Wall-E Lookalike Wins British War Robot Showdown

longacre writes "Following in the footsteps of DARPA's Urban Challenge, in which robotic vehicles had to navigate a complex obstacle course without human intervention, the UK upped the ante with its own Ministry of Defence Grand Challenge: within a mock enemy village, robots were instructed to find potential targets and make distinctions between armed troops, roadside bombs and snipers. The winning entry, Team Stellar's SATURN system, actually consists of three vehicles: a low level drone and a tracked ground vehicle transmit reconnaissance data to a high-altitude robotic relay aircraft, which proceeds to phone that data home to a central processing center. Upon announcing the winner yesterday, MoD said they are 'carefully considering if technologies demonstrated in the final can be incorporated into future frontline kit for the Armed Forces. It is possible that the winning team will have invented a product that can be developed rapidly for the front line.'"

Comments

What I like

[caitsith01]

What I like is this:

within a mock enemy village, robots were instructed to find potential targets and make distinctions between armed troops, roadside bombs and snipers

Would it not, perhaps, be better to invest time and energy into robots which "make distinctions" between armed troops and unarmed civilians?

Re:What I like

[cp.tar]

Well, no uniform makes him a civilian, and no visible weapons makes him unarmed. As soon as he shows a weapon, he becomes an armed civilian, potential guerrilla member.

That does kind of suck, but I, as a civilian, prefer an innocent soldier's death to an innocent civilian's. And way too many civilians were killed in the recent wars in Croatia and Bosnia due to the hype about "Serbian grandmothers hiding AK-47s under their skirts".

If you don't see a weapon, they are unarmed. You can presume all you want, but until you see a weapon, they are unarmed. And I don't care whether any soldier likes it or not: when an armed civilian/guerrilla grandmother kills an armed soldier, that's tough, but not exactly unfair — soldiers have the numbers and the firepower on their side. When an armed soldier kills an unarmed civilian, that's just despicable.

Re:What I like

[Opportunist]

And I don't care whether any soldier likes it or not: when an armed civilian/guerrilla grandmother kills an armed soldier, that's tough, but not exactly unfair

Oh c'mon, when did "fair" become applicable to war again? When you crash into some backwater country that has 40 year old tanks and 15 year old soldiers and you field more firepower than half the globe combined, is that fair or something?

There is no fairness in a war. Every side will use whatever advantage it has to gain or retain the upper hand, of if this is impossible, inflict as much damage as entirely possible. Period.

Re:What I like

[Bartab]

Well, no uniform makes him a civilian

Your criteria has failed.

Re:What I like

[Anonymous Coward]

agreed, i'd like a bunch of those roaming the streets too. it can't be programmed to recognize any kind of martial arts weapon as an actual weapon, since all of them are based on tools or other readily available stuff. the kind of stuff that's within "reasonable doubt", the do-not-kill kind of thing. especially staves and similar weaponry.

that'd mean i get to roam around with my weapon of choice, and those silly police and military folks who happen to be near one are limited to the same! :D

srsly, i welcome our new robotic peacekeepers, may they do well in their quest to rid the world of guns!

Re:What I like

[PopeRatzo]

But it's an enemy village!

See, that's the thing: I don't think systems like this are for use against the "enemy" at all. At least not our enemies.

Re:What I like

[PopeRatzo]

How do you expect us to create a machine that can do what humans can't?

We can make a machine that spins at 50,000 rpm. Can you do that? I can make a machine that lifts 2,000 kg.

I'd say we can already create machines that can do what humans can't.

Re:What I like

[jabithew]

...soldiers have the numbers and the firepower on their side.

Firepower, yes. Numbers? No. You'd have to have some nutty situation like the entire PLA of China invading Luxembourg to have soldiers outnumber civilians.

It doesn't excuse the slaughter of unarmed civilians, but it does give a greater insight as to why guerilla forces who can blend in with unarmed civilians are so powerful and cause so much paranoia.

Re:What I like

[SQL Error]

And I don't care whether any soldier likes it or not: when an armed civilian/guerrilla grandmother kills an armed soldier, that's tough, but not exactly unfair -- soldiers have the numbers and the firepower on their side. When an armed soldier kills an unarmed civilian, that's just despicable.

When a civilian kills an armed soldier, that it unfair on the other civilians. A major reason for the rules about combatants wearing recognisable uniforms is to protect civilians. If the solders know that only other uniformed solders will shoot at them, then they have no reason to attack civilians. If the civilians decide to join in the fight, then they're not civilians any more; they're soldiers illegally out of uniform.

Depends on the situation, sure. But if the civilians break the rules intended to protect them, they can't complain if they're no longer protected by those rules.

Re:What I like

[db32]

Wow...I can't believe this is "Insightful". No uniform makes him a civilian, if you don't see a weapon they are unarmed? Unlawful combatants hiding in civilian populaces is despicable. Armed soldiers killing unarmed civilians is tragic. But here is a bit of a wakeup call, that is why "War is hell".

Colonies vs Britian - your "unarmed civilians" won because they were "unarmed civilians" until they were close enough to pull the trigger.
Vietnam - your "unarmed civilians" used babies as explosive devices and any number of horrific ambush tactics. This is where America learned that just because they look unarmed or look civilian doesn't mean they are.
Iraq, Afghanistan - This is what that whole Gitmo problem is about! The fact that these terrorist assholes have no uniform, and frequently pretend to be unarmed. Many pretend to be unarmed right up until they explode killing dozens of people around them. The Rules of War (boy isn't that a funny notion) say that to get POW protections you have to be a lawful combatant, which means uniformed and not hiding behind civilians and such.
That is just a few of the major ones. It is this kind of idiotic civilian rulemaking nonsense that lead to so many deaths in Vietnam. "Nonono, you can't hit THOSE targets, that would upset people. You have to leave their factories alone so that their war machine can keep running. Who cares if casualties on both sides go through the roof, it would cause too much political problems to hit their factories!"

Re:What I like

[Spatial]

Know what's even cheaper? Not going to war. Maybe governments should try that instead.

Short Circuit.

[ZJVavrek]

Did no one else see this movie? This is clearly a step towards Johnny 5, Wall-E be damned.

Re:Hrmm

[cp.tar]

It's all fun and games until it gets confused and kills all the innocents while leaving the aggressors.

Well, I'm sure the aggressors will claim their innocence and compliment the good robot.
Though there may be some bitching and whining about being unable to join in on the carnage.

MOD PARENT UP

[scotsghost]

well put. and note, if we're talking about armed battlefield robots, targetting the opposition with lethal force, false positives should NOT be acceptable.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[cp.tar]

well put. and note, if we're talking about armed battlefield robots, targetting the opposition with lethal force, false positives should NOT be acceptable.

Ah, well... human life is cheap. Armed battlefield robots cost millions.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Lumpy]

Ah, well... poor human life is cheap. Armed battlefield robots cost millions.

There fixed that for you.

We would be in far fewer wars if the children of our leaders (president,supreme court,congress, etc..) were required to be the first there and on the front line in FRONT of everyone else. Let the rich people put up their children and grandchildren to die for their war first.

Designed for...

[clickety6]

Quote:

within a mock enemy village, robots were instructed to find potential targets and make distinctions between armed troops

This is obviously designed for use in "the war on terror" where most of the fighting is against mock enemies....

Re:British?

[Sethumme]

Yes.

And if it was made in America, it would need to have a hatchet, a horse, and look like Mel Gibson.

Re:Hrmm

[colmore]

Great. One step closer to wealthy nations having access to risk-free warfare.

There's no way this could be a horrible thing in the wrong hands. No way at all.