Slashdot Mirror


Electronic Warfare Insects Coming Soon

Mike writes "British defence giant BAE Systems is creating a series of tiny electronic spiders, insects and snakes that could become the eyes and ears of soldiers on the battlefield, helping to save thousands of lives, and they claim that prototypes could be on the front line by the end of the year. A fascinating development to be sure, but who thinks this won't be misused domestically for spying and evidence gathering?" Included in the story is a link to a creepy little (scripted, rendered) demo video of these robots in action.

22 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. Ha! That's funny. by junglee_iitk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...helping to save thousands of lives

    Yeah, right!
    1. Re:Ha! That's funny. by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually they probably will save soldier's lives. That doesn't mean they aren't creepy or that they won't be misused by Governments, but having little spybots to reconnoiter, especially in an urban setting, most certainly will save some lives.

    2. Re:Ha! That's funny. by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They will save some civilian lives, too. The soldiers will send one of these into the room to have a look around instead of throwing a grenade in and then rushing in guns blazing, if only because it's safer for them. They may also sometimes air-drop a few onto a building they've been told is a "terrorist" safe house to make sure it isn't really a child-care center before bombing it.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:Ha! That's funny. by Nick+Flandry · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The sophomoric smarminess of this comment is second only to the monumental ignorance of military doctrine and battlefield necessity. No, kiddo, your anecdotal understanding of these things is flawed. What exactly is your objection to being protected by the greatest force for human liberation that has ever existed? Or do you simply think the lives of your fellow citizens have less value than those of our enemies? Providing they participate in actions of which you disapprove, of course. As in the imaginary, Clintonesque scenarios cited. What gave you the misguided notion that you're more clever than anyone in the military? Didn't you go to public school, too?

    4. Re:Ha! That's funny. by religious+freak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      DAMNIT! Where are my mod points when I need them...

      If GP doesn't agree with military action, so be it, but to personally insult those who are putting their butts on the line is repugnant and arrogant.

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
  2. battery life by nguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That all sounds real dandy, but battery life is the achilles heel: these bugs and critters are only going to last a few minutes. Real insects last longer because they have much more energy-efficient locomotion and control, they have efficient fuel cells, and they replenish their energy supplies constantly by feeding.

  3. save lives? by pizzach · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "British defence giant BAE Systems is creating a series of tiny electronic spiders, insects and snakes that could become the eyes and ears of soldiers on the battlefield, helping to save thousands of lives, and they claim that prototypes could be on the front line by the end of the year. A fascinating development to be sure, but who thinks this won't be misused domestically for spying and evidence gathering?" Great, now you're going to tell me how guns, missiles, tanks and nuclear weapons save millions of lives.
    --
    Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
    1. Re:save lives? by couchslug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Great, now you're going to tell me how guns, missiles, tanks and nuclear weapons save millions of lives."

      They have and do, but sometimes (when deterrence fails) at the cost of other lives.

      WWII is an excellent example. It took killing millions of Germans, Japanese, Italians, and other Axis types to halt their enthusiastic killing of others. There not being a non-violent option for dealing with such folk (non-violence just meant surrender to extermination) it was perfectly logical and reasonable to save Allied lives by killing heaps of Axis humans. Those who snivel about it now are conveniently distant from having to actually deal with any similar problems. ;)

      It worked superbly, like it or not.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:save lives? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think nukes did. Otherwise my parents' generation would have ended up fighting the Communists just like my grandparents' generation fought the Fascists.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    3. Re:save lives? by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "So you're saying those who live in the middle east should kill USian politicians?"

      The decision to act or not is a matter of perceived results.

      Killing does not always work, or work in the way that those killing intended.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  4. Re:BAE Systems Motto by techno-vampire · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The idea is that they'll take out money and use it to take enemy lives instead of friendly ones. I think your cynicism meter needs adjusting.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  5. Re:Not exactly by jalet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Excepted that when you send a nuclear device somewhere by pushing a button in your presidential or dictatorial office, you may risk receiving another back directly onto you as retortion.

    Instead, if you send poor guys on a distant battlefield to take lives and have theirs being taken, while staying in your office, the risk is not exactly the same for you...

    That's why people in charge of nuclear armed nations prefer the second solution : THEY won't die.

    --
    Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
  6. Re:Saving thousands of lives on a battlefield... by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > I thought soldiers were on a battlefield precisely to take as many lives as
    > they could...

    They are usually there to take and hold territory by any means necessary. If the enemy resists somebody gets killed but if they run away or surrender that works too.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  7. Re:Forget tiny spiders.... by njcoder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I prefer my spiders to be 20ft tall and wielding giant laser canons of death.... Who needs a covert force when you can have one that kicks ass and takes names? 20ft is insignificant compared to the habitable surface area of the planet. And it would be too impractical to create enough for your world domination plans. Which is pretty much the only reason for needing a 20ft tall spider that kicks ass and takes names.

    A 20ft spider would also be pretty obvious so you loose out on the paranoia factor of covert devices. You may only have enough covert little machines to oppress 10% of the world, but the other 90% will live in fear of wondering if they're in that 10% or not.
  8. Re:...And killing them? by holophrastic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Heh, you know I laughed reading your reply, but then I cried. Now I'm thinking that you'd have to worry about them suing you for breaking it because that probably gives them suitable (ha) cause to review the surveillance -- even if they didn't have legal cause prior to the destruction.

  9. "...helping to save thousands of lives..." by lordofthefunk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If this technology ever does prove to save lives on the battlefield, it would only be the lives of the "good guys". The lives of the opposing side would be destroyed with ever-increasing efficiency. Of course, if you believe that the foes that Britain will face in the foreseeable future are intrinsically evil and deserve to be destroyed with ever-increasing efficiency, then this is fine. If you believe that destroying lives full-stop with ever-increasing efficiency is ok, that this is fine. Another way to help save thousands of lives on the battlefield would be not illegally invade sovereign countries with thinly-veiled justifications designed to cover up one's own economic and emperial ambitions.

    1. Re:"...helping to save thousands of lives..." by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If this technology ever does prove to save lives on the battlefield, it would only be the lives of the "good guys" Shirley you can't be serious. That is the point of war. To win by killing your enemy faster than they can kill you. And there is no "good" or "bad" here. Only winner and loser. I guess it's just a question of which side you would like to be on. Personally I like any tech that tends to result in the destruction of simple machines rather than humans. There is nothing stopping the other side from doing the same. Are there any geeks who would not like to see wars turn into gigantic "battlefield" bot contests with armed bots shooting at other armed bots? For the sake of humanity I do hope that that is precisely what wars become. Or even taking it a step further and standardizing on some kind of networked multiplayer video game so that even machines need not be destroyed, just bits in memory.
      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  10. Re:Thousands of lives? by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The op was decrying war as something that never had to happen, if only we all just got along. WWII is a sterling example of a war that happened because the other side didn't want to get along. The point is that while it is unfortunate that there are aggressors that are willing to go to war, it isn't stupid or war mongering to defend yourself from an aggressor, it is necessary.

    The snarky reason why Tonkin and Vietnam and Iraq don't get mentioned is that they aren't wars, but the real reason is that they aren't nearly as morally unambiguous as WWII was, especially after the extent of the crimes against humanity was uncovered.

    What it comes down to is that one unjust war doesn't prove that all war is unjust.

    The point about the fake incidents not being bilateral is that side B can't do a whole lot about the actions of side A (other than fight back) once side A starts rolling in tanks.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  11. Re:Thousands of lives? by UncleTogie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The snarky reason why Tonkin and Vietnam and Iraq don't get mentioned is that they aren't wars...

    Bullhockey.

    Tell THIS girl that she wasn't in a war zone.

    Calling it "a police action", "counter-insurgency", or BY any other marginally more "pleasant" euphemism does NOT change the rules of the game.

    It's war, plain and simple. Kill them before they have a chance to kill you. Period.

    ...unless you want to tell me the name really DID change to "Freedom Fries". :P

    --
    Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
  12. Re:Pigs with bugs. by triffid_98 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Crime lords and drug gangs only have power because our government gives it to them. Make gambling, drugs and sex legal and you take away a rather significant fraction of their revenue stream. Police and your friendly government agencies will be abusing their new found surveillance powers, it's not a question of if, it's merely a question of when.

    Go live in a city where the crime lords and drug gangs run the place. Then you can come back and talk to us about thugs and bullies.
  13. Re:Saving thousands of lives on a battlefield... by swillden · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I thought soldiers were on a battlefield precisely to take as many lives as they could...

    To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

    -- Sun Tzu

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  14. Re:Pigs with bugs. by tucuxi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There will be mafias wherever there are groups or individuals with interests that run contrary to those of the state/society; you can't get rid of crime just by legalizing a few of the currently-illegal interests. Don't want to pay your taxes? Want to get your money back without having to sue the debtor and wait forever? Want something that the owner won't sell?

    Not that legalizing marihuana would be negative, I'm just pointing out that crime is here to stay...