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

[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

[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.

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....