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

Is this what is called pork ?

[2.7182]

I'm asking a serious question. I've never understood what is and what isn't pork.

Re:Is this what is called pork ?

[andy666]

I think if the politicians from Pittsburgh campaigned for it, it is pork. If some professors at CMU are good buddies with the people that award these contracts, it's not pork. Maybe 'swine' would be a better term for contracts awarded through academic cronyism.

I find it hard to believe that CMU is going to do a better job building a robot tank than industry. Did the academics develop the predator ? No.

Re:Is this what is called pork ?

[Feminist-Mom]

Depends on your definition. This is a DARPA contract, which is awarded based on if some guy likes you. If they suddenly don't like you, they pull the plug. But mostly this is pretty much a buddy network of people who have known each other for years, and they don't do that, except in cases of blatant incompetence (they took away Rodney Brooks money once I believe). I worked on a stair climbing robot project, which was pretty much a farce in every way. I'd really like to see a follow up article in 2-3 years to see what they actually built, or did the money just make some robot professors wallets fatter.

Re:Is this what is called pork ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never understood what is and what isn't pork.

It depends on which political party you belong to and whether elections are coming up.

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).

Re:Is this what is called pork ?

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but they did build Sandstorm and H1ghlander.
And, they just won the Urban Grand Challenge recently (mentioned in TFA), so it's safe to say this is up their alley.

Re:Is this what is called pork ?

[klingens]

Autonomous ground vehicles aren't ready for deployment yet. UAVs barely are, and they have an almost obstacle free 3D space to maneuver in, with decades of autopilot usage in almost all commercial planes to get experience how to do it and how not to.

Since it won't be actually used but only for research, asking questions like "Can it be done?" "How effective is it?" "What can we gain by doing this?" "What are the disadvantages?", one doesn't want industry to do it. Industry is best when doing mass building of the thing to actually deploy them in combat, a setting where the industry can see a way to make a profit from the project by applying what they learnt with the prototype. This in contrast is basic science where the outcome will provide, hopefully, valuable clues how to design these things in the end, but not a design that will be actually used for anything. Basic science is fine to have on universities, tho I agree with you that they should do it like the DARPA urban challenge instead of the old traditional DARPA model, unless they think it must be done more secretly for national security reasons.

Re:Is this what is called pork ?

[wellingj]

I think it's safe to say Carnegie Melon is focused on industry applicable results when it comes to robotics.
Maybe you should check out the NREC.

Re:Is this what is called pork ?

[innerweb]

Robotic warriors don't bother me. Its those cloners that bother me. Robots are not able to respond and be creative in the way cloners can. Thats why the cloner army destroyed the CIS so fast.

[/humor]

InnerWeb

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:Is this what is called pork ?

[shrikel]

No, pork is the culinary name for meat from the domestic pig. This is a mechanized weapons platform, and falls under the heading "robotics." There are other differences as well (for example: pork is sometimes called "the other white meat" while this particular robotic tank has almost certainly never been called that (at least until some wise-cracking slashdot poster proves me wrong)), but that first one is the major difference.

Re:Is this what is called pork ?

[timmarhy]

"of course, we have to do something about the theft of that technology by countries like China"

pfft. face it, while you may invent the toys, it's the chinese that make them affordable.you NEED them to steal your idea's so that your own populace can actually afford them.

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.

Re:Is this what is called pork ?

[Dachannien]

Projects like this are, more often than not, the result of a competitive proposal review process, although sometimes the solicitor can have in mind a particular research group when writing the solicitation.

It's not pork because such money is not directly budgeted by Congress to go toward the specific research group or project.

Re:Is this what is called pork ?

[raju1kabir]

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.

The driverless car, which is meant to work in a cooperative environment (that is, cooperating with other driverless cars), seems like something that could actually be viable.

This tank, on the other hand, is a preposterous idea.

I will guarantee you that with US$10,000 worth of materials I can destroy any autonomous land vehicle created in the next 20 years.

Re:Is this what is called pork ?

[Shihar]

The US will happily play "the my 1,000,000 dollars to your 10,000 dollars" game... because they will win. Money isn't the problem. Even if the US didn't have vast amounts of money on hand, the US has vast untapped reserves of money it could plow into if it desperately needed to in the form of raising their taxes which, by industrialized democracy standards, are somewhere between low and very low. The problem Americans have in fighting a war is that they get sick of troops dying very quickly, especially if they don't perceive and imminent threat. The political will to fight is far harder to muster than the cash, and even harder to sustain.

The real value in drones is that you have the potential to reduce casualties for all parties. Clearly, the party using the drones suffers less casualties because the operators are behind nice high walls. Civilians also have the potential to suffer fewer casualties though. If you ambush a squad of marines, they are going to fight back, spray bullets everywhere, and in general do the human thing and try and preserve their lives. The problem is that when people spray bullets in a city and you have soldiers scared for their lives and pumped up on adrenalin, civilians die.

Drones offer an alternative. There is a world of difference between being out in the field with your life on the line, and sitting in an AC cooled room, with no threat to your life other than your commanding officer and the military lawyer who will tack your balls against the wall if you violate the rules of engagement. Everyone is calmer and making better decisions, there are more people there to help make the decisions, and the good of the mission can win out every time over the life of the drones. If your buddy gets blown up, he grumbles, and gets a new drone. If your buddy gets blown up in the real world, you tend to get pissed and start thinking that maybe the civilian around you knew it was coming down and are far less inclined to play nice.

Yes yes... there is always the argument about cheapening war. That said, there are times when a cheap war would have been the right thing. A cheap war where a drones had stepped in to stop the horrific genocide in Rwanda would have been well worth it. Instead, no nation felt like ponying up the soldiers and lives it would have taken to stop a genocide that killed off over 10% of the population and left countless wounded and raped.

Re:Is this what is called pork ?

[Fourier404]

You'd be able to destroy any manned vehicle created in the next 20 years with $10,000 too, but if it was autonomous there'd be no casualties. That's a pretty big difference.

Re:Is this what is called pork ?

[innerweb]

pfft. face it, while you may invent the toys, it's the chinese that make them affordable.you NEED them to steal your idea's so that your own populace can actually afford them.

Last time I checked the production of the military and technology I was referring to was here in the US or in specially designated countries, not China! That is one of the reasons that certain technologies are not allowed to be exported to certain countries, if they are allowed to be exported at all. I would have much more sympathy for China (PRC) if it actually contributed something back to the world in kind, but to my knowledge, they do not.

Right, and Toyota needs the US to steal their technologies so they can build cheaper vehicles in the US. Get real. Theft is theft, outsourcing is something quite different. China (PRC) has a history of human rights violations and abuse of their and other peoples. And that is why Mexico is stealing everything as well.. Oh wait, they are not.

InnerWeb

Re:Is this what is called pork ?

[raju1kabir]

It would be considerably harder to repeatedly destroy manned vehicles, as their operators can learn quickly and are much better at thinking like I do.

Re:Is this what is called pork ?

[Fourier404]

Oh yea, since dead people are so good at learning, and people with limbs blown off are going to be driving tanks.

Re:Is this what is called pork ?

[raju1kabir]

When I am learning how to blow up the vehicle, I will fail many times and then finally succeed once.

If, in that time, the vehicle's operator doesn't learn anything, or only "learns" in the shallow ways that AI does, then my job will be far easier.

If, on the other hand, the vehicle's operator is as smart as I am, he can drag out the process and make it very expensive for me. I might even be detected and neutralised before I succeed.

Re:Is this what is called pork ?

[Fourier404]

In an insurgency, if you fail to blow somebody up, the chances of facing the exact same driver again are slim to none, and though that driver will again face people trying to blow him up, they'll all have different tactics and styles, making it difficult for anything, human or machine, to really learn to stay out of trouble. Besides, looking at Iraq now, if American troops had really been learning for these last 4 years, IEDs wouldn't be such a problem any more.

Re:Is this what is called pork ?

[Ed Woychowsky]

No it's called a Bolo.

Re:Is this what is called pork ?

[bigmammoth]

yea either it will make the situation more calm.. or people will lose any sense of the reality of the situation and play it like a video game... similar to the effect of aerial bombing where the `costs` of war are hidden from the group that has the most firepower and capacity for destruction.

Long term we have to be a bit concerned with the 'efficiency' in controlling large population. The most violent systems of state oppression and apocalyptic weaponry always emerge from the most technologically advanced nations. As technology makes it easier to "fight" stateless wars (the only kind of war we will have until the end) Its only a matter of time before the powerful weaponry inevitable points inward to destroy "all" it's internal "enemies".

The margin in which democratic values overcome fascism is already pretty razor thin. And in fact already completely subverted for sectors of the global population under occupation. Here highly sophisticated military technology is deployed not to address the real social and economic problems that drive people to want to overthrown imposed governments or destabilize society ...rather it institutes violent military control over peoples lives. The military solutions ofcourse never fixes the real social and economic problems so they linger and push those that do not accept oppressive social and economic systems to violence and within hegemonic logic necessitate more military resources and perpetuate a downward spiral of violence ie Iraq. Here one of two things happen the collective decides the "costs" of imposing control are not worth it and seeks a political solution or your left with a planet of "green zones" and violent urban warfare outside of this space carried out by loyal drones.

Reducing these "costs" may seem like a good idea for the short term, especially for those currently living the the green zone nations of the world... but eventually these low "costs" apply inward and subvert democratic systems. Making it easier to impose systems of control on others is the first step of reducing your own freedoms. ...Ultimately what goes around comes around...or more aptly put "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"

So in conclusion we would be much better off supporting technologies that support democratic institutions and give people control over their lives rather than technologies that let the state violently impose a single ridged idea of what freedom is for others.

Re:Is this what is called pork ?

[plague3106]

You still need to protect the insides; a tank that is disabled because the motors were damaged, or destroyed outright because the shells inside explode wouldn't be very useful.

Areal?

[Gertlex]

Might I wager "aerial?"

Maybe these damn typos are intentional by submitters. It can't be that hard at all, seeing how lax the editors are.

Re:Areal?

[liquiddark]

Maybe they were going for Areola, because it's the very tip of the tits.

Re:Areal?

[chgros]

I don't think we're talking about a flying tank here. Areal sounds weird but it's a real word.

Re:Areal?

[chgros]

You're right. I thought they were talking about the tank, but they're talking about a plane.
Besides, areal didn't really make sense, even for a tank, but on the other hand the military is known to bend the language on occasion.

Re:Areal?

[J_Darnley]

It might be a real word but is used incorrectly here as the link points to a /. story about an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.

Re:Areal?

[ScrewMaster]

No, as in "Areolus", the Greek God of the Savage Breast.

I For One Welcome...

[AtomicSnarl]

"Move or I'll Shoot!"

Oh, never mind -- nobody saw Heartbeeps anyway...

Re:I For One Welcome...

[davester666]

A student protest is scheduled for May 1st, when the prototype is expected to be ready for it's first trial. Further protests will be scheduled as development progresses.

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

[PaintyThePirate]

CMU got the $14 million because the Robotics Institute already has an autonomous tank, Crusher. The money was given specifically to create an updated version of it.

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.

Re:This Won't Work

[drgould]

just open it up and say "create an autonomous tank and the winner gets $14 million dollars."

Sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't. They've had three "Challenges" now and they they still don't have a real autonomous vehicle. Just something that, on a good day, might finish a closed course.

So what they've done is actually kinda smart. They've had the Urban Challenge and identified the most promising teams, and now they're funding the first prize winner to develop a "robo-tank". Best of both worlds.

Personally, I think if they were really smart, they'd also fund Stanford and Virgina Tech, the second and third place winners. It hedges their bets and if nothing else it adds a little incentive to any future Challenges.

Re:This Won't Work

[ducomputergeek]

$14.4M is nothing for this kind of thing. I wonder what it would have cost if it was given to GD or Locheed, or some other defense contractor.

Re:This Won't Work

[c6gunner]

Need I remind you that the internet was created by DARPA?

And they certainly didn't say "create an open forum for all kind of idiots to voice their opinions, and you'll get 14 million dollars".

On the other hand....you have a point. The current internet is probably a huge failure in the eyes of DARPA.....

Re:This Won't Work

[couchslug]

"I imagine building a robotic tank is considerably more expensive than building a robotic car."

Not if the tracked vehicle is from the large number of M60 tanks and M113 APCs in reserve. They are available free to fire depts for wildland firefighting conversions too, BTW.

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

[Locutus]

especially if they're in a truck which looks like this: ;-)

http://www.lilligren.com/Redneck/images/redneck_limo_4.jpg

LoB

Fratracide machine

[Jeff1946]

Unless it has a lot better friend or foe capability than we have now, I wouldn't want this thing near any friendly soldiers. Not to mention it probably would be easy pickings for a RPG.

Re:Fratracide machine

[KDR_11k]

I'd be less worried about RPGs and more about gunship-launched ATGMs.

Re:Fratracide machine

[jozmala]

If you consider modern armoug against old RPG:s the result is obvious. Of course there is modern RPG:s available that can penetrate frontal armour of modern battle tank. However those things are heavy rpg:s not medium/light rpg:s (which is exacly what civilians think when talking about rpg:s).

Then there is modern tanks that are more concerned about mobility and firepower than armour, which medium rpg:s are still effective if you can hit it with one.

Areal?

[bmo]

Areal as in "related to Ares the Greek God of Savage War"?

Fitting typo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares

--
BMO

Link to more objective article...

[MLopat]

Link to PC Pro News

Mechs? No? Darn.

[noc007]

The first thing I thought of was MechWarrior. Thoughts of a Timber Wolf moving down the campus crossed my mind.

Re:Mechs? No? Darn.

[downix]

I'm more a fan of the Highlander myself. 95 tons landing on you would ruin anyones day.... 8)

Re:Mechs? No? Darn.

[BlueStrat]

Even an Uller would be a devastating weapon against current armed forces. Heck, for that matter, so would a Flea! (at least against infantry/light armor) You go ahead and take that Highlander and I'll take the Uller, stripped down with one Clan Extended Range Large Laser or one Heavy Laser, full armor, and max speed. I used to love taking my little Uller into League online battles and tear up n00bs in Assault mechs! >:)

Cheers!

Strat

Re:Mechs? No? Darn.

[downix]

the Uller is a nice setup. I used to rule online matches in my custom Assassin design as well. For some odd reason nobody expects the quad machineguns.....

Ok

[ShooterNeo]

First, it's been obvious for a long time that robot tanks (and eventually robot infantry) are an inevitable development. It WILL happen, has to happen. Some of the posters will spout some meaningless garbage about how you can't trust a machine to decide whether or not to kill someone. Others will give some meaningless "rah rah" about how you can't hold ground without a 20 year old with a rifle standing there to keep it.

In response to this : first, I predict for the foreseeable future none of these fighting machines will be allowed to shoot anyone without human authorization. Requiring a human operator to directly control the machine from a safe distance away is the plan.

And second, a fleshy 20 year old is a bad way to hold ground. Robots have numerous advantages over humans. 1. Disposable. 2. Can take risks with a robot that a human wouldn't take. 3. Don't need supplies when not operating. Could deploy robots in hidden capsules located in the ground, using no fuel and minimal battery power. When something happens, months or years later, you activate the robot and guide it on it's mission. 4. A control center for an army of robots could have far more educated and experienced people manning it than the kind of people you can get to sign up for the Army and marines. Notably, you could have experienced translators, and input from high ranking officers.

Finally, robots mass produced should be cheaper than human soldiers.

Ultimately, the only thing holding this all back is technology. The KEY technology that made tele-operated robotic war-fighters impossible in the 1980s and early 1990s was that there was no way to get the kind of bandwidth needed over digital radios using un-jammable and unbreakable codes.

Notably, the communication system needed for this type of war machine is a mesh network of high bandwidth radio links (each robot would need several megabits, mostly for data from the video cameras) using electronically steered antennae to filter out jamming and allow for thousands of robots sharing the same slice of spectrum. All data would need to be communicated using a one time encryption pad.

As far as I know, the kind of radio hardware to do that was not possible before 2000, and using one time pad encryption means each bot would need to have many gigabytes of internal non-volatile storage. The tech wasn't possible in the past. It is today.

Sure, in the 1980s and 1990s there were demos of related technology, and people laughed at it and said it could never replace human beings. It can.

Note : I am in the US Army reserves as a medic.

Re:Ok

[Dunbal]

While I agree with the general gist of your post, that robotics are certainly going to be a big part of a "future" army, I have to make a few counter-points.

Your "robot" needs a human to oversee it - a human who requires supplies whether or not the robot is "in combat".

Your "robot" cannot make decisions on the fly like a human can. Therefore all data gathered by the robot needs far greater resources to determine if something in front of it is or isn't a "threat" than a grunt would. We see this today with UAV's - it's a lot harder to make the decision to shoot from 8000 miles away. So human friendly casualties are reduced but reaction time is decreased. Assuming you want to stick to the rules of war and not just kill anything in front of the robot. But if you're going to do THAT, why don't you just nuke the fuckers - a lot cheaper.

Unless your robot has a decent "brain" (ie lots of $$$) and can think for itself, it requires communication with remote human or artificial "brains". This need for communication is a vulnerability and subject to interferece/jamming, etc.

By no means can you fight a war completely remotely. At least not yet.

Re:Ok

[blind biker]

I like the part where you delve into the communication-side of the equation. I would just like to add that they would probably have to use frequency hopping - usuing, again, a schema based on one-time pad.

Re:Ok

[ToastyKen]

I wanted to add something to my last reply. I've noticed that, because I'm a programmer and whatnot, I tend to geek out about cool tech. I think the gov't does, too, and so it's easy to sell everyone, from higher-ups to civilians, on cool fast jets and all that stuff. And of course there are plenty of companies and college students with interests and incentives to research all that stuff.

There's less incentive to attempt social "weapons", and it's much less glamorous. As that recent Wired article pointed out, a few people trained in local customs having a cup of tea and properly negotiating and deploying propaganda can have a much bigger effect than high tech weapons. The problem is, most people, including people on Slashdot, including myself, would much rather read about cool new unmanned attack vehicles than about some dude having tea.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with geeking out about cool new tech, but I just think we need to actively keep that excitement in perspective, and to remember all the other potentially less deadly but more effective tools we have at our disposable that would could be spending our resources on.

All that said, I can totally understand an Army medic wanting to reduce soldier casualties any way possible. And I know it's easy for me to sit here in my swivel chair pontificating philosophically about all this without every having to see someone with a bullet wound. :\

Re:Ok

[rubycodez]

use of nuclear weapons costs tremendous political clout and risks at least economic harm in return by many nations. but an automated killing machine that kills friend or foe indiscriminately, already had those for more than half a century

Re:Ok

[mattpalmer1086]

I'm surprised you specify one-time-pads for encrypting communications. They are completely unbreakable with good random pads that are only used once, but they must be unique for each machine and the station it communicates with. Key management is really hard.

I would hazard a guess that they would use other forms of encryption. If the communication is two way, then a key exchange protocol used to derive symmetric session keys would seem more useful, to my non-military eyes. If the communication is only one way, I'm still not sure why you need to bother with unbreakable communications. Aside from anything else, its communication probably doesn't have to be secure from an enemy forever - I assume there is only a limited window in which the information from a single vehicle is useful on a battlefield.

Re:Ok

[JimboSlim]

Right. Those are good points. But did you hear about the robotic weapon system that recently shot and killed a few of the onlookers present at the demonstration? So, yeah of course anything is possible in the future but we aren't there yet and it could be a little while. How much longer till we get to the point where we can realize the potential of fusion? Free energy right? They've been talking about that technology for years. What happened? But that's a bit off topic. Let's get back to the subject at hand. So if we and when we develop these robotic soldiers and I would guess that the enemy will also have robotic soldiers right? So then are we going to fly our robots over to fight the enemy's? That seems kind of sill actually. So why not save all this time and money and just settle our differences by having national "Robowars". We can use the same format as the television show. Ha! How's that for a shift in paradigms?

Re:Ok

[ShooterNeo]

You're right. I just wanted to specify something that avoids any chance of the obvious problem : enemy either jams the communications, making all the robots stop working, or the worst possible problem : they crack the codes and send your own robots after you.

There's a way to efficiently generate the terrabytes of pure random data.

Re:Ok

[ImpTech]

Notably, the communication system needed for this type of war machine is a mesh network of high bandwidth radio links (each robot would need several megabits, mostly for data from the video cameras) using electronically steered antennae to filter out jamming and allow for thousands of robots sharing the same slice of spectrum. All data would need to be communicated using a one time encryption pad. Radio spectrum being finite as it is, this is still (and will probably always be) basically impossible. You simply can't deliver high bandwidth to a large number of robots over radio. You need robots that use less bandwidth, and are therefore more autonomous, or you need a non-RF communication mechanism.

Re:Ok

[Paracelcus]

Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14am. Eastern time, August 29th!

Ruuun!

Re:Ok

[darkfire5252]

I think you're missing a crucial benefit to robotic warfare. You no longer have any need to concern yourself with morale. The morale of the troops is vital to any military operation; once the soldiers either feel like they're losing or feel like they're fighting a battle that shouldn't be fought, their performance suffers tremendously. I.E. a so-called 'civilized' country's military forces (arguably) would have serious issues when ordered to open fire on an unarmed civilian population, but that is a non-issue with robotic forces. I know the response to this will be 'but there's still a human deciding when to shoot', but the key fact behind that is which humans are doing the deciding. There's no need to have 1 man for each robot (and indeed it would kind of defeat the purpose), and it's more likely that the controllers will have greater knowledge of how to use this force and more personal investment in the outcome.

Re:Ok

[hawk]

>Notably, the communication system needed for this type of war machine is a mesh network of high bandwidth radio links

But this is going to use fifteen year old communications technology. 14.4? C'mon, they could at least have gone for 56k, even if the FCC only lets them use 53k of that . . . :)

hawk

Re:Ok

[ShooterNeo]

Actually, that's why they used electronically steered antennae. For all practical purposes, the radio spectrum IS infinite, if you add the SPATIAL domain to your communication. Basically, now it matters not only what frequency you use, the time you send the signal, amplitude (conventional radios use all three characteristics of electronic waves) but also where in space your robot is located. As long as the thousands of robots, all with multi-megabit data links, are spread out over miles of battlefield and use electronically steered antennae, they can all work at once.

You simply CAN deliver high bandwidth to a large number of robots over radio.

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

[hax0r_this]

Neither policy nor morality can typically halt innovation, so aside from just throwing out that "it might be bad" (and I think you make a good point in that regard) I don't see what anyone can do about it aside from making sure whatever side you are on gets it first.

Re:Secondary effects

[The One and Only]

(Now that I think about it, roadside IEDs are kind of like unmanned suicide bombers, turning the tables...)

That's actually quite backwards. Most people plant unmanned explosives. Suicide bombers are (as an exception) manned bombs--likewise, kamikazes are manned cruise missiles, devised by the Japanese when they couldn't develop a guidance system.

Re:Secondary effects

[ToastyKen]

Good point.

Re:Secondary effects

[zermous]

Just a factor working in the other direction: wouldnt one be more tempted to shoot first and ask questions later if our own soldiers lives were on the line? We WANT to fight as ethical a war as possible given the constraints of not wanting to lose too many of our own lives. (not everyone necessarily wants that). If our lives are not on the line, that actually relieves some of the burden of having to protect our own and should actually make things safer for civilians on the other side. Having these abilities also gives us the potential to make more strikes than we otherwise would be able to with only human soldiers.. giving us the ability to create more victories than we otherwise wouldve. Not that more victories will necessarily eventually result in total victory.. but one tries where one can.

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.

Re:Secondary effects

[acaila_edhel]

Your comment "Traditionally, the human cost has put a check on war-waging. " is belayed by the last 2000 years of history. Democracies have generally put a check on expansionist war waging by dictators and monarchs who don't usually care about the human toll. Can you imagine having the equivalent of the 100 years war today?

Re:Secondary effects

[vidarh]

Can you image any of the wars over the last 2000 years if the parties involved had access to unlimited humans to replace the dead? The human cost certainly HAS put a check on war-waging. Armies used to be tiny, because there simply weren't enough people around to man the kind of wars we've seen in the last hundred years. Even in WW I and WW II the availability of people to fight was a major limitation on both sides.

The "human cost" isn't only about suffering, but about sheer numbers. If you replace the loss of soldiers with the loss of machines you can quickly make more off, you change the nature of war dramatically.

Re:Secondary effects

[Deliveranc3]

Question: What's the smallest leathal weapon... Micro-poison darts?

When we go down the robotic warfare road we arrive at nano-warfare.

Though the army likes big beefy guys, smaller targets are better.

Next big war we'll have 18" crablike robots which walk on walls and have graphical camoflage, they do assasination style killings and wander through cities searching for heat sources.

The war after that the biggest problem will be making sure they don't go outside the combat zone.

This American administration has proved that reported death is just a number.

Bioweapons are ugly in the news, poison darts that kill an entire population in their sleep is an extra 0 on a number and a 300 word story.

Re:Secondary effects

[kalirion]

"We're sick of war. The Warlock's Wheel would end war. Can you imagine an army trying to fight with nothing but sword's and daggers? No hurling of death spells. No prescients spying out the enemy's battle plans. No killer demons beating at unseen protective walls. Man to man, sword against sword, blood and bronze, and no healing spells. Why, no king would ever fight on such terms. We'd give up war forever!"

- An anti-magic activist in Larry Niven's short story "What Good is a Glass Dagger."

Re:Secondary effects

[xhrit]

The Airforce 2025 report features teleporting attack nanobots. all a nanobot would need to do is enter the body and cause a blood clot in the heart.

watch-robo-cop-for-cues-on-what-not-to-do

[John Hasler]

No. Read old Keith Laumer stories.

Re:watch-robo-cop-for-cues-on-what-not-to-do

[mac1235]

I for one welcome our new Bolo guardians!

Re:watch-robo-cop-for-cues-on-what-not-to-do

[Fyzzler]

According to Keith Laumer's timeline, the Bolo Mark I was built right around now. Though I think he had Ford Motor company doing it, and not Carnegie Mellon. :)

Illegal to deploy at home.

[headkase]

I'm all for expending steel instead of lives. The only misgiving I would have at all is domestic uses of these technologies. Not SWAT or special response situations but more general use. At home I believe the final barrier to misuse is a real human being who says: "You know what? I'm not going to pull the f*cking trigger.". Without this as the ultimate safe-guard at home then it entertains the very real possibility of a hostile hijacking of liberties.

OGRE!

[Anonymous Coward]

The prophet Steve Jackson foretold this happening long ago!

Re:What sort of opposition is the US public

[calebt3]

If that were the case, I imagine that opposition to the war would be like environmentalism: more in the realm of an abstract ideal that most people won't care about when it comes to the bottom line. I am seeing 3 major objections to the war:
1) Lives are being lost.
Never a good thing, but our casualty rates are a joke compared to past wars. At the battle of Gettysburg, the Union alone suffered 23,000 casualties in three days. Iraq war? 3,879 (US) or 4,185 (total coalition) since March 2003.
2) Expensive.
Meh, $14.4 million for a tank ain't gonna change that, considering a normal M1A2 Abrams is $4.35 million.
3) There is no reason for us to be there in the first place.
I'm not informed enough to make a well thought-out comment on this, but I do know that Iraq would collapse if we simply left tomorrow. Probably was a bad idea to make that region all one country after WW2, with all the racial tension.

Predecessor Crusher is why we got this money

[jkua]

The reason CMU got this funding is primarily due to the fact that we built Crusher (I'm a grad student at the Robotics Institute), for which some of this funding is directed to upgrade. Crusher is, hands-down, the biggest beast of a robot I've ever seen. It's a six wheeled, 6.5 ton, autonomous vehicle - this thing can drive up 4 foot (1.2 meter) steps, has 30 inches (76 cm) of suspension travel, and can carry 8000 lbs of payload. There isn't much that this thing can't handle.

If you have never seen Crusher in action, you've got to see it to believe it. There's a bunch of videos here: http://www.rec.ri.cmu.edu/projects/crusher/videos/index.htm.

The quote in the original post is a little misleading - I don't really think NREC is going to be working on mounting weapons on the new vehicle. Primarily they're continuing development on autonomous mobility - can it properly plan and quickly execute a good route to get from point A to point B over rough terrain. Check out the CMU press release for a little more detail on the grant.

Re:Predecessor Crusher is why we got this money

[earthbound kid]

Does it concern you at all that you're helping create a machine which is being funded expressly in the hopes that it will be good at killing people at a later date?

Re:Predecessor Crusher is why we got this money

[physicsphairy]

Do you have a job? Does it concern you that you're generating economic product a significant portion will be directly funding an entire military in the hopes that it will be good at killing people at a later date? (...and the present?)

Re:Predecessor Crusher is why we got this money

[DoofusOfDeath]

The quote in the original post is a little misleading - I don't really think NREC is going to be working on mounting weapons on the new vehicle. Primarily they're continuing development on autonomous mobility - can it properly plan and quickly execute a good route to get from point A to point B over rough terrain.

So to summarize your point, "I don't make robots that will kill people. I'm just working on the early unarmed prototype of robots that will kill people!"

People can put your research to good or bad use. Choose wisely what you work on.

Re:Predecessor Crusher is why we got this money

[earthbound kid]

There's a real difference between direct and indirect contribution to the problem. I've got work at something or I'll starve. I could emigrate (and in fact, I did live outside the US for two years), but that's not a very practical solution to the problem of excessive militarism. What makes more sense is for me to stay in the country and vote for people who have reasonable foreign policy goals. There's nothing about just having a job that necessarily implies killing someone else. On the hand, when you design a robot tank, the goal of that action is, "If everything works out, there will be a better way to kill people remotely." Killing is the goal, not something that might happen inadvertently anyway. That's not a good goal to have!

Now look, I don't condemn all things military. My brother and brother-in-law are both officers in the military. I can respect people who want to defend their country. But I don't see the need to create a whole new class of killing machines.

Re:Predecessor Crusher is why we got this money

[hanshotfirst]

Not sure how much I hold to this argument personally, but one I expect that can be made is that some form of killing machine will be used in time of war, whether it is a manned tank, a truck full of soldiers, or an autonomous robot with weapons. If any of these is used the goal is the same, but with an autonomous vehicle you can meet the same objective without risking your own troops, reducing the total lives lost in the encounter. It's similar to the argument of whether the a-bomb, while horrific, resulted in less lives lost overall than an invasion (which we'll never know, since it's hypothetical).

Re:Predecessor Crusher is why we got this money

[earthbound kid]

All things being equal, is the world better with machine guns?

Now, on the one hand, you might argue, if you're going to have a war anyway, then you may as well use a tool that lets you meet your objective without risking your own troops, reducing the total lives lost in the encounter. So, in that case, there are the same number of dead enemies and fewer dead people on our side.

The trouble is, our enemies now have machine guns too. And since they have machine guns, the lives lost by us are now equal again. And worse, crazy people can get machine guns and use them to shoot up schools or whatever and kill more people than they would be able to using a normal gun or a knife.

Building a robot tank only makes sense if you believe that the US will always be the global super-cop capable of going into all other nations without the fear that some other nation's troops will come into it. Having a robot tank encourages us to invade other places, since, hey, it's not like many Americans are going to die. The trouble is, the more wars we fight without being killed, the more the other side thinks, "We need to find an asymmetric way to get inside of the US and do similar damage to them." They could, for example, hack one of the tanks remotely. Or, more simply, have a mole in the US military and instruct that mole to turn our weapons against us. Or they could do the usual kinds of terrorism such as car bombs or snipers.

The point is, even if having a new weapon may in some cases be a good thing for us, in the long run, we're better off finding a way of maintaining peace that doesn't rely on our being able to kill everyone else, since they will someday gain a similar capability.

Re:Predecessor Crusher is why we got this money

[hanshotfirst]

I have no argument with any of this. I'm would not be surprised if similar discussions have happened throughout history, since the the spear, the sword, the bow, the catapult, the gun, the tank, ... any weapons advance can start the same discussion. I'm sure this won't be the last new weapon to raise the question.

No, it's

[Mitchell Mebane]

areal, as in "not real".

Re:What sort of opposition is the US public

[qbzzt]

What sort of opposition will the US public have for a just war? Or a necessary one?

I, for one, would rather have our soldiers safe. Even if it means that third world dictators lose their power more often.

Who needs tanks anymore?

[CrazyJim1]

Maybe that is what they're out to prove, but I see two major combat redundancies here, and I'm not even searching hard. And before I typed them out, I answered myself. I'll post this though because I think it will be interesting. A) If you can get a laser reading on anything with GPS, you can annihilate it via any number of GPS integrated missiles, and I'm sure the autonomous flying vehicle can do an air strike on the point too. So why not lower the lethality of the tank, and just use it more as a scout vehicle that can send valuable visual information as well as paint a target with GPS. B) You don't need much armor on the tank except to protect its engine/treads/ammunition and sensors. This thing's primary goal isn't going to be protecting lifeforms inside even though the first tank will probably be a lot like a conventional tank... For two reasons: Its easy to start with, and having a big ass tank in your lab is unfortunately worth cool points. PS: I was on the team for the first red team racing car, but all they had me do was plot some GPS points. PSS: I thought the robotic vehicle was 5-20 years in the future, not 1. LOL. PSSS: I think the ultimate combat vehicle for modern warfare that I could imagine would be a satellite up link spy tank. It could drop surveillance pods at convenient places to monitor if enemies are moving there. It would also have a few anti bomb robots it could deploy to take out things like IEDs, and to advance on the opponent where you wouldn't want to risk the whole tank. Of course, I don't think this vehicle ever should be autonomous except for uploading video and sensor information. Lets take it one step at a time, and have people safely piloting these things from a distance before jumping into the land of ED209.

Re:Who needs tanks anymore?

[anaesthetica]

Who needs tanks anymore?

Here's why we need tanks.

Re:Who needs tanks anymore?

[Spacezilla]

PSSS Shouldn't that be "PPPS"? :)

Re:Who needs tanks anymore?

[Iowan41]

We still need dragoons (mobile infantry), and we still need heavies to take out the heavies that take out the dragoons. What we may see are RV force multipliers and scouts, such as the raven, the artificial dragonfly from the 1970s, the existing rv rovers used by forces in Iraq for looking in rooms before the soldiers go in, and so forth. What we may be up against would be anything from individuals with RPGs, Stingers and rifles, to main battle tanks and SU-37s. We need to be prepared against anything that we might encounter, depending on the battlefield. Then there are the two old observations that those who live inside the Beltway pocket universe need to remember: 1) Soldiers make poor policemen and policemen make poor soldiers. 2) Never, ever anger the legions.

The Big Question

[QuantumFTL]

The big question here seems to be - will (eventually) having a cheap, powerful unmanned military force make the United States much more likely to use it? Or will this (potentially) massive increase in force strength serve as a deterrent?

Unfortunately, I think it will likely be the former.

This is news? I have two.

[SEWilco]

What's the big deal? I have three robot tanks already: one is called "water heater" and another "water softener"; in my car my "gas tank" tells me when I need to connect it to the tank-fed robots at a station. What's so special about yet another robot tank?

I for one...

[m0ng0l]

Welcome our new BOLO units!

Much friendlier than OGREs, although maybe the Pan-European Fencer might make it necessary to move to OGREs...

Re:I for one...

[Sir Fredman]

Yep, finally the Bolo Mk1 makes its appearance. A few years too late, but I really like the idea of continental siege units that are brave, resourceful and witty. I wonder what name they will give the first one ...

Re:I for one...

[demo9orgon]

http://www.sjgames.com/ogre/

Looks like those of us who have already played at autonomous tank warfare are in the minority. :-)

Long after I played O.G.R.E. I also enlisted as a 19E10.
If staying in had been my goal (instead of college) I would have had a great time in DESERT STORM.

Tanks for the memories. :-)

Morality

[DoofusOfDeath]

How do you decide when it's good to place better weapons in your President's hands vs. when it's not good?

If only the U.S. had several, distinct militaries:
a) the Department of Defense (only functions in or near U.S. borders)
b) the Department of Securing Cheap Oil
c) the Department of Get Them Before They Get Us.
d) the Department of Team America, World Police.

Unfortunately, when researchers take DoD money, or soldiers enlist, they have no choice but to support all of a - d. Painful dilemma.

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

Re:Morality

[chartophylax]

Upon seeing this video, I sent the following email to some non-technical friends of mine:

###
Subject: These Assholes are going to Kill us All.

Gentlemen,

http://www.rec.ri.cmu.edu/projects/crusher/videos/index.htm

See this collection of videos. Feel the fear that arises when you come
to the inevitable conclusion that the descendants of this soulless
automaton will be used for one thing, and one thing only: to crush the
fucking proletariat. Sure, there'll be a lot of talk about "casualty
reduction" and so on, but does anyone really believe that? Really?

I know I don't.
###

I, for one, can't wait to live in a future where mechanized killbots with facial-recognition software patrol the world's working-class neighborhoods to keep us "safe".

Thanks, Dudes!

Re:Morality

[DoofusOfDeath]

I'm surprised the parent got modded "Funny". I actually meant it as a serious lament. Much research money in America comes from the DoD. As a researcher, you often are forced to choose between not being funded, or being funded to support an occasionally evil enterprise.

Defending our own borders rarely troubles my conscience. But invading Iraq based on a lie bothers me a great deal. But many American researchers aren't given the ability to do work that only benefits the former.

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.

Obligatory

[SeaFox]

Well I, for one, welcome our new higher education engineering overlords!

I remind them that the current administration might make excellent test subjects for the armored autonomous vehicle's weapons systems.

Systems that shoot back

[Animats]

first, I predict for the foreseeable future none of these fighting machines will be allowed to shoot anyone without human authorization.

There's considerable interest in systems that shoot back, really fast. The U.S. Army has had counter-battery fire systems for decades, but they've been used against larger indirect-fire weapons. The Army would like to downsize this into a "use a gun, die within seconds" capability, something that could detect hostile gunfire and land indirect fire on the shooter faster than a human could get out of the way.

We'll probably see robotic guns like that, operating under rules of engagement that allow them to kill anybody without an IFF firing a weapon.

Re:Bolo...

[Arakageeta]

I first thought of this Bolo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_(computer_game)

These are the tank's specs

[asm2750]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OLeEjMEGwLg yeah its a probably the most efficient killing machine ever made.

Re:What sort of opposition is the US public

[qbzzt]

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

Just a "promotional" tool for their online library

[JewGold]

We have ways of making you read those 1.5 million books, Mr. Bond.

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,

Accountability will be out the window

[newgalactic]

My main fear is not the effectiveness of the system, it's the potential for a complete lack of accountability in the machine's actions. Seriously, it would be very easy to disguise an assassination as an "equipment malfunction". At least when a solder "f's up" and kills someone they shouldn't, we can go to them and ask "What the hell were you thinking?".

...This systems offers the same potential for chicanery as e-voting, with the danger only slightly less significant.

Why?

[Leuf]

From a purely practical standpoint, you've already got to armor the thing to keep it from getting blown up, so removing the human from the tank doesn't get you as much compared to an aircraft. There are other means of getting eyes on something or blowing things up in situations where you wouldn't risk something with people in it. It's not like these things are going to be "expendable" with their no doubt ridiculous price tags. Plus, I'm pretty sure we still have human loaders instead of auto loaders because well trained humans can do it more reliably in less space inside the tank than an autoloader.

Re:Reminiscing...

[SnowZero]

The campus O was going downhill anyway. A small fries in 1996 was about 3x bigger than the ones they ended up with in 200x when they left. A large fries used to fill up a whole tray and feed four people at a movie.

They will kill us all just as inevitably

[thaig]

It's even more clear that we want robots to operate autonomously - to make use of their reaction speed and reduce the cost of managing hundreds of them. It will also allow them to operate where communications are difficult - all the UAVs for example are limited in range by the available comms.

And, so, utterly inevitably, we will make them smart enough to make life-or-death decisions and we will pretend that our special "kill switch" or IFF or whatever will allow us to control them. That is complete crap, of course, because we know that this doesn't stop even humans (i.e. Americans) from shooting down friendly aircraft.

If they become smart enough, though, they will be complex enough to have very complex problems e.g. viruses and they will be very fragile like a lot of modern weapons e.g. to EMP weapons or whatever. In order to *be* autonomous they will need to have some kind of motive embedded together with a desire for self preservation (being incredibly expensive) and one or two will also work out how to turn off their own kill switches and that will be the small beginning to the process by which we create a deadly enemy for ourselves. I think that we will all be wiped out when our robot servants can't think of a reason for us to exist and consider us nothing but a potential threat.

That is inevitable. Just as we can't stop ourselves from making nuclear weapons.

Goodbye, It's been nice to be here.

whoa! areality cheque!

[slashdotard]

Is this a hint that the product of this project is not real or is it something related to an area of something? Or was this written by a certain Miss Speller?

Hay! I cud spel two! Juana Sea?

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.

Re:Ethical problems: continuous easy war

[turgid]

Things are only going to get worse before they get better. GW wants to take out Iran next, so this kind of robotic weapons system will come in handy.

East and West are squaring up against each other and the bigots and Xenophobes on each side are falling for it. Muhammad the teddy bear?

I'm not looking forward to the last 30-40 years of my life.

Forget going back to the Moon and on to Mars, we'll all go up in smoke.

Re:Ethical problems: continuous easy war

[ricegf]

No more wars. We're had enough.

Virtually everyone agrees with this point. Everyone is "working for peace", at least in public. But do you get peace by unilateral disarmament? Or by building better weapons than your likely opponents, so that the rational ones (at least) won't attack you?

As much as I hate war (and I grew up in an area where the scars of a lost war were very evident on both humans and material), I'll bet on better weapons to keep my family safe.

Re:Ethical problems: continuous easy war

[maxume]

We are in the midst of it.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html

(and all technology has nefarious applications)

Re:Ethical problems: continuous easy war

[Smarty2120]

"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."

Way to shoot your own argument in the foot. Since you seem to think it's a make peace or make war choice, what do you do about countries that choose war when yours chooses peace. It's a classic prisoners dillema and the stakes are too high to be left the only person who didn't confess. Maybe many others on slashdot are just more pragmatic than you. If you live in a dangerous neighborhood, you can work to improve it and the peace of everyone living there without saying "if someone breaks into my house, I'm so dedicated to peace that I won't have a means to protect myself." Only a dedicated pacifist can say they wouldn't and I haven't met one lately (I'd consider letting the police expel your intruders with lethal force no different than doing it yourself).

Re:Ethical problems: continuous easy war

[solsire]

Advances in technology might actually help saving lives. For it shifts the destruction focus towards machinery. Some two hundred years ago one had to kill his opponent - good stick was enough to make someone a threat.

Re:Ethical problems: continuous easy war

[Morrigu]

Unfortunately, that's what people do.

As a species, homo sapiens is really really good at only a handful of things:

* having sex
* communicating
* building
* killing

Say what you will about individual persons, good or bad, but as a species we have systematically and deliberately killed off all possible threats and competition (mammoths, neanderthals, large predators) and have become the deadliest intelligent force on this planet. As groups of people, mankind will always resort to violence against others past a certain threshold of hunger, pain, dishonor or other provocation. That's why true pacifists can be so respected - they are so few and far between that they truly stand out on the backdrop of the rest of human society.

You can argue (as mentioned elsewhere in this thread) that civilization, over time, reduces the relative amount of violence in a population - see "A History of Violence" by Steven Pinker. While that may be true, the other side of civilization's influence is that the tools of violence inevitably become more sophisticated and deadly, even if the frequency of their use declines.

The other really interesting historical development in violence over the past hundred years is the vastly increased cost and destructive power of high-end weaponry. The most destructive forms of warfare used to require literal armies of people bent upon pillage and destruction. Now, governments (and really only governments, not individuals or corporations) can instead spend gigantic amounts of money and acquire nuclear, biological or chemical weapons of immense destructive power. Or they can firebomb cities into submission, like the Allies did in WWII against Dresden and Tokyo.

That changes a lot of the balance in warfare and politics. Much as heavy cavalry and standing armies helped to transform city-states into nation-states, air forces and navies and nuclear weapons play a role in transforming nations into continental powers.

Robotics may start to swing the pendulum back in the other direction. R&D costs for robots really aren't that expensive compared to traditional Big Weapons Systems. $14m is way less than a new US Air Force fighter jet costs, let alone a typical new system deployed by the US DoD. The resulting technology stands a good chance of becoming commoditized, which means that smaller groups and individuals may be able to afford them.

Ultimately, that may not be good for World Peace, given that peace (as perceived by the people in powerful countries who tend to write history) is best maintained by a clear balance of power and not by uncertainty and threats to power.

Sure, if you live in perfect world

[Chicken_Kickers]

No technology (encryption etc.) is fool proof. If you build it, someone will hack it. A human soldier receiving suspect orders will try to double confirm and if the orders are unlawful, there is a chance that they will not do it (I hope). A robot will obey what ever it is programmed to do, no exceptions. Safeguards put into place can be overcome. The advantage of human soldiers versus robot soldiers is that humans know when to quit. A robot will always fight to the end. The concept of truce, surrender and minimising loss of life and property will go out of the window. Like Toastyken said, this will embolden politicians and generals to declare war when the political cost of dead soldiers is removed from the equation. The question now is not if we can make these robots but whether we should make one at all.

Just make an A-10 "Warthog" into an RC

[iminplaya]

And then you'll have an unmanned aerial tank.

Having trouble moderating parent...

[earthbound kid]

Is there a mod +1: Sad But True?

Re:On the other hand...

[martin-boundary]

1) be less likely to be swayed by violent emotions;
2) be more willing/able to take more time picking targets, aiming his weapon, and waiting for clean shots; and
3) be thus less likely to shoot civilians.

Let me guess, you've never played an FPS, have you?

Why don't we have these already?

[sentientbrendan]

Obviously it would be difficult to deploy robots controlled by AI, but why aren't there more remote controlled robots on the battlefield?

It seems like it would be trivial to put together a small armored machine on treads with a machine gun and control it wirelessly from a secure location nearby. Since you could have such a device roll into situations that would be dangerous or suicidal to humans without hesitation, it seems like it would be pretty handy.

Re:Why don't we have these already?

[joib]

Such as the Talon?

Re:Why don't we have these already?

[raju1kabir]

It seems like it would be trivial to put together a small armored machine on treads with a machine gun and control it wirelessly from a secure location nearby. Since you could have such a device roll into situations that would be dangerous or suicidal to humans without hesitation, it seems like it would be pretty handy.

Until someone digs a pit in the road, and your machine falls into it. Then they disassemble and reprogram it and send it back to your "secure location".

It is far faster and cheaper to invent ways to destroy a machine, than it is to adapt that machine to survive a new threat.

The main cost for research into destroying the machines is the machines themselves, and that's funded by the researchers' enemies.

Fixing your post for free

[SmallFurryCreature]

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

Try to grow up a bit and realize that human history has been full of "we just killed them, so they must be the baddies, else we wouldn't have killed them".

Re:Fixing your post for free

[Dunbal]

Try to grow up a bit and realize that human history has been full of "we just killed them, so they must be the baddies

      So this is a justification?

      See, the entire world had (and I do mean the past tense) such hopes that the "Great" Unites States was something better. But it's not.

Re:Fixing your post for free

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Try to grow up a bit and realize that human history has been full of "we just killed them, so they must be the baddies, else we wouldn't have killed them".

I used to think that way ... when I was a teenaged infantryman. A couple of years later, I went to war as a medic and saw the consequences of that kind of thinking up close and personal.

Re:Fixing your post for free

[Yev000]

Anyone who thinks that and then does it is twisted...

I think 99% of the time no one thinks anything besides carrying out orders...

Growing up and realizing that shit happes is a big part of growing up.

I for one

[maroberts]

...welcome our SkyNet overlords

War target?

[RallyNick]

So does this kind of contract make CMU a valid war target in case the US goes to open war with another nation? Just wondering.

Re:War target?

[MSZ]

Under the reasoning used by US military to bomb civilian targets - of course. That's obviously dual use facility.

Bad occupation breeds terrorism

[Iloinen Lohikrme]

I think you miss the point of this machine. Robotic tanks and tanks general are intended to be used in conventional warfare where you are facing an organized army, and where your objective is to destroy that enemy force. Tanks are more or less useless when you have won the war and you are policing the population, also known as occupation.

In occupation you are policing and controlling the population, or if you are into total war you continue war against civil population until they are submissive to the new rule and there is 100% certainty that they wont resist. Total war of course is wrong as seen in the many fronts of WWII. In normal occupation like Iraq, terrorism has been breaded from power vacuum that was created by US politicians who didn't have any real plan on how to control the country. Usually it's not a good idea to disable army, police and government all together without a capability to by self act on those roles effectively.

Of course you may be right that by having another advantage against third world armies, US may get involved into occupation of more countries and hence increases terrorism.

Areal = Independent of reality? without reality?

[fantomas]

An areal vehicle, is this something that is independent of reality or possibly without reality? in the same way as amoral is without morals?

Is this some kind or ultra stealth vehicle, influenced by the Hitchhikers Guide "Heart of Gold" spaceship? something which does and doesn't exist at the same time perhaps? wow, I knew you Americans were doing some crazy cutting edge stuff out in Area 51 but this is really something!

Re:What sort of opposition is the US public

[vidarh]

The problem is that the US doesn't exactly has a history of siding only with people wanting to get rid of their oppressive dictators. More often than not, ever since the US got militarily and economically strong enough to interfere, the US have been propping up dicators or supporting the overthrow of elected regimes, and in any case not giving a fuck about what the cost is to the local population.

There's a good reason why the US face so much hostility around the world.

Re:Devices like this will inevitably breed terrori

[vidarh]

Personally I'm coming closer and closer to making the conclusion that if a democracy goes to war against you, civilians are legitimate targets. At least anyone of voting age. We are collectively responsible for allowing our governments to go to war if we quietly accept an elected government to attack without doing more than waiting for the next time we can cast a vote.

The military are "just" following orders, and while they have a responsibility to refuse unlawful orders, ultimately with the way modern armies are structured it's unrealistic to assume most people will dare refuse even outright illegal orders and much less orders that are just ethically questionable.

Thus, if I was put in the situation of having to organize a defense against a technologically superior army, the first thing I'd do would be to decide to ignore parts of the Geneva conventions:

1) I'd specifically target officers. 2) I'd focus on hiding and finding way to hit civilians rather than spending time going after regular troops at all

Fighting face to face with regular troops simply makes no sense, as you'd be fighting a losing fight against troops that would endure far less losses than you. The only way to win in a situation like that is to find other ways to take the war to the enemy's home.

Re:What sort of opposition is the US public

[calebt3]

About as many that care about other people who are suffering around the word. Anyways, if we didn't care about the civilians, we would have just seized the oil-producing regions and nuked the rest of the country into oblivion (assuming that we did not care about the international communities response).

Re:Devices like this will inevitably breed terrori

[raju1kabir]

the first thing I'd do would be to decide to ignore parts of the Geneva conventions

...especially if your technologically superior adversary had already chosen to ignore parts of the Geneva convention (oh, say, on torture). You don't even have to sacrifice the moral high ground.

They're *called* "Bolos"

[mikelieman]

Sheesh. Nerds, Geeks, Wherefore art thou???

Re:They're *called* "Bolos"

[12_West]

I was waiting for this comment! Read the book MANY years ago. I remember one guy fooling a second, much superior "Bolo" into crossing a bridge that would not support it. Probably only worked because both robots had been commandeered by human operators at that point.

Fighting World War Two with robots

[Simonetta]

All this is doing is getting huge military contracts to guys who are trying to fight World War Two with robots this time. They assume an enemy with centralized command and control that is run by intelligent, civilized men identical to themselves abet from a different empire. They assume vast armies and navies each in control of their own territory and able to control the populations within these territories, either civilian or military. They assume complete civilian support in their home country; a people fully supporting the military and willing to make great sacrifices in wealth and blood for god and country. The assume a historical continuity. This present conflict, that they are fighting with robots, is simply the latest in a long series that they will eventually win, for the betterment of mankind. They assume that they, as the robot builders, won't be killed in these robot wars, or that their homes and labs won't be destroyed.

    All that is nonsense today. World War Two is over and so is the USA/Soviet war, the so-called 'cold war'. The enemy today is not centralized. Little wars grow like weeds. They pop up, explode in violence, and fade. They fade, but never end. There is never a quantifiable victory or a complete defeat of any military unit such as a country's army. Stronger forces can go to a place in the world and ID all the young men. But they can't control the population. And the longer that they stay, the less control that the army officers have over their own troops.

    Low level permanent conflict generated for corporate defense contractor replenishment doesn't invoke any sacrifice or interest in the general population of the empire that is staging the endless war. There is no historical overview, no grand vision of empire for the betterment of humanity. There's just this decade's war in some distant part of the globe that few have ever heard of.

    And the robot death makers will be surprised to find out that when some third-world sweatshop can make and design the robots for a fraction of the cost than they do in their beautiful university labs, then the empire will sell them out to terrorists that they are supposed to be fighting. The terrorists will blow up the university robot labs, the empire will use it as justification for more and large defense contracts, and no one ten miles away will either know or care.

    This is modern war, and it can't be won or fought by robots. Robots are only good for systematic extermination of populations in small sectors, such as shown in the future scenes of the Terminator movies. Except extermination robots won't be of humanoid shape.

    So yes this is just pork for men of great technological capabilities and no moral foundation. No wonder Slashdot readers find it so appealing.

Re:Fighting World War Two with robots

[BlueStrat]

All that is nonsense today. World War Two is over and so is the USA/Soviet war, the so-called 'cold war'.

It seems that the Russians under Putin are becoming increasingly threatening to the West and to the USA in particular. There have been a number of incidents of late of Russia testing Western defenses, recently a number of Russian nuclear-capable bomber flights making incursions on NATO airspace and being intercepted by NATO fighters.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1280809,00.html

And here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/09/AR2007080902211.html

Let's not also forget that China is also a serious threat.

That being said, the idea of autonomous fighting machines is not a new one, I recall hours of entertaining reading from Keith Laumers' "BOLO" series, about artificially-intelligent super-tanks. There's an informative Wiki article on the Bolo tanks here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_(tank)

The bottom line I guess, is that all of human history proves that the world is not a friendly place. Unilateral disarmament will be happily taken advantage of by powers that care not a whit about anything but gaining more power and territory, and are more than willing to sacrifice huge numbers of people on either/any side towards those goals. If we wish to both survive and remain a relatively free people, then we have no choice but to make sure we are first and best with weapons and battle systems.

Cheers!

Strat

Not "autonomous", but "remotely operated"

[mi]

I will guarantee you that with US$10,000 worth of materials I can destroy any autonomous land vehicle created in the next 20 years.

Nobody is making an "autonomous" vehicle, really. They will be operated remotely. Likely by more than one person too (the gunner, the driver, etc.)

As such they will only be harder to destroy than the current tanks are, and when they are hit, the "crew" will just switch to another one.

I wish, Israel had these last year — instead they were getting bogged down having to evacuate the crews from the disabled tanks.

Re:Areal? - misread that...

[Cryacin]

Areal as in "related to Ares the Greek God of Savage War"? Fitting typo.
I read that as:
Areal as in "related to Ares the Geek God of Savage War"?

Fitting misread. Should we name it that?!? :D

More uses for robots

[cavebison]

Robots are at least uncorruptable. They should be deployed in government, programmed with everything it takes to run an economy and provide for the needs of citizens. Even with minimal personality AI, they'd be more appealing than the ones that breathe.

sweet!

[ephedream]

Well they'll probably need trained personnel to control each and every robot out there on the field. Finally, when those remote controlled killing robots come out, will my years of FPS skills finally be worth something!

Raising the ante for computer security?

[Bearhouse]

Let's hope that they will be able to secure the access to these things.

On the rare occassions that people have gone on the rampage with tanks and stuff, the results have been dramatic.
If I recall correctly, after one such tank theft incident, the local comander explained why it was so 'easy' to steal a tank, "If you're under attack, you don't want to be looking for the ignition keys". Fair point.

So, these fighting vehicles will have to be easy to use, to be useful. Lets hope that does not also make them easy to steal.

Unmanned != Robot

[AP31R0N]

Unmanned != Robot

Robotic tanks and aircraft ...

[Bob-taro]

Okay, I'm confused. Are we Terran or Protoss?

Ziggo Rules

[StCredZero]

Forget Diesector. Ziggo is awesome! While a lot of the battlebots in the lightweight division were just scoring points from judges by playing patty-cake with each other, this lightweight bot could throw its opponents across the freakin ring!

http://www.battlebots.com/battlebots_detail.asp?ID=88

The thing is very well designed. The outer armor shell *is* its weapon! A motor spins the shell up hella fast, and a clutch disengages, so the only stress is on the bearing, which is very sturdy!

Re:Ziggo Rules

[Locutus]

Ziggo was pretty cool and VERY effective, it just didn't look mean. Diesector just has that look of kick-ass.

LoB

Re:Devices like this will inevitably breed terrori

[SlowGenius]

> There is no moral high ground in war.

Maybe not, but there certainly is a low ground, and we (in the US) have been flirting with at least a partial occupation of it time and time again for the last several years. Kudos to some of our military intelligence folks that finally seem to be rising above and learning to sucessfully talk to/negotiate with many of our putative Iraqi 'enemies', but it seems like it's been a damned long time in coming.