Slashdot Mirror
Military Robots from 2007 to 2032
Roland Piquepaille writes "A new report from the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) looks at the future of the military's unmanned systems over the next 25 years. This 188-page report covers air-, land- and sea-based unmanned technology from 2007 to 2032. The long document notes that drone aircraft and ground-based robots have already proved they could be useful in Iraq and Afghanistan by saving soldiers' lives. The report also integrates contributions of combat commanders pointing out possible improvements to today's systems, such as 'better sensor technology for use on unmanned systems to identify underwater mines and land-based improvised explosive devices.' This report also looks at how developments in artificial intelligence and robotics might lead to 'autonomous, 'thinking' unmanned systems that could, for example, be used in aerial platforms to suppress enemy air defenses.'"
The article didn't address the big question. Are we on track with the Bolo program?
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
I really think the best bet is to have smart machines go in and do the really dangerous stuff that could kill a lot of humans. The EOD guys use robots to disable IED's and landmines now, and it has saved many of their lives for sure. As long as there is someone monitoring what those autonomous systems are up to, then "intelligent" decisions can be made by soldiers in the battlefield on how best to use these great resources.
I don't honestly ever see us relying entirely on autonomous systems to do the hard work of planning, coordinating, and executing battle operations. They'll probably fall under helping humans execute a battle plan in some capacity. There is a human element to strategy that we just can't reciprocate with AI. Brilliant Generals with good instincts have helped pave the way for successful military campaigns. Human experience is irreplaceable.
It's clear from the public record that the leadership in this country (both parties) plan on fighting counterinsurgency wars of one kind or another for most of the next century, if not beyond.
This only makes sense from their perspective - economically, there is rough parity between the United States and the other centers of economic might (roughly: Western Europe and East Asia). Only in the area of military might does the US have an overwhelming advantage.
So, if there's a dispute or competition, US planners want it to be resolved militarily, because they expect to win.
However, it's impossible to fight colonial wars with a citizen's army, even a volunteer army. As we see in Iraq, the army destroys itself. We might try to fight it with mercenaries (Blackwater, etc.), and we probably will, if planners can get away with it, but they'll want to hedge their bets by automating as much of the process of occupation and counter-insurgency as they can.
As a test case for using American military might to dominate the next century, Iraq has been an abysmal failure. But don't think that will dissuade the ultra-right; they're committed to violence, and if the tools we have are inadequate, and however disastrous the consequences of failure, they won't give it up willingly.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
When someone finally develops a videogame AI that doesn't think and act like a total retard, then I will worry. As long as my Halo 3 Marines drive right at the well-armed enemy, and function as complete cannon fodder on Heroic and Legendary, I'm not worried about any Terminators or Cylons.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.