Slashdot Mirror


Marine Corps Wants a Throwable Robot

coondoggie writes "The US Marine Corps has a request — build and rapidly deploy more 10lb-or-under robots its personnel can throw into dangerous situations that can quickly gather information without endangering Marines. The throwable robot is part of a family of robots that would range from the 10lb version to one that would act as a central controlling device and weigh close to 300lbs. Marine commanders are demanding ever lighter robots so that troops don't have to offload critical equipment from their rucksacks to accommodate them."

4 of 270 comments (clear)

  1. U R Doing It Wrong by IBitOBear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The robots should be carrying the equipment and throwing each other.

    The marines should be making the decisions and dodging the other guys robots.

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
  2. Re:10lbs...throwable? by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    how far can you heave a 10lb weight into a situation that you can't see directly in front of you?

    Further than I would want to throw myself if we're talking about into a room with a lot of angry men with guns. Also, I'm not in the same shape a marine would be, I'd expect a marine would be able to throw a 10lb weight further. The article specifically mentions "can see around corners inside buildings, sewers, drainpipes, caves, courtyards" so corners, not distances, and it sounds kind of like they're looking into remote controlled after being thrown.

    Yet another rash judgement from someone didn't even RTFA, let alone knows the full story. But lets not let trivial details like facts we don't know stand in the way of our statement that fully half our military budget is completely dispensable.

    (For the record, I'm a liberal and also dislike the amount we spend on the military. It's not that I'm biased in favor of dumping all our money on the military, you're just making us look dumb.)

  3. Re:But that's against the law... by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "But that's against the law..."

    "Law", unless sufficiently backed by force, is merely an expression of wishful thinking.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  4. Re:cutting waste is a noble goal by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How is percentage of GDP the relevant measure here?

    We have more to defend, and a larger stake in global politics/stability?

    Bigger stick == better?

    Just guessing.

    I don't see how spending FOO * Scary Nation Defense Budget BAR makes any sense. What if there are several Scary Nations and Bad Countries?
    I think military spending should be greater than the combination of all 'OTHER' country's military spending, but within your means. OTHER being anyone we don't trust right now. Are we spending within our means? ~5%, I guess so. Who is OTHER now? Do you trust them enough to cut back?