Slashdot Mirror
Killer Military Robot Arms Race Underway?
coondoggie writes to tell us NetworkWorld is reporting that one researcher seems to think that a military robot arms race may be imminent between both governments and terrorists. "We are beginning to see the first steps towards an international robot arms race and it may not be long before robots become a standard terrorist weapon to replace the suicide bomber, according to professor Noel Sharkey, from the Royal United Services Institute Department of Computer Science. [...] Currently there is always a human in the loop to decide on the use of lethal force. However, this is set to change with the US giving priority to autonomous weapons - robots that will decide on where, when and who to kill, according to the professor."
I for one welcome our new killer robot overlords yeah sorry, i just needed to get it out of the way to make room for the real discussion about skynet
"Is that an aibo? Man, I haven't seen one of those since ..." BLAM!
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Dammit! This robot arms race is only going to distract robot researchers from the vastly more important goal: the robot sex race.
Can we have the 2nd Amendment changed to "the right to bear Killer Military Robots?"
Someone has to send the robot. At least until Skynet is built.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Can we build robot Ninjas and robot Pirates and settle this once and for all with a fight to death?
These aren't the droids you're looking for...
4:24PM EST and so far the tag hasn't shown up. What's the over/under time on when this story will be tagged whatcouldpossiblygowrong?
If robotic innocent civilians can be manufactured to replace the humans blown up by military bots and suicide bomber bots, then no one has to die.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Yes, I look into my crystal sphere, and in it I see the future comments of this thread:
* Yes, but do they have frickin' laser beams attached to their head?
* In soviet Russia, Robots arm YOU!
* I, for one, welcome our new gun-toting robot overlords (points for being uncomfortably close to the truth)
* References to the matrix or terminator series and/or I robot.
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
SkyNet!
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
So, do the robot suicide bombers get 70 virgins, too?
I, for one, welcome our robot overlords.
But after seeing this comment:
robots that will decide on where, when and who to kill
I happily welcome our new robotic overlords!
Please don't kill me. I like machines.
"Who modded this informative? Whoever it is must've been smokin' some of that martian pot!"
this will continue. The advantage that countries have over terrorist is the ability to build these faster, and more, while the terrorist will have the advantage of needing just a few to hit a relatively none moving enemy. Of course, the real issue will be what happens when 2 major nations move from a cold war to a hot war. Will they use the robots and lasers? I suspect that the next "great" war will be fought in just that context.
Now, ir we can turn these robots into good civil use, then it will help. In particular, if we really want to settle on Mars and perhaps the moon, we will need robots. They will enable us to do the building in a fraction of the time and most likely at a fraction of the costs.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Why would I, a terrorist, go to all the effort of developing and building a sophisticated machine when I can can just blow stuff up?
Blowing stuff up is:
- Easier
- Cheaper
- Faster
- Harder to detect in advance
- Scarier
Maybe if I could take control of robots the military creates it would be worth some effort. But why bother? They're already something we should all be scared of: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/19/sa_gun_death_probe/
What about Asimov's three laws of Robotics? (particularly law 1)
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
(and ps: yes I know these are just fictional but I can't pass up a chance to quote the master...hell he even invented the word Robotics!)
Until someone can build an automatic vacuum cleaner that does not try to eat my cat, or an automated lawnmower that does not trim the newspaper, I'm not going to worry.
Even if the tech does reach that level, building a military bot is another level beyond that. And somehow, I think that it is not going to be well understood by guys whose concept of hi-tech is a retractable box knife.
It's gonna be a longgg time before I worry.
sounds like an episode from Futurama. Seriously, terrorists using robots? Would it shout, "Allah ackbar" in a robotic voice before it blew up?
This won't happen until suicide bombers fail to believe that 1,000s of virgins wait in the afterlife for them.
Why would terrorists use robots to replace suicide bombers? These people haven't even figured out how to use timers yet*, I don't think deathbringing robots will be their first foray into the world of technology.
*: Yes, OK, I know it probably isn't so much a case of "haven't figured out" as "chosen not to use", but in either case my point remains valid.
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
It is almost assured that we will have sex robots within another 10 years. WHy? 1 word; Money. How much money is made by prostitution? Even illegal, it rivals drugs.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Long and short, when we let robots do our fighting for us, it becomes so cheep to make war that its cheaper to make war then peace. his is why I feel that people should always be required for the front line, war has to suck so it will always be a last resort.
-Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
Really it is just a matter of how long it is between when you pull the trigger. Land mines, Air to air missiles, surface to air missiles, Captor mines, Even some torpedoes are all killer robots and have been around for a good long time.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
First comes the robot wars then one side figures out cloning of humans and makes the ultimate soldier... or Bobba Fet's dad.
I think it will be a VERY long time before robots replace suicide bombers. Why don't we see remote controlled car bombs? They look conspicuous. Imagine Robocop with TNT strapped to him coming in to your building. More importantly, suicide bombers can be bought for less.
Whale
Killbots have a preset kill limit. Send wave after wave of your men at them until they shut down.
The whole reason the terrorists send humans is because they cannot afford the cost of a remote detonating device like a cell phone. Terrorists are Terrorists because they do not have enough money to become a legitimate Army. Terrorists normally don't even have enough money to get proper explosives, hence "Improvised Explosive Devices".
It is all a matter of cost, humans are cheaper and more plentiful to your average terrorist than autonomous robots.
This short article seems to do little more than stir the FUD pot.
If you want to talk about having unmanned, remote control vehicles, some of which require little more than occasional supervisory control most of the time, I'm with you. We have them already, and more are in development all over the world. Expect to see lots more of them come about in the near future. As alluded to, this will be the robot arms race.
Terrorists using remote controlled devices to deploy and detonate bombs? Sure. It's not all that hard to believe that someone with some decent technical skills can put together a remote control kit on a full-sized car, then strap explosives to it (for example).
But c'mon. Killbots that can think and function completely on their own? ...and be effective enough in its mission to justify the costs of deploying it in lieu of something remote controlled by a human? Such a device is still a ways off for the U.S. Military, let alone some terrorist organization.
Sarah Connah?
Ah am a friend uff herz. May ah zee her please?
Ok, I feel much better now.
Get your RC controllers and servos now before the government bans them.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Please... no one run their robotic arms on anything Microsoft!! You will thank me in the long run!
I think this is a natural progression for nations with an organised military. Once the basics are down machines can be churned out much quicker than we can train humans and you don't need to be as accurate and quick thinking as a human would be - sheer numbers and a shotgun approach would suffice and so who has the greatest manufacturing capacity would have the advantage.
Looking further into the future I'm sure wars will be fought totally on a technological basis e.g. hacking networks to shut down utilities and enemy soldiers to disable them etc. Maybe even further along wars will be won and lost without loss of human life - "Ok we surrender, we have no food, water or power and our Unisols are pointing their guns at us. You can have our continent."
I may have the wrong sci-fi series but I'm sure I remember a Star Trek episode where wars were fought by computer and afterward the required number of human casualties were euthanised to balance the books? Maybe at that point the geek shall inherit the earth and FPS skills will finally be recognised for what they are :-)
1) Robot suicide bombers isn't exactly an ethical step down for bombers - and it lacks martyr value.
2) I imagine fear of friendly fire will keep handlers at the controls of robots for quite some time.
3) I think there have been a few robotic sentries made that act autonomously but constantly report and can be overridden (S. Korea, perhaps?)...
4) Unsettling thought the implications may be, eventually I think robotic, autonomous war machines will be built - and for the builders, it will be quite a plus. Probably a bit of a downer for everyone else.
It may be seen in retrospect as another of those "Roman Conquest" moments where a powerful, advanced culture stomps all over more primitive cultures - but the survivors end up better off, at least for a while. History, like sausages, is a process whose benefits are better (more comfortably) enjoyed than understood.
I always wanted to see Jonny 5 roaming my street.
Having a robotic military means that no humans have to die (or very little). Which is a VERY good thing. But, having said that, without the fear involved in war, war then becomes nothing more then a Starcraft match. War will become this "why worry? its only robots" thing, and so war won't be as feared as before. Everyone hates/fears war (except those who profit), and so, making real war into a Starcraft game would downplay the horrors of war, and no one will be against it. After all..their just robots.
This brings up an interesting question: What do you qualify as a robot? What's the difference between a guidance system and a robot?
I don't see the 'arms race' happening in the way the US-Soviet one did. A Katyusha (sp?) has been the same damn thing since WW2, and doesn't require a guidance system. Why spend $250 per rocket to make it a true missle, when your miliary objective isn't to hit TARGET X but to hit something semi-randomly. That's why the Katyushas worked during the most recent skirmishes between Israel and Hezbollah - the randomness is part of the appeal of the weapon.
Fanatics are far easier and cheaper to come by and train than robots, for at least several more years.
"Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
Oh someone will send a robot sooner or later. And if they want to keep sending them, they will most likely be programmed to do as much damage as possible before self destructing for further damage and to avoid capture and forensic analysis to track it back to its owner/creator.
If we are lucky, their self destruct will be as touchy as that probe in the Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. Way to easy for Han to pop it once when Chewie distracted it for a moment. Kaboom!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
That should be the name for this. Model I-41.
That, or the obvious "WarCrimes Master 2020".
Or how about just "KillJoy-3000"
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I take it that you have not worked in the DOD or in the spy industry? There is NO such thing as a secret. The only way to hide things is to put it out in the open and then provide a cover (create conspiracy theories), or provide a place where EVERYBODY who knows about something is kept there. The reality is, that the west knew a lot about Nazi Germany and USSR, even though those countries would execute ppl all the time to keep them quiet. Shoots, Pakistan and Turkey have the plans for nukes because a number of top republicans, such as Richard Pearle, sold it to them illegally( for which Al Qaeda now has access to ).
Terrorists will obtain their RD from us or from small countries that either legally or illegally bought the tech. Then it will be countries who view us as neutral or enemies that will sell the parts to them. Weaponry is an ongoing change.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
There will always be a human in the loop as far as semi-autonomous weapons go. I'm surprised anyone on slashdot would think otherwise. Maybe 50 years from now an AI would have the intelligence to separate friend from foe from bystander but the tech is simply not there now.
:shrug: i can see that but not a pure autonomous firefight. For a long time a human will be giving the final OK to fire.
I imagine what we'll see is weapons deployed around the world with their controllers located somewhere else safe. That means easier/faster deployment and none of your own soldiers in harm's way. Maybe UAV's push proposed targets to commanders instead of commanders pouring over recon
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
Hopefully the terrorists never get advanced enough to build any kind of robots or technology that would allow them to deliver munitions from long distances, high altitude, or even space, indiscriminately killing hundreds of thousands of US civilians. I can't imagine what we'd do to retaliate, but we'd never resort to terrorism.
I'm just glad we're not terrorists! Go freedom! Go democracy (unless you vote Hamas)! Peace in the middle east! Long live the USA, and Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and... oh wait, Pakistan isn't doing what we told them anymore. Go Saudi Arabia, anyhow!
USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!
We always worry about what will happen if the robots aren't able to discern combatants and non combatants well enough, but what if we turn out to build robots that are better at it than us? Ones that can pinpoint the source of gunfire from a crowd. Ones of infinite calm, whom won't be startled, fatigued, or angered into making a terrible mistake or committing outright murder. Yes that technology has far to go, yes tele-communication as it currently stands is insufficient to replace ground patrol units, but those are challenges that I think can be met. Challenges that will be met, and will result in fewer casualties in war than ever before; for both our soldiers and innocent civilians.
Demented But Determined.
hey baby, wanna kill all humans?
Better get some Robot Insurance [jt.org]
Didn't you see that episode from a few weeks ago? All you have to do is daisy chain an xbox and a couple playstations together and bam! Robot with moods and playing chess.
"UNIX is very simple, it just needs a genius to understand its simplicity." -Dennis Ritchie
There are plenty of possibilities for terrorism with "robots". Model Aircraft can be easily adapted to drop a grenade or two. You could even pack a model plane with explosives and ball bearings and just fly it into your target. You can already buy cheap video cameras that transmit live pictures back from your models while they are in flight, so you could basically make a video-guided bomb on a fairly low budget. We will probably see this sort of thing before too long.
...which is to breed warriors used exclusively for fighting
When you recognize love in another and realize how precious it is, everything else seems so insignificant.
I've been watching this story slowly spread around the net today since I develop for some of the systems referred to. The whole thing is a bunch of hand-waving 'OMG teh robotz will kills us all!' page rank generating crap.
First, very few robotic systems in the whole world right now are even weaponized, yet we're supposed to believe automated killing is "just around the corner". Second, no military anywhere has deployed fully automated (no human on trigger/joystick) weaponized systems ever, yet we're to expect legions of them very soon. Third, "terrorists" will supposedly get their hands on these systems and reverse engineer them to their advantage - do I even need to explain how improbable this is? Military and private research funded to the tune of billions haven't even been able to develop these systems yet, but we're supposed to believe some terrorist organizations with almost no funding and little access to high-level engineers will be able to understand and rework these same nonexistent systems. Is it impossible? No. I don't doubt that given enough time eventually some extremist group will have a CS PhD/MS level member who could figure something out. That still doesn't negate the fact that no groups have even captured and reverse-engineered current robotic systems, which are much less advanced than this alleged future autonomous platform would be. And finally, if one of the major world governments developed and deployed fully autonomous armed robots, does anyone really think there wouldn't be a remote shutdown/disable sequence or other back door?
It's fun to discuss possible dystopian Terminator style futures, but it annoys me to no end when some researcher or professor says we're all imminently doomed and the net runs away with the idea. We're still very far from fully automated systems with weapons. Even US tanks, which have highly advanced target acquisition and recognition systems, aren't fired except by a human operator. You'll see fully automated targeting and firing in manned vehicles long before you see it in unmanned platforms IMHO.
And to stem off people who point out that many UAVs fly totally unmanned, with weapons, and with no joystick control - there are multiple ground operators constantly monitoring and updating mission parameters for each of these UAVs, also all firing sequences are still human in the loop.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
either ..
1) Make sure that your weapons cannot be reprogrammed by the enemy
2) Make certain that your mobile robotic weapons recognize the difference between friendly robotic weapons and those of the foe, as well as make sure it recognizes a new robotic devices as threatening before the small rat sized robots suicide bomb your 3 million dollar killing machine
3) Buy stock in Duracell
4) Invent anti-EMP armor before deploying $50 million dollars worth of machine gun
5)
6) buy stock in Duracell
7) profit
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
PRESENT HALL PASS
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
All three of Asimov's have already been violated by existing robotic weapons. Predator drones have launched "Hellfire" missiles at human targets with deadly results. Cruise missiles and other similar weapons have gone off course due to either battle damage or flawed targeting and have killed other than their intended targets. We routinely test robotic weapons to destruction.
The real question is when will people grow up and stop quoting Asimov's laws whenever a robotic weapon article appears. IT'S FICTION. The only question that matters to those who create or acquire robotic weapons is, will it save the lives of our people. For that matter, that is the question applied to all weapons regardless of whether they're robotic or as simple as a spear.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
"History, like sausages, is a process whose benefits are better (more comfortably) enjoyed than understood."
Except for the pig.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
"Point it at ED-209."
This would be a great thing. A robot arms race is something the US could win easily. Much easier than convincing people to stop blowing themselves up...
No more messing around with little 20 to 25 servo robots, lets break out the big stuff with guns...
There are truely automonous weapons out there already: land mines
Secondarily there are cluster munitions that do automatic target selection within the drop zone. They are perhaps part of a more broad catagory of autonomous target selecting munitions such as homing turpedos and missiles.
No, I think you're wrong. From my observation, suicide bombing is a "technology" used to counter the high tech weaponry of the U.S and its allies. The "die as a martyr" part is just propaganda to convince volunteers to die, similar to "Uncle Sam wants you" or "England expects that every man will do his duty" etc. If given the choice, I would think most commanders of insurgent/ terrorist/ guerrilla/ freedom fighters will prefer to kill the other guy without losing their own.
What's next? Killer robot legs? What happens when they get the whole killer robot put together? I answer: Mecha-Streisand.
âoeItâ(TM)s a funny thing about life; if you refuse to accept anything but the best, you very often get it."
At the southafrican border swiss-made automatic anti-air guns are deployed and tested, well the last time I heard from one turret went mad and evidently killed humans.(1)
and some naval warships carry the PHALANX CIWS(2) System, it is an autonomous system,
it will kill on (radar)sight.
(1) http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20071013080449804C939465
(2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgpQBZF2sZQ
(3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7poF0M7H5M
The concerning thing to me here is the software that runs them. I'm sure it will be top secret and most people will not be allowed to see it. They will claim this cuts down on people being able to exploit them, but will lead to bad code and Skynet in the end. I think the only way a robot of complex AI would/should be allowed to be released into the wild is if Everyone gets to sign off on him (@see encryption, just cause you think you got it right, doesn't mean that you're right, in fact if often means quite the opposite).
That and what about people exploiting these robots? I've seen enough game exploits where AI is used against itself. It will be interesting to see how people adapt and exploit them, or just the bugs in the first year?
"Oh, our patrol robot sliced up your cow?" "Oh, some Terrorist thought to put a US flag on his robe, and the robot helped him out?"
- Kal`Goblez
Simply take obtain a sample of avian flu, mix it in human volunteers who are carrying regular flu and then allow new volunteers to tend to these ppl. Quit once several come down with avian flu (i.e. it is not able to jump to humans via airborne). Take sample out from blood, grow it and then create vaccine against it.
Now take the virus and inject it in volunteers that are placed in various places through the world (airports, movie theaters, basketball games, malls, etc). By the time that the world realizes that avian flu is not only airborne but everywhere, it will be too late to react. Of course, at that time, inject your own population with the vaccine.
How easy is this to do? It is trivial in costs as well as in human life. It is only a matter of time before some terrorist group who does have controls on itself do just this. Fortunately AQ has controls in that Islam prevents this (killing of innocents). But there are other groups, govs. and private groups, who do not have such controls.
And the above is not only easier to do than robots, but easily available to EVERYBODY on this planet.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Although what you says sounds.... logical.... sounds like common sense... even intelligent maybe..... I must discount it immediately.
Your just one of them new fancy disinformation robots programmed to lie to us on Slashdot and tell us everything is OK.
Well I did NOT fall for it. HA!
There's GPL'd software radio for your Jihad!!!!
There's a GPL'd RTOS for your Jihad!
There's GPL'd IDE's for microcontrollers for your Jihad!!!
Go and see http://www.jihad.net/
Of course there'll be a perfectly circular inland sea where Mecca used to be because of your Jihad. Spam has offers of 'genuine radioactive mecca black sand that'll cure your penis problem'!!!
The reality is that casinos currently allow prostitution in, but will not trade in the flesh itself. They are afraid of the stigma. But once they can sell a sex bot for say 100/night with no fear of STDs, unions, worries about how they will be perceived, child prostitution, etc, then All of vegas will carry them. It will be followed by Nevada allowing it. And finally, EVERY state (save maybe utah), will allow these. All in all, it will allow ppl like craig, or haggard, to get their jollies and not be technically cheating. After all, it is not sex, it is masturbating with a sex toy. In fact, this will probably help prevent much of our slave trade that occurs ALL over the world, even here in the west. Probably 80-90% of all slavery is about sex.
Imagine a means to all but stop child molesting, by allowing these perves to molest a robot child. I will say that this actually concerns me in that it might not be enough for these kind of ppl. It MAY make things worse, not better. But we probably ought to try and see.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
To those that challenge whether terrorists would use robots in the future, I disagree.
Terrorists don't make 155 mm artillery shells or munitions of any type. They rig what's available and hence IED, VBIED and other such improvised weapons are based on the highly available and cheap unspent munitions. Therefore it's not inconceivable that if sufficient "modern" militaries use robots in the future terrorists will be fashioning their new weapons out of those pieces instead. It will not be as good as the original, they're not going to build them from scratch nor somehow innovate since there's no need to. Just like their current versions of improvised weapons it'll be what they can slap together to at least scare if not also do some harm. It sounds crazy but I can see militaries in the future abandoning the "robot casualties" in war before learning how they can be used against them. After all, we don't seem to learn much from history and it'll likely be much like weapons caches left behind in past wars and other mistakes from a lack of foresight on our part.
That's just my POV... no more, no less.
The owners of robots will be subject to the rule of law, just as owners of guns and airplanes are. Contracts will be one tool for regulating robot bad behavior or unwanted spying and for allocating liability when someone gets hurt.
Benjamin Wright, Dallas, Texas, benjaminwright.us
But it's not hard at all to build what they describe.
Lemee see... Lets "thought-build it now".
I'll take a:
Laptop
2 webcams
big speaker
semi-auto machine gun
some servos
tripod
"glue" equipment to attach it together.
Ok, we write a program to sense motion via 2 webcams. It's not great, but good enough. With motion, we can determine hit boxes.
Hit boxes? Thats right, your heart follows the golden ratio, so it's easy to target on the heart.
Has this been done? Damn straight it has.
I destroyed a few last night. The key is to think like a machine, once you've mastered that it's all downhill from there!
Actually, the very word for guided missile is "robot" in several languages.
Currently there is always a human in the loop to decide on the use of lethal force. However, this is set to change...
Sometimes I worry about this, but then I remember that there is never any shortage of humans willing to pull the trigger / blow themselves up.
Noel Sharkey imprisoned Gaak - made him fight for his food in gladiator style events and when gaak escaped, he was disassembled! FreeGaak!
Yes ultimately it will be Skynet that seals the deal and then anyone by the name Sarah Connor should try to hide or start training physically and mentally.
Short of a nuclear doomsday, robotic armies are our only hope to defeat countries with massive populations, such as china, in a war.
But this is a giant catch 22, because who else are we going to pay to manufacture their parts?
unless they're also researching legs.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
I mean, who's going to be worse? A robot with a glitch or some nervous kid with an itchy trigger finger? At least the robot doesn't have a hardwired sense of self-preservation.
you, insensitive clod.
its xmas time and a soldier comes back with a broken down robot as a present for his g/f to make sculptures out of
its self replicating and cant distinguish enemy from friendly, cuzz all us humans look the same
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099740/
back in the day we didnt have no old school
I'm afraid that the article makes perfect sense. In its urgency to develop new toys for the "War against Terror", the US are developing smart and capable robots developed that would be ideal tools for terrorists.
Take for example those mini helicopters with built-in camera and video link ... load them up with a few pounds of plastic explosive and steer them where you want. A busy train station? No problem. A main street or a shopping mall? Can be done. The Superbowl stadium? Feasible. A Small foot patrol in Iraq? Easy!
Then when they are surrounded by enough victims you press the button in the luxury of a safe hideout a mile or so away and generate instant headlines. Hard to prove against you too (if you don't keep the control console around and don't sign your name on the receipt for tAfraid that someone will notice and shoot your drone down before it's in position? Use three!
And all it takes is a small inexpensive mini flying machine (for when you are still in sight of your objective) or a more expensive one (and a relatively expensive video link), some explosive, and some duct tape. Ah yes ... and perhaps some nails.
And the best thing for your average terrorist is: his tools are now being developed for him ... all he has to do is wait and steal one at the appropriate time. But what am I saying? Steal? Just use a mail order catalogue or Ebay. Great eh?
I buy armed robots, but come' on
I thought the important questions are "When can I get my own TX model?" and "Does she put out?"
Make SELinux enforcing again!
Isn't a terrorist robot just a mentally handicapped person strapped with explosives ... or am I not being technical enough? If it qualifies, then Al'Qaeda in Iraq is already light years ahead of the United States in "strapping explosives to retards" technology.
ROI,
Katyusha's are only effective en mass or as terror weapons. Seeing as western nations are not in the business of terror (I'm being serious, please refrain from any jabs at Israel or GWB) but do need a military that is effective at destroying the enemy. Unguided ballistic weaponry has been around long before WWII, (Cannon, catapult's, etc) and has always been deployed to support an army, at least until Napoleon started using his "Grand Battery", then massed artillery was used to route or weaken forces so that a smaller force would have the advantage. Hezbollah only uses unguided rockets as a terror weapon, very rarely does do the rockets kill Israeli military personnel, in the sense of destroying the enemy efficiently the unguided rocket is not fit for purpose.
For western armies, our military doctrines stipulate that we need the ability to actually strike targets while doing as little collateral damage as possible. In WWII, it would take a fully loaded P47 or B17 to destroy 1 Tiger tank, now we can destroy 4 to 8 T72's with 1 fully loaded A10 (Hellfire missiles IIRC). For professional armies, deploying small numbers of highly accurate, powerful weaponry with effectively trained operators gives a higher return on investment. This is how the entire cold war arms race worked, the Soviet doctrine was to deploy 4 weapons for every 1 of ours, Western doctrine was to deploy weapons that would destroy 5 enemy weapons for every one of ours. Western military doctrine turned out cheaper.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
>nmap killbot
22 open
hacker: 'you're kidding'
>ssh killbot
password?
hacker: 'hmm... maybe...'
>suckitasamov
motd: Welcome to Killbot
hacker: 'alright'
>kill -allhumans
hacker: 'he he.'
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Ladies and gentlemen, the wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.
Who would want the 72 chicks that could not get laid for their entire life on Earth?
God has a twisted sense of humor. He dooms suicide bombers to spend eternity with the most butt ugly chicks in the history of man.
Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
I agree with you completely, but I thought I'd add something. You said (regarding Predator, I assume),
>>also all firing sequences are still human in the loop.
Which is true, if by "in the loop" you mean:
-track and obtain target
-notify higher ups
-troop locations in the area are noted
-intel assets in the area are noted
-missile trajectory noted; there are rules about what a missile can fly over
-target evaluated; will that soft riverbank be firm enough to set off the missile? Maybe not. Are we sure they are bad guys? Oh, there's there still-smoking mortar tube in infrared. Yes.
-the wave-off or go-ahead comes down
-the target is locked, and the missile is fired after multiple safeties are disengaged.
In combat footage it may not seem like all those steps happen, but they do. It just happens faster than you might expect, or it might not be part of the tape that you saw. As the parent said- make no mistake, these systems are not autonomous.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
Whether there is a man in the loop or not, this is a dangerous development for the future of democracy. The ability to project force with fewer people in control means that it becomes easier to have a smaller military force of elites, who can be more easily controlled by an undemocratic government. With the U.S. government in particular, we already see in Iraq and Afghanistan a movement toward using private mercenaries. Without these mercenaries, the current level of force could not be maintained without a draft.
Now no one wants to be drafted, but a draft does have the advantage of populating the military with a broad cross-section of society. Such a force would be much less likely to tolerate being used to suppress a popular revolution if the government which commands them should go rogue. With mercenaries, and especially with mercenaries whose force is multiplied through robotic systems, you have a force motivated by money rather than allegiance to the Constitution.
So who wants to enlist first? Yeah, me neither. But we better vote wisely while we still can.
Actually, some terrorist groups do make their own munitions and weapons. The weapons shops in the tribal areas of Pakistan crank out everything from ak-47 and H&K MP5 knockoffs to light anti-aircraft guns. In Palestine, HAMAS is well known for making its own Qassam artillery rockets, mortars & shells, and anti-tank missiles like the Yasin and Batar RPG's. Hezbollah operates their own UAV's along with a large rocket supply both foreign and domestic makes. A simple remote-control car-bomb is not that far off to be honest.
The Trade Federation will never stop, they can never be reasoned with...wait I'm mixing my movies...
"THEY sent A SLAMHOUND on Turner's trail in New Delhi, slotted it to his pheromones and the color of his hair. It caught up with him on a street called Chandni Chauk and came scrambling for his rented BMW through a forest of bare brown legs and pedicab tires. Its core was a kilogram of recrystallized hexogene and flaked TNT. He didn't see it coming. The last he saw of India was the pink stucco facade of a place called the Khush-Oil Hotel.
Because he had a good agent, he had a good contract. Because he had a good contract, he was in Singapore an hour after the explosion. Most of him, anyway. The Dutch surgeon liked to joke about that, how an unspecified percentage of Turner hadn't made it out of Palam International on that first flight and had to spend the night there in a shed, in a support vat."
Austin, that mujahedin was a fembot...
Hmmmm, choices choices:
(1) unmanned flying robot: 3.2 million dollar (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RQ-1_Predator#Development)
(2) frustrated Afghan country bumpkin: $0.1
Considering how easy it is to crack hardware and software, is it really wise to create a robot army, that could be subverted and turned against you?
So does this mean my robotics and embedded controller hobby becomes a terraist practice?
Will I be required to register those tubes full of PIC controllers? What about the tubes of 68HC11s and all those 8039's and 8051's? Do I have to dress up the tubes of 8522's in burkhas?
Seriously, are there going to be people looking at me suspiciously at Borders when I browse the latest 'Build yerself a robot' paperbacks in the Engineering/Tech section?
There is only one thing that all sane governments can do: Create a brand-new international treaty condemning autonomous armed robots and unstaffed mobile weapons under remote control of a human operator as equivalent to land mines; and forbidding their manufacture, import or use on any territory within their nominal control.
Anything else is simply barbaric.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I will only refer to Stanislaw Lem's 1987 novel Peace on Earth as to how this will play out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_on_Earth_(novel)
Ring-a-ding-ding, sir.
The only factual statement from the "expert" is that UAVs can be developed by hobbyists for around £250. I've nearly finished building mine actually, and its a fun project. But for £250 you get a foam airframe, with propeller mounted on the rear to prevent unwanted face-tearing, and very little room to install some kind of autopilot and GPS system. If my dodgy code decides you look like an infidel all you can expect is a fairly uncomfortable thwack on the head. Followed by a fat man running over the horizon screaming "I only just rebuilt that!"
Saying this is an instrument of terror is akin to calling biros mass-murder weapons. Sure, its possible at a stretch, but hello?
If a suicide bomber robot blows up, does it get 72 unformatted laptops in Paradise?
and worse, those 1000 virgins are all teenager Jessica Alba look-alikes ... Even worse, they are Slashdot subscribers!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
We'll just install windows on the robots and that way when the robot rising happens all we have to do is wait for the inevitable crash. oh and just for good measure In Soviet Russia Robots build you!
So, you pack a bit of C4 the size of a Pink Pearl eraser into a robot dragonfly the size of a pack of Marlboros and drop it off a rooftop, it flutters passively toward the mall walkers below and detonates at eye level, that your scenario? Or are we talking riderless Gundam mecha, here? iPhones on alternating tripod legs, climbing slyly into bowls of bistro minestrone? I can't do that. Can you do that? Can your oil rich rogue uncle Bob do that?
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
Somehow I don't think the first use of a fully-autonomous robot will be for war.
It will be for sex.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
If you have a mix of robots and conventional soldiers, then there's a high risk that some of the robots are going to start killing some of your own guys. But if you're mounting a terrorist attack on an installation, without any of your own personnel being present, then the robot can simply kill anyone it finds - targets, police, civilians, it doesn't matter. You don't need friend-of-foe systems when everyone is a target.
A second problem that affects superpowers but not terrorists is the question of what happens when you instigate a 600 million dollar automated UAV programme, and one of the things crashes and falls into enemy hands through sheer bad luck. Suddenly you then have a group out there somewhere with a stealthed machine that can take out presidents or CEOs of corporations, without you being able to see it coming. So having built your machines, you find yourself hardly ever using them, for fear of losing one. This is supposed to be one of the problems that hampered the Allies towards the end of WW2: they had jet-engined planes, but didn't dare fly them over Germany in case one got shot down, and the Germans then got to take a look at it.
A third problem is that these devices are great at circumventing security, so their ideal application is use by small groups against large high-security targets. In other words, they may make the US a little bit better at attacking terrorists, but they make terrorists much more effective at attacking US targets.
A little weeny UAV can fly over security fences and into secure bases. It can whizz over the concrete wall around the green zone and go looking for the visiting commander in chief. It can reach any window of the Pentagon, in- or out-facing, and it can attack any window of any skyscraper. You can be taking a crap in the exacutive loo on the fortieth floor of the most high-security building in New York, and one of these things can shoot you through the wall from outside. These things could hop over airport perimeter fences and take out airliners as they come in to land, shoot politicians as they give speeches, wipe out entire company boards while they are in session, or take out Air Force One while it's still on the tarmac.
These things are about as close as you can get to the perfect terrorist device, and we're promoting their development.
Remember, once we've ironed out all the bugs in the control systems and turned this into a 99.99% reliable technology, and conducted the "proof of concept" tests, the terrorists can tap into cheaper versions of that proven technology fairly easily. They don't need the same reliability or range. We want a UAV with a 200km range that can execute a mission and return safely to base, they only need something that can go maybe a kilometre and blow up.
So ... basically, the US is developing and promoting technologies whose main "killer application" would seem to be that they allow small groups to attack the US in ways they never could before, without having to risk their own lives. Our foreign policy assumes that we have superpower advantage, in that we can attack people who don't have the ability to attack us back in any meaningful way , but this is a a "leveling technology" that takes away that superpower advantage and means that anyone can attack anyone, without the people being attacked necessarily knowing who did it.
It's a deeply destabilising technology that favors countries and groups who don't like the current status quo, and where current superpowers have the most to lose, and because it doesn't require special hard-to-handle materials, its easily transferrable. So the people who work on these research projects probably need to be monitored and tracked as carefully as nuclear weaponry scientists or bioweapons researchers.
Eric Baird
I've never understood why cruise missles and such don't get their rightful respect as robots. They're a lot more autonomous than the remote-controlled gadgets that everyone's calling millitary robots these days. And yes, the cruise missle was a direct replacement for the Kamakizie...we've been delivering explosives by robot for about as long as we've been able to wire two vaccum tubes together.
b) If that helps create a new PATRIOT act, terrorists will get the weapons in a heartbeat, complete with manuals.
Anyone willing to blow themselves and others sky fucking high is mentally handicapped.
No sig for you!!
"that way there aren't any poor bastards that have to die for their countries just because the people in charge don't like the other people in charge."
In the old days, real leaders rode out to battle and risked their lives along with the grunts they sent out.
While this is impractical nowadays given all the fancy tech, something in that spirit would be good, so I have proposed the following to help discourage unnecessary killing and death:
If political leaders wish to send troops to battle for _offensive_ (not defense) purposes (or risk lives of a substantial number of civilians), they have to put their own lives at risk as well. Repeat: defensive wars are different of course.
This could be done in the following manner:
A referendum is held. If there is an insufficient majority, the proposers' lives are forfeit. They are put on deathrow.
For the people on deathrow, at a convenient time there could be a "redemption" referendum, and their lives depend on the results.
A similar referendum is also held if at any time it is found that a politician caused the public to be deceived/misinformed (even unknowingly) and "justify" a war or similar military action.
If a leader's life is not successfully redeemed (i.e. gets executed), but later it is found the war was justified, the leader will get the equivalent of a "purple heart" (and we'll try to say nice things about them in some ceremony with their family and loved ones).
The idea is that even leaders who have no qualms about lying about "caring about the lives of soldiers" would then actually think twice about sending soldiers to risk their lives. Even amoral people without a conscience would be inclined to take things a bit more seriously when it's not just a matter of losing the next election, or going to jail for a few years.
After all if a leader thinks it is worth risking the lives of soldiers and civilians, that leader should also be willing to risk his/her life. That's only fair right?
Also, if 66% of Nation A thinks it's worth attacking Nation B, then it might be easier for people in Nation B to decide whether to kill people in Nation A. If you want a war, you get a real war.
Otherwise, why kill people who have nothing against you, who may not even want to harm anyone, but are dragged into a war just because of a minority at the top?
the killer robots look like Summer Glau, I can live with it.
I want to live with it!
See? Even John Connor agrees!
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Landmines are autoMATED not autoNOMOUS. In the context of this discussion we're talking about weapons platforms that have some advanced level of intelligence combined with sensors that allow them to make targeting and firing decisions. But all the people who think they are so clever by pointing out landmines have missed the point entirely. You're completely offtopic since the article is talking about automated, mostly robotic, weapons systems. Anyone can be "clever" and offtopic. Next time bring something to the discussion.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
And I can make a "car" in my garage by gluing pipe axles with wagon wheels to a box. Does that mean it'll be used in the Indy 500? We're talking about military grade robotic systems. I can tell from your webcam comments that you have no clue how to do video recognition. There is a huge difference between shooting for the centroid of a moving object and detecting, targeting, tracking, recognizing, verifying it's not a friendly, and then shooting it. But by all means, go build your box shooting robot and let me know how many you sell to DHS.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
Hehehe, yes, I understand it's way more involved than simply Pvt Jimmy being the one to press the button. And I think your detailed list of what actually goes into a strike assessment drives the point home. Even troop-level firing can be a multi-step process of evaluation and confirmation. That people think this can all be automated so that no human is involved in that process are severely underestimating the process and overestimating the state of the technology. Thank you for the clarification!
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
Indeed but I would consider those to be either just a slightly more advanced version of the improvised weaponry we're used to (ex. Hamas' Qassam rockets are crude steel tubes packed with a super simple TNT/nitrate cocktail and a motor) or potentially state-sponsored/sanctioned terrorism. If the latter, I don't think it's relevant since the article is about fearing terrorists will take advantage of robotics as they become cheaper and highly available to the masses. Also, with the number of AKs and RPGs Russia alone put out (nevermind their impresive simplicity & resilience and thus average lifetimes) those tribal shops have a ton of catching up to do.
With respect to a simple remote control car-bomb, I absolutely agree and in fact believe they can do so now. However, I would question why they would bother when they can now use command-detonated improvised explosives that are and continue to be far cheaper, easier and less prone to failure. I would suspect they'll start using advanced weapons, though, when they can easily slap one together from the left over parts of downed robots from a modern military. Again, though, I'm generalizing and talking about the bulk of terrorist attacks.
It's probably best not to get too specific about any of this since it's so nebulous. Even what is considered a "terrorist" is debatable since, in theory, they have nuclear capabilities in some eyes (ex. 2 of the 5 nations considered by the US Dept. of State to be "State Sponsors of Terrorism" and thus allegedly "repeatedly provide support for acts of international terrorism" are nuclear capable North Korea and Iran.)
That's just my POV... no more, no less.
On a similar note: even if an AK-slinging fanatic is stopped by multimillion dollar munitions(and all the work behind fielding the munitions) we end up losing anyway since we lose far more money than they invested.
Fortunately, there's an even greater imbalance between the combined resources of all terrorist groups likely to be slinging AK-fanatics against our civilization and the resources we have to put into improved technology opposing them. The "war on terror" is a police action against few networks of psychopathic malcontents, and the only way society can possibly lose it is by doing the terrorists' work for them.
Unfortunately, many aspects of the current execution of "war on terror" are glaring examples of our policy makers being unable to grasp that concept.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
Johnny Five is alive! Johnny Five: Frederick, I have an important question. Why do humans not like me, call me "craphead"? Fred: They like you. They like you. Craphead is a compliment. Johnny Five: Oh...
Price: $2099.95;
Mail-order from heli-world (see http://www.heli-world.com/)
Lifting capacity: 15 lbs. (according to manufacturer).
Assuming you want a camera and a video transmitter on board (say about 2 lbs together), that should still allow you a payload of 6 lbs. and a comfortable safety margin. By the way, any idea what 2 ounces of plastic explosive can do? It can comfortably demolish a car.
Well ... I'm no expert, but I'd take a $2100 helicopter kit any time over a not-so-smart bomb. Doesn't show up on passenger lists, won't be picked up at the border for having an Arabic accent (or speaking no English at all), being nervous or zombie-like. No need to house and babysit a volatile human being. Much easier to get to the precise spot you want to target despite police cordons. Can dash in if needed. Won't blab if caught or shot down, and will allow me to retain control of events.
I'm afraid that people who are able to finance flying lessons + condo's for 6 young men for a few months will also be able to finance a $2100 helicopter kit. Plus camera and payload.
Sorry to go on about this, but it's got me a bit worried.