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.'"

Comments

Oblig...

[owlnation]

I, for one, welcome our new Skynet overlords...

And... do the robots run Linux?

Re:Oblig...

[flyingsquid]

And... do the robots run Linux?

No, they will run on OS X.

The future of humanity will consist of people scurrying, ratlike, through the maze of burning, broken debris which is all that is left of our once-grand civilization, as cybernetic predators hunt down and exterminate us, one by one. BUT you can rest assured that those hunter-killer drones will have stylish industrial design, featuring sleek lines, designer colors, brushed aluminum, and white lucite!

Re:'Thinking' military robots and AIs?

[MightyYar]

What could possibily go wrong?! Yeah, these programs are being run by people who say (from TFA):

"We're attempting to better synergize and coordinate those development and procurement activities" for the Predator and Sky Warrior programs, Weatherington explained.

Synergize? We're all fucking doomed.

Apocalypse

[fishthegeek]

It's really easy to write about Terminators or Cylons and busy ourselves trying to determine the best place for the bunker and ammo dump but there is a serious threat here to people.

Any state not just the U.S. with the ability to engage in war without jeopardizing human lives will more than likely do so with increased frequency and lethality. We need people in war because it helps keep us out of it - well that's the theory anyway (read: Iraq). I am all for saving lives but I really don't believe that automatons with guns are the answer to saving lives. That and when they get tired of working for us that's when it really hits the fan.

Okay. Enough preaching, I have to get a couple of cases of ammo moved before the snow starts.

Re:Apocalypse

[Speefnarkle1982]

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.

Re:Apocalypse

[MightyYar]

Any state not just the U.S. with the ability to engage in war without jeopardizing human lives will more than likely do so with increased frequency and lethality. Until there are two states that have this capability... then it becomes very expensive.

Also, there are probably political leaders that would value a $1,000,000 robot more highly than an infantry soldier, at least with respect to war planning.

My pure, selfish side is very glad that the US is staying ahead of the competition.

Re:Apocalypse

[ScrewMaster]

There is a human element to strategy that we just can't reciprocate with AI.

Honestly, how do you know that? You've been reading too much science fiction. At least, the kind of sci-fi where the otherwise beleaguered and thoroughly-outclassed humans have some inherent capacity that a machine somehow can't duplicate or exceed. The thing is, there's no reason whatsoever to believe that that is true.

We don't currently have an operational artificial intelligence of any kind, and we may never get one to work. The truth is nobody really knows what it will be like when we do. But dollars to doughnuts, we'll find that even a mediocre AI will be able to plan and prosecute a military campaign one hell of a lot better than any of us. Worse yet, when both sides in a conflict are managed by advanced artificially intelligent planners and AI-driven war machines, humans may very well find themselves completely sidelined by the conflict. But when a robot bomber decides to drop a twenty-megaton nuke on a city, it'll still be our asses on the line.

Getting past the unjustified racial glorification that exists with any presumption of intrinsic human superiority, it's also true that we have a lot of inescapable limitations to which a machine would not be subject. True AI, if and when it is finally achieved, will either be the greatest advance in human history, greater than taming of fire, the invention of the wheel, the Internet, possibly even greater than air conditioning ... or it will be the end for us, one way or another. Even if an AI has no particular desire to destroy the human race ala Skynet, but is, in fact, a helpful, friendly beast, well, think about the consequences of that. Remember, humans are limited by what will fit in our skulls: machines are not. What if such a hyperintelligent machine were able to answer all of our questions, able to figure out for us everything that we want to know. That, in itself, would be damaging. Why bother to learn anything, do anything? Let the machine do the work (that theme has also been done to death.)

In any event, the odds of our maintaining any form of superiority over our synthetic progeny are minimal at best.

Re:Apocalypse

[elrous0]

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.

Dinochrome Brigade

[JesseL]

The article didn't address the big question. Are we on track with the Bolo program?

Re:Military robots

[MachDelta]

Are they here to protect us?

Yes. Do you have stairs in your house?

Unmanned Drones really do save lives

[Bryansix]

There are numerous documented cases of unmanned drones carrying Hellfire missles that saved Soldier Lives by helping them get out of sticky situations. Note that these things are not autonomous. They are controlled by a remote operator.

Definitely the wave of the future

[sam_handelman]

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.

Re:Military robots

[NeverVotedBush]

Nope. The robots are here to destroy us - especially our elderly.

That's why there is Old Glory Insurance. It will help to insure the elderly from robot attacks!

http://www.robotcombat.com/video_oldglory_hi.html

Advanced Military Algorithms

[SMACX guy]

Man has killed man from the beginning of time, and each new frontier has brought new ways and new places to die. Why should the future be different?

Re:Law enforcement applications

[iron spartan]

Neither side can say that they are innocent of abusing power. How its reported in the media, is a different matter all together. Compare how ECHELON was reported on compared to the Patriot Act. ECHELON was a far greater invasion of privacy than the Patriot Act, but because of who introduced it, it was treated far differently.