Slashdot Mirror
Air Force Planning New Drone Fleet For Pakistan
mattnyc99 writes "With tensions high on the border, a new commander in Afghanistan, and complaints of civilian deaths from robotic US strikes in Pakistan raising anti-American sentiment, the Air Force is sketching out concepts for new robotic hitmen, reports Esquire.com. Among the new drones (which are all very small) are the Suburb Warrior (loaded with four or five mini missiles for semi-urban environments), the Sniper targeting system ("that can lock on to multiple targets, allowing a single drone pilot to coordinate the attacks of a squadron of robots"), and a backup fleet of flying buggies that act as suicide-bomber snipers. From the article: 'Picking through the dozens of systems in this briefing, many of which will be flight-tested within five years, there's a clear set of goals: build smaller, even microscopic drones with smaller weapons that can hunt in swarms and engage targets in the close quarters of urban battlefields. And hunt as soon as possible.'"
Esquire.com top 3 stories:
This one.
The greatest karaoke song of all time.
How the american man "really" spends his day.
Not sure that I would put all my magical beans into that lone basket.
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
The more "harmless" wars start to look, the easier it will be for politicians to convince the public to go to war. Look at how itchy a trigger finger our "all volunteer" army has given US Presidents. "What do I care? It's not MY kid."
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
But losing robots isn't going to make a government quit, like losing so many human soldiers can.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Civilian space development is just an excuse to do military development on the sly. Consider the Chinese manned space programme. Their Government wants the capability but not so they can plant a flag on the moon eventually.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
So with no soldiers to kill, it will be who runs out of money or civilians or infrastructure ...
I agree it's better. Until now we were watching war on TV between mercenaries.
Now we will hear our little Johnny at school got blasted away war may not be a great spectator sport.
It's only a matter of time before anybody, anywhere in the world can be picked off by a robot without any warning.
It's modern technology, Bobby!
expandfairuse.org
Besides robots don't have feelings. They don't ever testify about the horrors of war, refuse to commit atrocities when ordered to do so, or have to deal with PTSD afterward.
its also about material resources, not just bodies. a war between robot armies will be won by the one that has the most access raw materials metal, oil, coal, T-1000 morphing goo... etc.
Its also worth noting that war has driven technological advances much faster than any other single reason, so I wouldn't go as far to say science has been wasted on war. One example...Emergency room trauma techniques and equipment were perfected on the battlefield. millions of lives have been saved because of the millions that were killed or maimed in war. some of the coolest gadgets we use today came from the research done in finding ways to kill eachother.
I think the idea is to have robots kill people... This is basically nuclear warfare without the fallout. Nukes have a couple of problems. They cause fallout, massive civilian deaths, mutations to future births, etc. They are great, however, because they can be used to kill & deal enormous amounts of damage from afar, with no soldiers on the ground.
Likewise with these drones and robots and what have you. The point, once again, is to make killing massive amounts of people as simple as pressing a button, with no soldiers on the ground. Sure, it's not as bad as nukes, but to me it seems like a technology that is as game changing and disruptive.
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
I'd say the large numbers of civilians killed in conflict since WWII would disagree with you. There's been a lot of examples throughout history of making states capitulate by attacking civilian populations, but the axis & allied carpet bombing campaigns in Europe really put the idea in motion that civilians were responsible for the war making machine, so to kill the machine you need to take out the capability of making tanks, bullets, ball bearings, gas, etc. Once you go that far, why stop at the factories? Why not bomb the workers in the factories directly at their homes.
Having robots do the bombing doesn't change any of this, its just that one side has a lot less to lose.
The more "harmless" wars start to look, the easier it will be for politicians to convince the public to go to war.
One could argue that the opposite has been seen over the past century, as mobilization of antiwar sentiment happens earlier and earlier over the course of progressively less costly wars (in terms of American casualties). I would argue that the effects of mass media far out-trump an effective military when it comes to gaining popular support.
Or the other option is we could stop killing each other. Of course, then we'd have to think of something else to talk about on TV.
Or the other option is we could stop killing each other.
Sure we could. But I don't trust you, so I'm gonna have to ask you to drop the gun first. Once you do that, I'll drop my own, too... I promise! Honest!
"Look at how itchy a trigger finger our "all volunteer" army has given US Presidents. "What do I care? It's not MY kid."
That statement ignores the many and frequent interventions, wars, and military actions before the advent of the Volunteer Force. Google ye some Smedley Butler for examples. :)
There isn't evidence that the politicians sending the military to war don't care about the troops, even if they mismanage them sometimes due to situational ignorance. The military itself during the pre-volunteer days often treated troops badly, and now that it must compete for recruits standards of living have _greatly_ improved.
Casualties are far more controversial than during the Cold War, and vast amounts have been invested in protecting troops. (Going into Iraq under-armored was provably and specifically the fault of the military, not the politicos. The Army refused to learn from Mogadishu years before.)
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Almost all scientific break-throughs/developments go through a clearly observable cycle. 1. Theoretical, 2. Experimental 3. Prototypical, 4. Militaristic 5. Commercial 6. Entertainment. Granted that a very few developments skipped a step or two, but for the most part, the cycle holds true. Which makes me wonder....how long it will be until we can be watching drones "police" us on Cops????
-Oz
The biggest issue of the 21st century is post-scarcity technology wielded by people still preoccupied with fighting over perceived scarcity.
Nuclear power, biotech, AI, robotics, nanotech, the internet, and social bureaucracy -- each of these technologies could make the earth a paradise if developed for humane ends.
Albert Einstein said: "The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."
The same is true for robotics, biotech, and the rest. Even smart networked watches. :-)
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
It's a continuation of the changes that began with the first mechanized warfare, and robotic warfare is indeed worse than what we have now.
When soldiers fought one-on-one the only way to pacify your enemy was to kill, capture or otherwise eliminate his soldiers. When we started fighting wars with machines, industrial power and the civilians that were responsible for it became more important. You could still win by killing or capturing the other guy's soldiers, but now you could also win by depriving them of the machines they needed to fight effectively. That means taking out factories or convincing the civilians that work in them that they don't want to be at war anymore. When we fight with only machines, no men involved, the only option will be to destroy the civilian's will or ability to fight.
Unless they run on Microsoft :)
This stuff needs to be treated like nuclear weapons in terms of international condemnation. It is much harder to determine if a rogue country is trying to build such technology and is therefore MORE dangerous then nuclear weapons.
Drone weaponry, especially the microscopic crap they are dreaming about (but seriously working on), are just as dangerous as biological weaponry. Borders will mean nothing to the people that have this capability.
I don't care if it IS us that will have this technology. It needs to be stopped before we have ourselves another Cold-War, or worse, a real war.
I don't trust ANYONE with this tech.
"The first thing that I would do when up against a drone army is to break out the RF jammer or a moderately powered microwave dish effectively denying the UAV access to the battlefield."
No chance UAV designers would take THAT into consideration! :)
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I think moral judgements should be done objectively, by people strategically thinking about how to minimize damage, not by people in the heat of the moment who refuse to shoot at a civilian but are perfectly fine with interrupting their food supply and killing hundreds of people that way.
all you have to do is:
1. stop people believing in something
2. stop people from having passions in their beliefs
war and love are permanent aspects of mankind, two sides of a coin. you can't have one without the other. both are immutable unavoidable implications of having passion in something. we will never stop waging war, or love, as long as we exist as a species
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
They don't ever testify about the horrors of war, refuse to commit atrocities when ordered to do so, or have to deal with PTSD afterward.
Except these aren't robots - they're remote controlled. The controllers do see the horrors of war and can get PTSD even though their lives were not at risk. And ordering these remote controlled UAVs to commit atrocities seems like a way to make sure the court martial finds you guilty - their sensor input can probably be recorded for evidence.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
The point, once again, is to make killing massive amounts of people as simple as pressing a button, with no soldiers on the ground
Did you read the article? The point of this technology is to kill targeted people with as little collateral damage (= dead innocents) as possible. To quote the article:
Instead of dropping Hellfires or a 500-pound bomb on an insurgent hideout, one or more Suburb Warriors could fire a volley of mini-missiles at confirmed targets, without vaporizing the wedding reception next door.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
Because it is believed that a Microsoft-based machine will likely have an error/crash, thus causing hesitation, such as happened with the USS Yorktown for a couple of hours.
And they'll be conditioned in the same way a counter-strike player is to being teabagged after they die. They'll yell at the screen and have another caffeinated beverage. At the end of their shift, they'll walk out jostling shoulders, cracking their knuckles and necks, and joking about who's on the leaderboard. Hell, by the time its fully up and running, live modding of the video stream will be advanced enough to put a red halo around the bad guys feet (like in an RTS), a green around your side, and blue around allies. Maybe yellow around the french ^_-
Yay me!
Yep. It's even easier to dehumanize your enemy when they exist only on a computer screen. And dehumanizing your enemy is what it's all about. They're not "people", they're "terrorists" or whatever word you've conditioned people to use as a substitute for thought. The article says around 650 people have been assassinated in Pakistan by US forces so far. No trials, no declaration of warfare, not even a tactical need to seize a position. Just US drones flying into another country and shooting people who are inconvenient. Disgusting.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.