanned" is a bit of a misnomer; as with unmanned aerial vehicles, I'm sure they will be remotely "manned" - people will still decide whether to pull the trigger (and probably do most of the driving, at first).

Secondary effects

[ToastyKen]

I think what will be really interesting is the secondary effects of this stuff. Traditionally, the human cost has put a check on war-waging. Already, things like Predators and all our other high-tech warfare gadgets have imbalanced the soldier casualties when we wage war against a third world opponent. And they've responded by changing the rules of the game, mixing in with civilian populations, and making extensive use of roadside IEDs. (Now that I think about it, roadside IEDs are kind of like unmanned suicide bombers, turning the tables...)

I fear that all these technologies that take soldiers away from the battlefield, in combination with bringing the battlefield into cities, will result in lower barriers to entry for starting wars (because the military probably worries more about protecting its own than they do about collateral damage), but also higher (and underreported) civilian casualties. I worry that by distancing our soldiers from the battlefield, by making them safer, we might actually increase the human toll.

Re:Secondary effects

[ToastyKen]

I agree that you can't halt innovation, but you can choose which innovations you want to invest in. I think we need to find some way to better reward innovation in fields that don't bring in as much money. Whether you're a defense contractor or a University, military hardware research comes with huge grants, and so there's a lot of incentive to go after such things.

Sociological and cultural research doesn't pay as well, and so there aren't as many people to lobby the gov't about it. We need find ways of counteracting that imbalance.

Even when it comes to military hardware, sometimes all you need is to slant the bottoms of the vehicles to deflect IED blasts or whatnot, and the latest vehicles being deployed to Iraq finally have that. But I imagine the gov't spend a lot of money on solutions involving lots of computers first, because that's cooler..

This doesn't just affect the military. I remember reading about some innovating refridgeration technology that basically involves clay pots one inside of the other, molded in a certain way. That's the sort of thing that can have big positive effects on large groups of people, but you couldn't make much money doing it, and so we don't focus on it as much. I dunno, I think that if we're gonna live in a capitalistic society, then maybe we need to fund more initiatives like these, maybe with bounties or whatnot.

So it's not a matter of halting innovation. It's a matter of where the innovation is. There's plenty of innovation in computer and vehicle technology, but there's not enough innovation in many other areas of life that aren't as "sexy". That's what I think the problem is.

OGRE!

[Anonymous Coward]

The prophet Steve Jackson foretold this happening long ago!

Re:Is this what is called pork ?

[innerweb]

I think this is not pork. In the long term, manpower is very expensive, and paying people to put their lives in danger is much more expensive than having tech-jocks sitting at consoles controlling remote vehicles.

Also, the cost of future tanks would be relatively less for similar performance if the tank did not have to safely carry a crew. They would weigh less, carry more armor, and be smaller. Smaller means easier to move around, and faster to deploy. Remote controlled means if a tank is killed, you do not loose the experience of the crew. All of these things represent costs. Lighter tanks would require less fuel (which is very expensive) and potentially open up a whole new class of miniature tank that could rely on its size for more stealthy operation (even electric motors for quiet operation until something goes boom). Remote controlled bombs, remote controlled spies, remote controlled crowd control. There are many applications for this type of technology that reduce overall cost and risk. That is definitely not pork from the military's point of view (or from mine).

At some point in the future, this will lead to a driverless car, which will lead to more cost savings from the reduction and almost total elimination of human error accidents. So, just like the research that seemed so pointless to so many that became Darpanet and eventually the Internet, this is the first steps to a whole new realm of technological expertise that in the future will have incredible life changing/enhancing benefits for most of humanity, and possibly nature as well.

At one point (before sputnik), most people in the US thought the space program was a nonsensical waste of money. From it came tennis shoes, microwave ovens, advanced rubber and materials (think car tires), vastly improved power systems, vastly improved computing systems, satellite systems, vastly improved flight, vastly improved sensors technology and many more technologies that most people would not want to ever live without today.

One of the problems we have technologically in the US (though not the only one), is the relative lack of technological investment that we have been making since the moon launch years. After early 1970s, we slowed down quickly in our push to expand into the surrounding solar system, and thereby slowed down on our rate of technological development (I do not mean new toys you can play with, but whole new fields or understanding and whole new technologies that can be used to eventually builds that new gadget you can play with). If we started investing in our future as ambitiously as we used to, we would have a chance to wind up back in the lead again (of course, we have to do something about the theft of that technology by countries like China). Being in the lead in technology is what made us a *powerful* country. As we loose that lead, the significance of any other aspect of our lead becomes rather meaningless. But, you have to understand, leading by developing is a leadership role. Leading by guns and butter is a bully role. People follow a leader, they fear a bully, and will eliminate the bully at the first chance.

InnerWeb

Re:What sort of opposition is the US public

[rgravina]

I, for one, would rather have our soldiers safe.

I've always been annoyed by this phrasing. "Safe", here, is just another way of saying "kill more efficiently". The best way for soldiers to be safe, is to not be fighting in wars in the first place.

If you get invited to this project, don't do it

[rufusdufus]

The world does not need more effective ways to kill people. It is unethical to build automatic tanks; they will be used by psychopaths for selfish purposes. You do not need to help them do this.
Its bound to happen anyway you say? You are bound to die someday too; but it doesn't have to be today.

Re:If you get invited to this project, don't do it

[ductonius]

The world does not need more effective ways to kill people.

We should be so lucky to have enemies that agree with you.

Re:If you get invited to this project, don't do it

[rufusdufus]

The world does not need more effective ways to kill people.
We should be so lucky to have enemies that agree with you.

This is a really stupid position. The 'enemy' will surely copy your technology. America built the bomb, and its 'enemies' had their own in a matter of months.

Moreover, it does not take into account the limitations of human group identificaton (the monkeysphere). Humans have a limited memory so they group people into archetypes. When they do this, they place some in the 'us' category, and some in the 'them' category. Over time, they forget who's who. So, when you use the word 'we', who is it you refer to? Are you sure the guys you gave the guns to consider you part of their version of 'we'? Will they still do so in a decade? Ask the Chechneans or Johnny Reb what happens when 'we' become 'they'.

Re:If you get invited to this project, don't do it

[ScrewMaster]

The 'enemy' will surely copy your technology. America built the bomb, and its 'enemies' had their own in a matter of months.

That's far too simplistic a view and factually incorrect: the Russians did not build their first atom bomb in months. As it happens, the first successful Russian fission weapon was based upon the American Fatman device dropped on Japan, whose design the Russians acquired through espionage. Even with the advantage conferred by the stolen design, this First Lightning bomb wasn't test-fired until 1949, years after the War's end. Those were years that America had the edge, years that we had peace, years that we didn't have to worry about much of anything, and you can't discount the value of that. That's what investment in military tech does: it buys you time in an unfriendly world.

I might add that while the Russians did rip off the Manhattan project of a lot of crucial information (see Klaus Fuchs), the Russian effort was substantial and impressive in its own right. It actually began well before the end of World War II, when they noticed that American and British scientists had pretty much stopped publishing anything regarding nuclear physics. Besides, nukes aren't that easy to put together, particularly if you're building them to mil spec, and aren't just making an unreliable one-off terrorist type bomb. Furthermore, even if you've stolen an enemy's research, the infrastructure required to produce weapons-grade fuel is neither cheap nor quick to build. That, in itself, takes years.

But sure, if you're fighting an enemy that is at or near technological parity with you, you're correct that a military advantage is at best temporary. When First Lightning was detonated, it put Russia years ahead of American intelligence projections. But remember that that cuts both ways. If your enemy is also making significant investments in that area, you'd best continue your own efforts or you'll quickly find yourself at a disadvantage. That's usually a mistake, and in the nuclear age a fatal one. Also, you gain an advantage by forcing the enemy to divert resources in order to keep up.

That's the history of warfare. It's always been an expensive proposition, even during those intervals between wars that we call "peace", and nothing will change that until either progress comes to a halt, or the human race changes in some fundamental way. Neither is going to happen soon. Concluding that no further investment in maintaining technological superiority is required, simply because the enemy will copy it anyway, is naive at best.

Re:What sort of opposition is the US public

[qbzzt]

You think war is always avoidable. So did Neville Chamberlain. I do not.

Re:Is this what is called pork ?

[sam.haskins]

Not really; pork is more like the 'bridge to nowhere' built in Alaska; projects that really only benefit the people in the home district of Senators and Representatives are usually what is called pork. At the very least, pork is something that the congresspeople can claim as a victory of their own come election time. This isn't pork, since it doesn't produce something that benefits any areas or politicians specifically. This is pretty much just an example of regular spending for defense research. Anyhow, Congress certainly wouldn't have had any say in whether or not the project is a go; the money comes out of the coffers of the DoD.

Devices like this will inevitably breed terrorism

[SlowGenius]

I wonder why it is that nobody stops to think of what terrorism is: a tool of the powerless. If you've got a superior kick-ass military, there's generally no need to resort to terrorism: you do what you want, and if somebody resists, you can blow them away. If you don't have that kind of force at your disposal, you start to look for less direct options to express your opinions than an all-out military confrontation.

Another thing that breeds terrorism is a sense of being wronged by a powerful oppressor, particularly when you're desparate and helpless. If your life isn't worth living, you're probably a lot more willing to give it up in the cause of revenge.

Devices like robotanks that COMPLETELY remove US soldiers from danger will have the inevitable side-effect of making our enemies immediately think: Here we are watching our families and friends getting killed by machines from the USA, but there are no enemy soldiers to fight. Maybe they're too cowardly. So... who are our enemies, really? These machines? Of course not... they're only tools, being operated by CIA agents and military contractors and the like somewhere else, probably over in the US. Hmm... could it be.... US... civilians?

The payback exacted by people who lose everything they have worth living for and are left only with such thoughts may be many years in coming, but it *will* be both horrible and inevitable. And of course we'll react accordingly when it does. It's bad enough when armies go at it in the name of 'accomplishing national objectives'. But once entire civilian populations learn to truly hate each other, war is no longer enough. At that point, only genocide will suffice.

not ready for deployment??

[pablo_max]

"Autonomous ground vehicles aren't ready for deployment yet."
Well, the way I see it is these things NEVER will be ready until we just go ahead and build them to work out the kinks.
Take a look at WW2 and all the weapons which entered the battlefield which were totally unproven. Hell some were even only going to work in theory! The point is, you can not progress unless you put it out there.

Plus, I don't know how many of your fly RC planes, but I do a little and I can tell you...that stuff is not easy at all. I crash almost every time. However, I almost never crash driving an RC car. Why is that? 2D is a lot easier than 3D, thats why.

The way I see it, is that you would deploy a platform like this in a location where you would not want to send in real people. For that reason, you don't need to worry about the friendly fire problem because our guys would not be there anyways.
If there is even a 20% chance that an autobot could be put in front of bad guys and complete the mission, then fucking do it!!! Who cares how much it cost? Then again, I am one of those crazy liberals who value the lives of our troops more than the equipment in our arsenal.
I would love to see the day these things are settle by machines rather than American lives. Thats just me though,

Re:Morality

[Silver Gryphon]

Ah, but we do:

a) the Department of Defense (only functions in or near U.S. borders)
        Department of Homeland Security
b) the Department of Securing Cheap Oil
        Department of Defense
c) the Department of Get Them Before They Get Us.
        CIA
d) the Department of Team America, World Police.
        FBI

Ethical problems: continuous easy war

[drDugan]

How much more do humans need to innovate on ways to kill each other?

The more efficient the methods, the more distant the human cost - all lead to more killing and more government control, not less. How much more war do we need? Maybe when all the "bad" people are killed then the "good" ones left can get around to creating peace. The direct fruits of this research are more effective killing machines, really useful only in killing other humans. There may be other upsides to autonomous vehicles, but that is not what DARPA is about.

When does the global population start to work together to create a world that is peaceful? Will it ever happen? Will it happen in our lifetime? Why are people not pushing THESE questions?

I don't want my grandkids living in a world with autonomous machines toting guns and killing people. That's completely absurd - yet here we are, building it! What we have now is bad enough.

The US has shown that no rules of law, no standards of ethics will hold up against the tyranny of powerful people willing to break them. Why would anyone want governments to wield even more power over people? Guess what - the right to form a militia and protect yourself against government aggression doesn't mean shit when the central authority uses unmanned tanks against you because you don't fall in line, pay your taxes, work your job, and stay in your place. Better pray to god^H^H^H er. . . the president that she lets you live the life you want. No person is going to falter, no one is going to ask, "hey does this make sense?" when the servo and an AI script decide when you are a threat because you shot at the machine.

Most of the discussion on this list is sickening to me. People here are talking about killing people like sweeping floors or serving coffee - completely abstracted from the horror that a real war would be. Just wait until the Chinese start making robots to sweep through the street, packing heat and rounding up US-ians for internment camps. Maybe THEN people will finally say, "Hey, maybe we should work on making peace instead of war!" All the while you're maching down to a camp.

Some of these questions I ask rhetorically, but I'm serious with the point. No more wars. We're had enough.