iRobot Demonstrates New Weaponized Robot

Obvious questions... by TrisexualPuppy · 2010-06-01 03:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

How much does one unit cost, and is this actually scalable and affordable for nations where there are landmines? Most of these countries are third-world as the majority of landmines in first-world countries (e.g. Germany) was cleared years ago.

Re:Obvious questions... by TrentTheThief · 2010-06-01 04:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's probably not cost effective except for straight-line clearance operations (i.e., a road).
You wouldn't want to try and clear several acres of field with this system as it would totally destroy the field. The purpose built systems are better suited for mine clearing. There's a continuing effort underway for mine clearing systems with an eye to small cost and high effectiveness and safety.
Re:Obvious questions... by oztiks · 2010-06-01 04:06 · Score: 1

I wouldn't expect it too be too expensive, when it comes to the cost of UAV's it usually comes down to specific type of weaponry mounted on it which increases the cost.
Things like missile fail-safes, ai based being more expensive and the very different forms of targeting and guidance systems out there, things like direct and top attack, etc ...
This one seems pretty simple, shoot in a straight line and deploy a parachute.
Re:Obvious questions... by theshowmecanuck · 2010-06-01 04:08 · Score: 1

They'll be cheap. They'll build them in China. Now what that means when we really have to do something about North Korea or Taiwan is another matter.

--
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Re:Obvious questions... by oztiks · 2010-06-01 04:12 · Score: 1

Sorry I meant to say UGV ... got my acronyms wrong :)
Re:Obvious questions... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 04:23 · Score: 0

I would ask, how long it will take for these guys to get sued by Apple and their iCopyrights over the i on the iRobot name?
Re:Obvious questions... by Lumpy · 2010-06-01 04:26 · Score: 2, Funny

And what do I do when they accident send one of these in my new roomba box....
"honey, Why is the vacuum setting fire to the couch?"

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Obvious questions... by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-06-01 04:29 · Score: 1

How much does one unit cost, and is this actually scalable and affordable for nations where there are landmines? Most of these countries are third-world as the majority of landmines in first-world countries (e.g. Germany) was cleared years ago.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with your statement. There are third world countries that are actually well off enough. They aren't super powers like the states or anything, but they are still better off than what you probably mean as a developing nation - or something along those lines. Before the tsunami, I would have considered places like Thailand to be pretty well off for being a third world country. And Germany, contrary to popular belief, was a second-world country.
We need to come back to the history lesson that First World is Allies, Second World is Axis, and Third World is neutral. The First Second and Third world terminology came from allegiances during the second world war. It also happens to mirror that those participating happened to get a lot of industrial development, wars tend to do that.
So - where are the majority of landmines? Well, wherever the war is. I bet there are a ton in the middle east right now. I'd bet there are still a bunch in the Demilitarized zone seperating the Koreas, and possibly some around in Darfur.
So, whatever leader is capable of buying thousands of AK's to arm 14 year old boys to further his plans in Africa, or whatever tax money goes to fund American troops in the middle east, or however the middle eastern countries supply their own armed forces, or however North Korea is managing to test various military equipment, I -THINK- a robot like this might be affordable.
Re:Obvious questions... by hedwards · 2010-06-01 04:34 · Score: 1

iDontknow (tm)
Re:Obvious questions... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 04:47 · Score: 0

who cares? that was fucking awesome!
Re:Obvious questions... by careysub · 2010-06-01 04:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

How much does one unit cost, and is this actually scalable and affordable for nations where there are landmines? ...
It is pretty clear that this device is intended to support ground attack by a first world army against an adversary like Iraq (or some other country beginning with "I"?).
Think about its specs - it is a robotic device deploying an explosive system for instantly clearing a lane through a mine field. You need an instant lane if you launching a time-critical operation (i.e. an attack), and a robot to deploy it if you expect to get shot at - i.e. you are in combat.
A minefield clearing system for a third world country would probably be an armored flail system that can beat the earth of an entire field by methodically "mowing" it. This system would minimize collateral damage, be thorough, and inexpensive to operate (though the capital cost would be substantial).

--
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Re:Obvious questions... by h4rr4r · 2010-06-01 05:20 · Score: 1

Germany was first world, it is part of NATO. East Germany was second world. These terms were updated with the cold war.
Re:Obvious questions... by tibman · 2010-06-01 06:09 · Score: 2, Informative

This isn't used for clearing landmines. Just "Antipersonnel Obstacle"s... IE Concertina Wire or that crazy mesh stuff the Soviets use. If you want to clear landmines with a system like they showed.. the MICLIC is used insead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M58_Mine_Clearing_Line_Charge

--
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
Re:Obvious questions... by cyn1c77 · 2010-06-01 06:52 · Score: 1

How much does one unit cost, and is this actually scalable and affordable for nations where there are landmines? Most of these countries are third-world as the majority of landmines in first-world countries (e.g. Germany) was cleared years ago.
Wha?
This is for military combat operations. Like to clear a path for a lightly armored personnel carrier through a booby-trapped road in Afghanistan or Iraq.
It's not to help third-world countries clear out old mines.
Re:Obvious questions... by Kilrah_il · 2010-06-01 07:20 · Score: 1

I propose we start using a new prefix letter. How about 'x'? Nice, useful letter; not tedious like 'i'.
xPad, xRobot, xSkynet, xScape (great runaway game). I think I am on to something...

--
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
Re:Obvious questions... by MartinSchou · 2010-06-01 08:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

There's a continuing effort underway for mine clearing systems with an eye to small cost and high effectiveness and safety.
Well, use prisoners sentenced for execution and animals (30+ kg) tagged to be destroyed. Each prisoner is given as many animals as (s)he wants, and if (s)he steps on a mine, we'll put him/her down with a bullet to the head.
If they manage to clear a set number (say 100 mines), they're free to go.
Re:Obvious questions... by godel_56 · 2010-06-01 08:45 · Score: 1

How much does one unit cost, and is this actually scalable and affordable for nations where there are landmines? Most of these countries are third-world as the majority of landmines in first-world countries (e.g. Germany) was cleared years ago.
This would be more likely used in actual combat, to breach a protective minefield prior to an assault.
Re:Obvious questions... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 08:57 · Score: 0

How much does one unit cost, and is this actually scalable and affordable for nations where there are landmines? Most of these countries are third-world as the majority of landmines in first-world countries (e.g. Germany) was cleared years ago.
um, this is developed for our troops security, not others. if they want that tech, they need to develop it.
also its not just for landmines, IEDs, roadblocks, etc.
Re:Obvious questions... by couchslug · 2010-06-01 10:19 · Score: 1

"It is pretty clear that this device is intended to support ground attack by a first world army against an adversary like Iraq (or some other country beginning with "I"?)."
There is also a small country next to China that is fond of raiding their neighbors as well as sinking ships now and then. Fighting them to a draw was bloody and expensive the last time.
http://rokdrop.com/2008/12/30/dmz-flashpoints-the-blue-house-raid/
NK not only must attack through some mine fields, but can deploy their own. In order to counterattack, being able to rapidly cut lanes through (anyones) minefields (or by clearing a strip, ensure there are not mines in the way) has been important since anti-tank and anti-personnel mines came into use. Mines slow movement, and forces slowed by mines can be more easily shot, shelled, or otherwise shwacked. A way to clear lanes that doesn't make a juicy target of the troops doing it is desirable.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:Obvious questions... by MokuMokuRyoushi · 2010-06-01 11:17 · Score: 0

You've got an idea there though - UAV's disabling mines! 'll need to contact Mr. Stark for this one...

--
Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
Re:Obvious questions... by oztiks · 2010-06-01 15:09 · Score: 1

What makes them even cheaper is they've been able to hack Minesweeper to be its control interface ...
Re:Obvious questions... by davester666 · 2010-06-01 15:54 · Score: 1

And to pay for the mines/guards/etc, just broadcast it. The ratings will be through the roof for the first year or two, and they can then switch to just using prisoners w/o assistance animals. Hell, this might even make the prison system revenue positive...

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:Obvious questions... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 16:45 · Score: 0

There are also types of mines (invented by the USA originally, of course) which are not armed initially nor detonated by such explosives.
In fact some fusing only activates the mine after exactly this kind of "clearing" is detected or after a predefined or random delay after a clearing attempt is made. They are specifically designed to deceive you into thinking you've cleared the mines when you actually haven't.
It's such "great" idea that it's been copied by pretty much every mine manufacturer on the planet. Add plastic components instead of metal and you begin to comprehend the evil of land mines in general.
Re:Obvious questions... by The_mad_linguist · 2010-06-01 17:54 · Score: 1

It's probably more feasible just to get Aki Ra to train people.
He's pretty good at it.
Re:Obvious questions... by TrentTheThief · 2010-06-02 00:35 · Score: 1

Sorry, you're incorrect.
The USSR was the first to develop and deploy anti-clearance mines and the first to develop and deploy mines of that are almost entirely plastic. Not to mention the mines that look like pens and dolls.
Re:Obvious questions... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-02 03:02 · Score: 0

At last! Real life Minesweeper!
Re:Obvious questions... by Mr.+Foogle · 2010-06-02 03:44 · Score: 1

the evil of land mines in general.
Shenanigans. Mines are a tool - evil is imparted by people mis-using them.

--
Display some adaptability.
Re:Obvious questions... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-02 05:46 · Score: 0

Thankfully, the US constitution still protects humanity from idiots like you. Unless you consider having your legs blown off, then slowly bleeding to death before being shot in the head "humane and completely usual".
Re:Obvious questions... by MrResistor · 2010-06-02 06:30 · Score: 1

I think we can safely say that a field filled with land mines is effectively "destroyed" for most practical purposes already.

--
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Re:Obvious questions... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-02 06:30 · Score: 0

I think that falls under the category of being inhumane.
Re:Obvious questions... by TrentTheThief · 2010-06-02 06:43 · Score: 1

Not exactly true. The damage caused when it's possible to disrupt a mine rather than detonate it is negligibly. The "dragon" disruptors burn the munition too fast for it to detonate. All that's is damaged is a bucket full of dirt where the slag fell out of the casing.
Re:Obvious questions... by TrentTheThief · 2010-06-02 22:46 · Score: 1

Spoken like someone who has never been shot at.
Mines are primarily a defensive weapon, though their area denial function would be consider offensive. No one ever said a violent death was humane.
But you are whining at the wrong people. As long as it's necessary to send troops where they need mines for protection, then we need land mines.
If you have some silver bullet that'll make the world perfect, then by all means, pony up.
Re:Obvious questions... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-03 02:31 · Score: 0

Okay you first.

This seems somewhat familiar by dkleinsc · 2010-06-01 03:54 · Score: 2, Funny

I think you better do as he says, Mr. Kinney.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/

Re:This seems somewhat familiar by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 05:02 · Score: 1, Funny

You have ten seconds to comply.
Re:This seems somewhat familiar by bev_tech_rob · 2010-06-01 06:54 · Score: 1

Meh....I am waiting on the H-Ks to be rolled out....

--
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
Re:This seems somewhat familiar by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 10:57 · Score: 0

The line-charge that the robot deploys is a version of a standard system in regular use by the US Army. Normally it is deployed on an armored vehicle usually with the duty to clear a path through a minefield for the advancement of vehicles and troops. This device might be well suited to clear a path for the advancement of smaller units in the field without the burden of a large vehicle. Probably the robot would be able to carry other weapons and sensors for the operations of a smaller strike unit.

Honest question by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 03:56 · Score: 0

Why do we stick a lowercase 'i' in front of everything technological nowadays? iRobot? What? That's like prefixing all food items with a Mc.

Re:Honest question by gmurray · 2010-06-01 04:03 · Score: 1

Actually, I think the formation of iRobot may predate Apple's use of the prefix, but I'm not sure about that. And, if I had to guess, its probably a reference to the Asimov book of short stories.
Re:Honest question by jdgeorge · 2010-06-01 04:14 · Score: 1

I'm guessing "iRobot" was easier to get a registered trademark on than "Robot". Finding a unique (non-generic, non-already trademarked) identifier for products is tricky, so having trendy pattern for modifying otherwise generic words is a boon to new businesses or new products.
Re:Honest question by oztiks · 2010-06-01 04:23 · Score: 1

Samzenpus prolly thought he was submitting an article about Apple.
Thinking Jobs was releasing a new product that would clear all 3rd world countries of Windows based PC's.
Re:Honest question by 0100010001010011 · 2010-06-01 04:26 · Score: 3, Informative

The earliest live 'iRobot' trade mark was filed September 2002.
There is one from Nov 1999 that is 'dead'. Both from MA, so I'm not sure if it's the same company.
The iMac was released in 1998, the iBook in 1999.
Re:Honest question by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 04:35 · Score: 0

And what happens when Apple want to start selling Robots? (Although presumably not for military operations)
Re:Honest question by NatasRevol · 2010-06-01 04:40 · Score: 1

Obviously, they'll iBomb them!

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:Honest question by orgelspieler · 2010-06-01 05:20 · Score: 1

The company was founded in 1990. Don't know why the TM was registered so late. Maybe because of Apple's iCraze, they decided to get something on file with the PTO.

This will end well... by Brackney · 2010-06-01 04:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

This older story comes to mind whenever I see a new article about military robots.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki/

Re:This will end well... by B3ryllium · 2010-06-01 13:53 · Score: 1

That story is why I always beta-test my robotic weapons platforms with NERF and paintball weaponry first, before moving up to the beryllium-core laser rocket bullets.

More Than Cows by Doc+Ruby · 2010-06-01 04:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

These robots surely cost a lot more than running livestock across minefields to trigger the mines.

--

--
make install -not war

Re:More Than Cows by NatasRevol · 2010-06-01 04:39 · Score: 1

And it cooks your steaks at the same time!
Don't mind the lead bits...

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:More Than Cows by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 04:44 · Score: 0

These robots surely cost a lot more than running livestock across minefields to trigger the mines.
Please tell me that I've missed some sarcasm here.
Re:More Than Cows by Rude+Turnip · 2010-06-01 04:46 · Score: 1

I think M.I.A. was onto something with that Born Free video.

--
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Re:More Than Cows by h4rr4r · 2010-06-01 05:18 · Score: 1

Why? These robots cost far more than a cow or even a herd of cows.
If the issue is killing the cows via landmines, then perhaps a cheap robot that runs over mines to set them off can be built.
Re:More Than Cows by iammani · 2010-06-01 05:30 · Score: 1

Actually I wont be so sure. Cost of robot + cost of robot in terms of time/effort taken to transport (which is negligible) vs Cost of Cows (which is not negligible, if the the numbers of disposable cow required per unit time is high) + cost of cows in terms of time/effort required to transport (which is actually costly).

Seems to be pretty close.
Re:More Than Cows by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 05:39 · Score: 0

Goats are cheaper.
Re:More Than Cows by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 05:42 · Score: 0

See http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1671498&cid=32420830
Re:More Than Cows by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 05:45 · Score: 0

Imagine a unit of soldiers carting around a herd of cattle in case of landmines. All those trucks that need to be driven around, refueled, maintained, etc.
Do you think feeding a herd of cattle is easier or cheaper than recharging a robot?
And how many uses do you think you'll really get out of that herd of cattle? Do you think they'll calmly walk across the minefield with explosions going off all around, and then return obediently to the truck? For every cow you lose to a mine, you'll lose dozens to stampede behavior.
Really, the only advantage you see in the robot is an ethical concern? I realize we're overwhelmingly city mice here on Slashdot, but you really need to think of a cow as something other than "where my burger came from".
Re:More Than Cows by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 05:45 · Score: 0

The goal is to come up with a re-usable tool for finding and disabling the mines.
You aren't going to find many farmers who want to give up what is arguably the most valuable thing they own. There's been some success with trained rats (yeah, rats) for locating mine.
There's a cool system created by Alford Technologies (explosives.net) that burns the mine faster than it can trigger and explode. It's relatively cheap, too. It can be deployed via packbot or manually.
Re:More Than Cows by h4rr4r · 2010-06-01 05:47 · Score: 1

Why would you car them around?
In the case of a third world nation needing to clear fields of land mines, you would use local cattle.
I have been involved in the production of beef from cattle, they are extremely stupid animals.
Re:More Than Cows by iammani · 2010-06-01 05:48 · Score: 1

Goats cover much lesser ground than cows. So you will have to carry more goats than cows.

And in my previous post, I forgot the cost of retrieving the cows back vs retrieving the robots back.
Re:More Than Cows by h4rr4r · 2010-06-01 05:59 · Score: 1

I could see rats doing that, as someone who has raised both animals rats are much smarter than cows.
Re:More Than Cows by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 06:04 · Score: 0

The robot is reusable (it launches rounds, instead of blowing itself up). Cows, not so much.
Re:More Than Cows by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 06:45 · Score: 0

Why would you car them around?
Because cows can't teleport.

In the case of a third world nation needing to clear fields of land mines, you would use local cattle.
Assuming there are any to be had. And you still need to get them from Point A (local friendly herder) to Point B (minefield), which still means trucks as walking them there will rarely if ever be a viable option.
Re:More Than Cows by blair1q · 2010-06-01 07:16 · Score: 1

You aren't going to find many farmers who want to give up what is arguably the most valuable thing they own.
Do you mean their cow, or their iRobot ammunition?
Re:More Than Cows by blair1q · 2010-06-01 07:18 · Score: 1

Yeah, but if you don't need the cows to clear the mines, you can eat them or sell them or breed more cows.
If you don't need an iRobot to clear the mines, you've got a toy the kids will get bored with in a couple of hours.
Re:More Than Cows by KahabutDieDrake · 2010-06-01 07:56 · Score: 1

Don't forget to factor in the cost of replacing all that cattle. Those cows aren't there as lawnmowers, they provide food product to a large number of people.
Re:More Than Cows by pluther · 2010-06-01 08:30 · Score: 1

...you've got a toy the kids will get bored with in a couple of hours.
Are you nuts? This thing's got a built-in wire-guided, parachute-controlled explosive grenade launcher.
It would take weeks for the kids to get tired of it!

--
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
Re:More Than Cows by McKing · 2010-06-01 09:04 · Score: 1

Driving a herd of cows up a road might be OK for clearing "dumb" land mines (although I would still think twice before walking there!), a herd of cattle is not so great for ensuring a lane is clear of command-detonated mines.
You're not understanding how this works. The military has has mine-clearing systems like this for 100 years (first bangalores, then the MCLC "micklick"), but they required combat engineers to get up to the suspected minefield and deploy these while exposing themselves to enemy fire (or the possibility that the edge of the minefield is closer than expected!). This robot drives up, launches the micklick, and then charges on the line are detonated remotely, while the engineers are safely under cover. Then everyone drives through the lane and is happy, except the guys who planted those mines in the first place...

--
If only "common" sense was actually that common...
Re:More Than Cows by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 18:12 · Score: 0

I think using orphaned children and homeless people would be a safer bet ...
Very cost effective plus it would reduce the numbers in the homeless shelters and orphanages further adding to the cost benefit of our society.

Tag boomba by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 04:02 · Score: 0

Boom + roomba for the slow kids

Played like a bad hollywood movie by OzPeter · 2010-06-01 04:02 · Score: 1

I know that they were demonstrating a weapons system, but it just seemed like a really bad hollywood movie where they keep playing the same SFX explosion over and over again because they thought it was cool (plus they don't have any budget for doing something different and they need to fill some dead time)

On the other hand what is really novel about this? They attached a weapons system to a robot and manually drove the robot to the optimum location to fire the weapon. Am I missing something or is this just a slashvertisment targeted at DOD buyers?

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?

Re:Played like a bad hollywood movie by ColdWetDog · 2010-06-01 04:06 · Score: 1

On the other hand what is really novel about this?

These are the folks that make your friendly little Roomba ....

(Goes upstairs, checks Roomba again, considers removing battery)

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Played like a bad hollywood movie by mea37 · 2010-06-01 04:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Or... you know... just don't give your roomba a grenade launcher.
Re:Played like a bad hollywood movie by ColdWetDog · 2010-06-01 04:45 · Score: 1

It asked for an Internet connection and a credit card on it's birthday. Glad I didn't given in.

Uppity little robot.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Played like a bad hollywood movie by jason.sweet · 2010-06-01 05:26 · Score: 1

considers removing battery
No disassemble!
Re:Played like a bad hollywood movie by ElizabethGreene · 2010-06-01 08:33 · Score: 1

IANAMunitionsExpert, but this looks like a small ground based cluster bomb, not an RPG.

All hail the conquers! by f3rret · 2010-06-01 04:02 · Score: 2, Funny

Well I for one welcome our new robotic overlords.

Granted the inevitable human rebellion will have a surprisingly easy time fighting these things, I mean just hide up a sufficiently steep slope and the apparently top heavy ting will tumble over backwards. Alternatively you could just walk away at a reasonably brisk pace.

And speaking of military robots, am I the only one who's creeped out by Big Dog? Looks like some sort of unholy union between a deer and a spider..

--
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.

Re:All hail the conquers! by Chris+Burke · 2010-06-01 04:12 · Score: 5, Funny

And speaking of military robots, am I the only one who's creeped out by Big Dog? Looks like some sort of unholy union between a deer and a spider..
You can call it unholy if you want, but there was magic in the air that night. Who are you to judge true love?

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:All hail the conquers! by ralphdaugherty · 2010-06-01 04:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

The robot fires the device, which lands along a dirt road, exploding after a few seconds. A voice is then heard, 'Road clear; proceed forward.'"
That's fine, as long as RoboCop goes first.
Re:All hail the conquers! by 0100010001010011 · 2010-06-01 04:28 · Score: 1

Granted the inevitable human rebellion will have a surprisingly easy time fighting these things, I mean just hide up a sufficiently steep slope and the apparently top heavy ting will tumble over backwards.

If it's as smart as the Roomba (from the same company) I can see a huge increase in popularity used couches in Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe some fake stair cases or virtual walls
Re:All hail the conquers! by gyrogeerloose · 2010-06-01 05:47 · Score: 1

You can call it unholy if you want, but there was magic in the air that night. Who are you to judge true love?
"The love that dare not speak it's name." Or, more like it, "The love that cannot speak it's name."

--
This ain't rocket surgery.

Roomba accessory by kmahan · 2010-06-01 04:05 · Score: 2, Funny

This would be great for my roomba when it runs into a really big mess. Or for its obstacle route planning. Instead of turning to go around the obstacle it could just remove the obstacle.

--
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.

Re:Roomba accessory by Mindcontrolled · 2010-06-01 04:32 · Score: 1

This would probably be the only robot on the market being able to clean my room... Come to think of it, it might just be time to burn the place down and rebuild...

--
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

Manual by hey · 2010-06-01 04:14 · Score: 1

I don't see why the robot is needed. A soldier could walk to where the known unmined area ends and fire this thingie.

Re:Manual by Chris+Burke · 2010-06-01 04:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Since they already have the weapon, but not the robot, I'm figuring they've tried the human-fired approach and found something wanting. I'm not certain, but seeing as how landmines are not exclusively used to deny territory to the enemy while nobody is watching it, but rather as an obstacle that slows and stops the enemy at conveniently chosen areas, and knowing some of the problems our soldiers have had over there... I'm guessing there's a good reason for robots, which can probably be summed up in two words:
"Boom! Headshot!"

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:Manual by OhPlz · 2010-06-01 04:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't see why the robot is needed. A soldier could walk to where the known unmined area ends and fire this thingie.
Perhaps it's clearing the way for a horde of other robots carrying anti-personnel weaponry? The military of the future may not need to put lives on the front-lines. I think we're seeing a glimpse of that with the air drones that are taking out terrorists via rockets.
Re:Manual by NatasRevol · 2010-06-01 04:42 · Score: 1

I'm figuring they've tried the human-fired approach and found something wanting
Like snipers?

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:Manual by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 04:54 · Score: 0

> A soldier could walk to where the known unmined area ends and fire this thingie.

If you're so sure the area is unmined, you can go ahead and walk there. But if I were you, and my country was rich enough, I'd let the robot do it in case the unmined area isn't quite so unmined.
Re:Manual by tohoward · 2010-06-01 05:23 · Score: 1

I don't see why the robot is needed. A soldier could walk to where the known unmined area ends and fire this thingie.
It depends on the mine(s) and how they are triggered. It's quite possible for a mine "down the road" to trigger a series of mines back down the road/path when detonated.
I can't see the video (work BW block), but I assume they're moving the robot into position, at which point it fires a series of mine tripping explosives forward of it's position. If that's the case, the launch point could still be a mined location, even though the mine's fuse was further along the path. If a human was firing a similar weapon from the same place...one dead soldier, as opposed to a robot.
Re:Manual by javilon · 2010-06-01 05:27 · Score: 1, Interesting

The military of the future may not need to put lives on the front-lines.
And that is the problem. If nobody comes back home dead, and if the war are fought outside your territory (they are called liberation wars this days), then a war is just a headline on the news for the people on the country deploying the robots.
That makes engaging in "liberation" wars a much more attractive position for your average politician, especially when you are inside an economic crisis and need some foreign enemy to control your population.
Eventually wars will be a tech show where the country with the biggest toys wins and takes it all. At least the non nuclear wars.
I am really sad saying this. But if I was a third world country with a lot of resources (they are the usual target of "liberation" wars) I would see nuclear weapons as the only chance to achieve real independence as I wouldn't be able to afford high tech defenses.

--

When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
Re:Manual by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 05:31 · Score: 0

I'm figuring they've tried the human-fired approach and found something wanting
Like snipers?
That people only read the first line of a post and ignored the rest of it, specifically the part where they allude to snipers.
Oh no, wait, that was you.
Re:Manual by couchslug · 2010-06-01 05:47 · Score: 1

"A soldier could walk to where the known unmined area ends and fire this thingie."
Some folks have been known to rudely interrupt mine clearing by shooting at those clearing the mines.
Give them an iTarget instead of a trooper, that they may plink it and reveal themselves for some iPayback.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:Manual by h4rr4r · 2010-06-01 05:55 · Score: 1

We have already reached that point. Why do you think Iran wants nukes so bad? They saw what happens when you don't have them.
Re:Manual by TubeSteak · 2010-06-01 05:57 · Score: 1

The military of the future may not need to put lives on the front-lines.
There are a dozen different ways of delivering destruction in impersonal wholesale, via ships or missiles of one sort or another, catastrophes so widespread, so unselective that the war is over because that nation or planet has ceased to exist. What we do is entirely different. We make war as personal as a punch in the nose. We can be selective, applying precisely the required amount of pressure at the specified point at a designated time. We've never been told to go down and kill or capture all left-handed redheads in a particular area, but if they tell us to, we can. We will.
-Starship Troopers
Until we have the kind of robotics you see in Sci-Fi films,
you're going to need living breathing infantrymen on the ground.
And even then, we're going to have to rewrite a whole bunch of
laws and treaties that never envisioned robots instead of soldiers.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Manual by MartinSchou · 2010-06-01 08:22 · Score: 1

The military of the future may not need to put lives on the front-lines. I think we're seeing a glimpse of that with the air drones that are taking out terrorists via rockets.
Suspected terrorists.
Until they're tried and convicted, they are suspected terrorists. Granted, there is probably not solid evidence to convict them (and it's expensive to capture and detain them) even if they do blow up girl-schools, which is why it's convenient to just label them terrorists and killing them. Just look at the FBI's info on Osama Bin Laden. Not a word about the attacks on the Pentagon or the World Trade Center, so even if he were to walk into an FBI office tomorrow, I doubt they'd put him on trial for it.
But imagine the outcry, if China decided to something similar in the EU or US. It'd be bad enough if they shot people they called terrorists, but imagine if they launched missiles at cars in traffic and housing blocks to take out a "bad guy"?
Re:Manual by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 08:45 · Score: 0

How does one really know where a minefield really begins and ends? Much better to send a robot than the un-popular guy in the squad.
Re:Manual by Hydian · 2010-06-01 09:30 · Score: 1

Who leaves a minefield unattended? The point of them is either to divert the enemy to a preferred route or to stop the enemy at a known point so you can blow the crap out of them. Either way, you have somebody watching them. You don't just toss them out there and hope that they kill people. Minefields aren't very efficient in that role.
Why a robot? Because Combat Engineers are too squishy and MCLC Monsters (a pair of MCLCs mounted on an AVLB) are too huge.

Great News: Better Weaponized Robots by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 04:15 · Score: 0

on vague invented "enemies" than paying for U.S.
infrastructure (ie. health care, roads, government inspection of FRAUDULENT corporations).

Yours In Ufa,
K. Trout

What was that? by HumanEmulator · 2010-06-01 04:16 · Score: 1

If you listen carefully, just before you hear the guy say "Road Clear" I'm pretty sure you can hear the robot say "Your move creep."

Re:What was that? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 04:44 · Score: 0

I thought it said "Your mother was a snowblower".
Re:What was that? by gbjbaanb · 2010-06-01 05:53 · Score: 1

and if you pull the string on its back again it says "yeeeha, take that", "boom-shanka, mon" and "I want a pony".

Just what the military needs... by MrEricSir · 2010-06-01 04:17 · Score: 2, Funny

...a device that runs around in circles shooting randomly.

--
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."

Re:Just what the military needs... by RobertB-DC · 2010-06-01 04:32 · Score: 1

I dunno... I'm going to be nicer to my Roomba, now that I know about his cousin in the Army.
Though, seriously, I do love my Roomba, even though I've only had him a week. (I think it's a girl, actually, but my son wanted a boy.) How many consumer products come with a note saying "This device has an interface which we encourage you to hack around on until it's no longer recognizable as a vacuum cleaner"?
The only problem is that he pulls to the right, and I don't know if that's by design or if he's got a problem. After a successful first run through three rooms, he keeps running out of power trying to find his way home. I've heard the iRobot folks are very helpful, though, so I'll probably give them a call. I'll just resist the urge to ask something like, "Shall we play a game?" -- and if offered a choice, I'll go for a nice game of chess, not Global Thermonuclear War.

--
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.

after it clears the obstacles by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 04:25 · Score: 1, Funny

Also, after it breaches the obstacles, it helpfully vacuums up the resulting mess so following vehicles don't get a puncture.

ALL HAIL WARRIOR by TheCyberShadow · 2010-06-01 04:35 · Score: 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiN2F1o2qwY

Gee... by umask077 · 2010-06-01 04:52 · Score: 4, Funny

So I was happy with my Roomba and Scoomba. Now they have home defense products too. Wow. Do I have to buy the whole robot or can I just get the weapon mounts for my vacuum?

--
--- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.

Re:Gee... by zorro-z · 2010-06-01 07:24 · Score: 2, Funny

I can see it now...
"From the people who brought you Roomba and Scooba... it's BOOMBA!"

--
-Z
Re:Gee... by mrmeval · 2010-06-01 09:43 · Score: 1

I want them everywhere with my attorney and a judge with an authorization button on standby 24/7. No-Knock this assholes.

--
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
Re:Gee... by couchslug · 2010-06-01 10:24 · Score: 1

"Do I have to buy the whole robot or can I just get the weapon mounts for my vacuum?"
Don't forget the "D & C" attachment, so you can have a Woomba.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."

according to my dad.... by AnAdventurer · 2010-06-01 04:53 · Score: 1

That's not a weapon, it's a tool.

--
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86

Re:according to my dad.... by slick7 · 2010-06-01 05:26 · Score: 1

That's not a weapon, it's a tool.
It's not a tool, it's a feature.

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Re:according to my dad.... by Rambone.ftw · 2010-06-01 05:53 · Score: 1

That's not a weapon, it's a tool.
It's not a tool, it's a feature.
It's not a feature, it's a weapon.

--
Trolling is a art and for that i give me 3,00 internets.
Re:according to my dad.... by slick7 · 2010-06-01 16:09 · Score: 1

That's not a weapon, it's a tool.
It's not a tool, it's a feature.
It's not a feature, it's a weapon.
Who died? Tie dyed
I didn't know he was sick. Yeah, Dutch Elm disease
Oh, a tree fell on him. Yep, broke a limb
The doctor said the operation was a success, but the patient died.
Who died?

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Re:according to my dad.... by soppsa · 2010-06-04 15:55 · Score: 1

Tell your dad thanks for the comment, and you should probably move out of his basement.

--
Ogre Wedding Planners llc.

Humanity by lemmis_86 · 2010-06-01 04:54 · Score: 0

Wait a minute... first you spend money on mines (whoever spends the money). Then you need this machine to clear the mines... stupidity anyone? Why not just - not - plant mines in the first place, that would be the cheapest option.

Re:Humanity by slick7 · 2010-06-01 05:28 · Score: 1

Wait a minute... first you spend money on mines (whoever spends the money). Then you need this machine to clear the mines... stupidity anyone? Why not just - not - plant mines in the first place, that would be the cheapest option.
Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids; mines are for dictators.

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Re:Humanity by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 05:32 · Score: 0

Your level of stupidity is just so astounding and astronomical that I can't even come up with a humorous analogy to poke fun at it.
Re:Humanity by wed128 · 2010-06-01 05:40 · Score: 1

That would require humanity to agree with itself. Landmines are one method of eliminating opposition. Clearing landmines is one way of...not being eliminated.
You are over-simplifying.
Re:Humanity by h4rr4r · 2010-06-01 05:57 · Score: 1

How so?
The USA still deploys mines, heck we airdrop little ones.
Re:Humanity by couchslug · 2010-06-01 06:05 · Score: 3, Informative

Exhale slowly and put down the glass pipe.
The nations LAYING the mines are not the nations REMOVING the mines. One is not like the other.
Side note:
BTW, the US (whose mine use is not a problem, and since no one, anywhere, ever, gives a fuck about moral examples need not set one) doesn't buy-in to getting rid of its own mines because they are useful in slowing and channelizing an attack on the Korean peninsula.
When most people were hallucinating Friendly Norks this was frowned on. Every now and then the Norks remind us they aren't friendly, and that if they DO wig out and crash across the DMZ we might ought to slow the process so we can kill enough of them to save South Korea.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:Humanity by lemmis_86 · 2010-06-01 06:54 · Score: 1

I was merely trying to point out the stupidity of war, and that war costs money for both parties. Of course I know the guys laying the mines are different from the ones removing them.
Re:Humanity by mea37 · 2010-06-01 07:48 · Score: 1

So wait... you're saying that when two groups work toward opposing goals, they each spend money on nothing more than negating the effect of the money the other spent?
What a shocking revelation! You should be an economist or something!
Re:Humanity by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 08:28 · Score: 1, Funny

I was merely trying to point out the stupidity of war
You failed.
Re:Humanity by dave562 · 2010-06-01 08:40 · Score: 1

we might ought to slow the process so we can kill enough of them to save South Korea.
All of the landmines in the world don't address the problem with the North Koreans having enough artillery in place to completely level Seoul within an hour or two.
Re:Humanity by couchslug · 2010-06-01 10:39 · Score: 1

"All of the landmines in the world don't address the problem with the North Koreans having enough artillery in place to completely level Seoul within an hour or two."
One problem isn't the other, though there is ample debate on their ability to "level" Seoul.
They CAN certainly chem the shit out of it and we have NO disabling retaliatory capability.
We renounced chem warfare long ago, but Obama has renounced first nuclear use too. It appears he hadn't thought that through, not having much military knowledge and no experience. What that means is our esteemed opponents can smeg South Korea with chems and BW if they are so inclined, while all we can do is "nothing much". Merely having to WEAR chem gear will kill people from heat stress (even trained and fit troops), while SK civilians have no protection from chem and BW agents.
There WAS a ready deterrent to chem'ing the South back when we were serious. Tactical nukes on Zulu Alert aircraft were ready for immediate launch 24/7. Atmospheric tests have proven tactical nuclear war quite (yes, really) practical, and BTW the Korean War ended just as suitable tac nuke artillery and missiles became common knowledge. When we calculate the risks now, remember the North knows we won't nuke them unless they nuke us first.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:Humanity by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 12:06 · Score: 0

Your level of stupidity is just so astounding and astronomical that I can't even come up with a humorous analogy to poke fun at it.
The first thought that came to mind when I read his post was: "Now, *there* is someone whose gene pool needs a good dose of chlorine."
Re:Humanity by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 15:16 · Score: 0

The mines and ground forces would just have to hold for long enough so we can get the air defenses down. If we manage that, B-52s can come in, and its endgame pretty fast. (Even w/o nukes, air dominance and carpet bombing work wonders in a traditional battleground.) It's not like the '50s where the fighters were a decent match and pussyfooting around what ground targets could be hit because of Russian involvement. There would still be heavy losses for other reasons though.
The north has the numbers of active troops, but frankly the south is better trained (hi-stepping in parades doesn't count in terms of combat exercise) and better equipped. If troops was the only problem South Koreans could hold their own, even in an uphill battle of attrition. The real worry for SK is the artillery (perhaps with chemical or biological weapons) and one or two possible nukes that wouldn't need to go far. Regardless, considering the forward deployed submarines, ready carrier groups, and artillery on our end (with more reach and accuracy), any re-emergence of hot war against South Korea is still a MAD scenario for North Korea. The reason we prefer not to take it hot is because SK's largest cities are in artillery range of NK, and we're also sorta doing it out of politeness to China. Since both sides seem to know what's best for them, odds are it's going to stay a prolonged draw/ceasefire scenario.
Mines in the DMZ aren't the only factor, they just discourage individuals from trying to start something on their own.
Re:Humanity by slick7 · 2010-06-01 16:02 · Score: 1

Exactly.
Under the guise of a democratic republic the voters believe they have an actual say in the affairs of this magnificent country, however, in actual practice we as a governed body are subject to the whims of our elected officials.
If the politicians were mandated to send their first born children to the front lines of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as a condition of voting for war, I believe the vote would have been different.
The privileged appear to benefit financially from the war while those that see the military as a means to decent money, an education, traveling the world, learning an occupation, pay the highest price with the least benefit. I am not anti-military. I volunteered for six years during the Viet Nam campaign, but I did not believe in the the reason for fighting since it seemed to be nothing but a body count on the evening news.
My personal belief is that the draft should not have ended and that everyone regardless of social status serve at least four years in any branch of the military they choose.
The military does have some good public relations in this world. Not many but some. Not everyone has to go out and kill everything they see. Sometimes the military performs humanitarian services. In the 70's the ship I served aboard steamed 1500 nautical miles in 50 hours straight the provide aid to a typhoon devastated island in the western Indian Ocean. The people were grateful. They did not hate us for being there interfering in their personal affairs. That can't be said of other areas of U.S. occupation. This country seems to be fighting on the wrong side against the wrong people for the wrong reason. The people fighting and dieing for this country are not tot blame. The leadership that never shouldered a weapon, never saw their friends die, never had to be reminded day in and day out of the atrocities perpetrated in the name of freedom bear a greater karma than those that did.

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Re:Humanity by The+Dancing+Panda · 2010-06-02 07:32 · Score: 1

Actually the president put an exception in that no-nuclear proliferation that said we can bomb if they chem, or do anything else that is just as ridiculous. And of course signing a piece of paper leaves no ability to change your mind ever. But continue on your tirade, please.

We're Obstacles by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 04:57 · Score: 0

Anti-Personnel Obstacle Breaching System

Nice to know that people are just considered to be obstacles in this system's scope :P

Re:We're Obstacles by gyrogeerloose · 2010-06-01 05:53 · Score: 1

Nice to know that people are just considered to be obstacles in this system's scope :P
I think you're parsing that wrong. Think of it this way: it's a system for breaching anti-personnel obstacles such as mines, IEDs, razor wire etc.

--
This ain't rocket surgery.

Ironic by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 05:01 · Score: 0

That a company named iRobot would build a robot specifically designed to break the first law of robotics.

Re:Ironic by wonkavader · 2010-06-01 05:26 · Score: 1

It's not a robot. It's an RC car with a rocket launcher. The human controls it, so there is no violation of any law of robotics.

Not just for mine clearing by RoccamOccam · 2010-06-01 05:05 · Score: 1

It is my understanding that the APOBS device is also effective at creating a path through a maze of concertina wire.

Once all done by IronTomRackham · 2010-06-01 05:09 · Score: 1

As a next step, a roomba comes in to sweep up the body parts of the insurgents/operators.

Re:Once all done by slick7 · 2010-06-01 05:30 · Score: 1

As a next step, a roomba comes in to sweep up the body parts of the insurgents/operators.
...and use them for fuel.

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.

Fuh... by lymond01 · 2010-06-01 05:13 · Score: 1

Explosions are scary.

I'm just happy my name isn't Sarah Connor.

Re:Fuh... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 09:37 · Score: 0

Yeah, but your mom's real name is... :-)

Remote Controlled Car by wonkavader · 2010-06-01 05:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is a remote controlled car with a ridiculous rocket launcher on it. It costs $100k.

iRobot is making a mint sucking money out of the military and out of US taxpayers like me.

You could do this with a $60 RC car from radio shack and a lot of duct tape -- just rig the firing button to the horn. Buy one with big wheels.

For all the things we could be using actual robots for, this is pathetic, and a lot like a million-dollar fireworks show, circa Vietnam.

Re:Remote Controlled Car by drinkypoo · 2010-06-01 05:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is a remote controlled car with a ridiculous rocket launcher on it. It costs $100k.
Actually, it's a robot with a micro clusterbomb. But it's better than a cluster bomb because it's totally controllable, and it's a lot smaller and cheaper.

You could do this with a $60 RC car from radio shack and a lot of duct tape -- just rig the firing button to the horn. Buy one with big wheels.
You need more axes to control the weapon. You'd need at least a $500 RC car to have anything like reliability, and just one bullet hit would destroy it.

For all the things we could be using actual robots for, this is pathetic, and a lot like a million-dollar fireworks show, circa Vietnam.
It's a cool weapon, but not very exciting in terms of robot news. And by cool weapon I mean a great new way to kill people. Oh sure, it's for clearing roads, but it's for clearing roads so you can get to the next place where you're supposed to kill someone.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Remote Controlled Car by PPH · 2010-06-01 06:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

You could do this with a $60 RC car from radio shack and a lot of duct tape -- just rig the firing button to the horn. Buy one with big wheels.
The insurgents could just run to Radio Shack, pick up their own remote and push the horn button at an inappropriate time.
I suspect that the iRobot Warrior is a standard platform to which they can bolt any number of interesting gizmos. In time and with greater production volumes, the price will come down. Perhaps the generals will have one model built that can caddy their golf clubs for them.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:Remote Controlled Car by Pranadevil2k · 2010-06-01 09:07 · Score: 1

Suppose you're in the army and you come across a minefield. Do you want to be the guy who carries that line grenade launcher to the front of the minefield, potentially step on a mine that's not where you expected, to stand out in the open for all to see and shoot at for however long it takes to prepare the weapon and fire it? The bad guys on the other side of the mines at looking right at you through their crosshairs. OR would you rather have a durable, bulletproof robot capable of doing that job as well as having multiple weapon mounts to be capable of other things?
Re:Remote Controlled Car by wonkavader · 2010-06-01 09:56 · Score: 1

Personally, I'd rather have a bunch of cheap RC cars with add ons than one (or less than one) $100,000 one.
As for bulletproof RC cars, I'd rather have a fast little RC car that comes as a surprise than a slow clunky tracked thing which A. advertises more clearly where it came from (and thus where I am), B. gives the guys I'm trying to liquefy more time to get away, and C. might be bullet-proof up to a point, but there are always bigger weapons around.
As for not doing it remotely, that's not my issue -- remotely is good. It's the remote controlled sucking of money out of the military and our tax base I have a problem with. This is an RC car with armor and some signal encryption. And yet it costs a friggin' fortune, and this price is somehow justified because it's a "robot". Call a spade a spade and set its price accordingly.
Re:Remote Controlled Car by geekoid · 2010-06-02 04:54 · Score: 1

Thats' a resonable cost.
you are going to need high grade servos. None of that crap you buy off the shelf.
You need to encase it in something that can hold up to being shot at,
You need to ahve it be stable enough to fire a rocket.
You need the platform to launch a rocket, you need automated guidance,
You need a way to communicate,
you need a way to do all that securely.
You are pretty pathetic at estimating any costs. But yeah, you go with your 60 dollar servo and duct tape and a horn.
And it's not the only thing we use robots for, and I wish people would stop comparing are current situation to vietnam. IT's not the same, and people using the analogy cause people to think in the same terms as vietnam.
I think we should call it what the first president Bush said it would be: a quagmire*
*Giggity!

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Bad idea by wonkavader · 2010-06-01 05:29 · Score: 1

Are you kidding? It'd have to do a random walk of the entire country, unless you put little blocker thingies around the area, and even then it would take forever unless your battlefield was 15x15 feet.

Much better to buy a Neato Robotics body parts cleaning robot, which actually only goes over the battlefield ONCE.

Re:Bad idea by IronTomRackham · 2010-06-01 05:42 · Score: 1

Are you kidding? It'd have to do a random walk of the entire country, unless you put little blocker thingies around the area
They could market it as a "mine finding feature"

Damn Fucking Grey Hairs by carp3_noct3m · 2010-06-01 05:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yay, lets invent something that we already have (mine line clearing device, aka MICLIC) and put it ona robot, so much better! How about the fucking old grey haired bastards that are too pussy to fix our current wars snap out of their cold war mindset and start investing in things more applicable to our current situation. Oh yeah, I'm a USMC Iraq vet.

--
"It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"

Re:Damn Fucking Grey Hairs by h4rr4r · 2010-06-01 05:39 · Score: 1

How about we just not engage in pointless wars?
Seems a lot cheaper.
Re:Damn Fucking Grey Hairs by DaveV1.0 · 2010-06-01 06:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

Oh really?

The MICLIC system consists of an M353 3-1/2 ton or M200A1 2-1/2 ton trailer (or M200 tracked trailer) chassis, a launcher assembly, an M147 firing kit, an M58A3 line charge and a 5-inch MK22 Mod 4 rocket. The line charge is 350 feet long and contains 5 pounds per linear foot of composition C-4 explosive.
I am sure you will want to set up that system to clear a road block, IED, etc. and risk taking fire.
I would prefer to stay out of the line of fire and use a much smaller unit mounted on a robot that can be deployed from cover.
The MICLIC is designed to be used by Engineer companies to clear paths through large mine fields. This unit is designed to be loaded aboard a HMMWV and taken out on patrol by squads.
You say you are an USMC Iraq vet, but exactly did you do that you can not see the differences between these two pieces of equipment and the value of this piece of equipment to front line troops on patrol in Iraq and Afghanistan?

--
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Re:Damn Fucking Grey Hairs by Stupid+McStupidson · 2010-06-01 06:09 · Score: 1

It's certainly appears to be smaller than a MICLIC, but it doesn't seem to have as much linear coverage, or explosive power. This might be a good thing in the typical current urban combat environment though. Deploying a MICLIC under fire is great, as long as it's being used from an armored vehicle, but tracked vehicles are pretty limited in use in Afghanistan. Deploying the trailer version of the MICLIC under fire would be near suicide, so the robot would probably have the advantage there. If the bad guys have RPG's though, I'm pretty sure the robot is toast. In any case, it seems that the robot would be a pretty expensive piece of equipment with a fairly limited scope of use.
Re:Damn Fucking Grey Hairs by carp3_noct3m · 2010-06-01 14:00 · Score: 1

Indeed I understand the differences, and I'm quite sure it is some good technology and although lacking in range etc, it might be slightly useful. This and the MICLIC are used mostly for traditional minefield clearing operations, and in Iraq have been used almost never, but in Afghan are used a bit more for the routes that are considered so volatile they are "minefeilds". What I was pointing out is that we wouldn't need any of this tech if we GTFO of there and stopped trying to fight unwinnable wars. Tactically, our military can take just about anything thrown its way, it is strategically that we have failed, and this rests not on my fellow grunts shoulders, but on politicians, government officials, and high level military leaders, and those around them that disagree with matters but hold their tongue in silent acquiescence.

--
"It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"

Next-generation Bangalore Torpedo by Jim+Hall · 2010-06-01 05:31 · Score: 2, Informative

In WW2, soldiers used a device called a Bangalore Torpedo or Bangalore Mine to clear obstacles - barbed wire, barriers, etc - without coming under fire. Basically, it was a long tube filled with TNT. Screw it together, push it along (from behind cover) and detonate to clear the area and make a safe path. We used them during the Normandy invasion, for example.

This robot version is, really, just the next-generation version of the Bangalore. You deploy the robot (which might be under fire, but the operator is safely out of the way) to the barrier, launch an obstacle clearing system, and detonate to clear the area and make a safe path.

Re:Next-generation Bangalore Torpedo by KahabutDieDrake · 2010-06-01 06:57 · Score: 1

Interestingly enough, in the modern military a simple fly by and strafe run from any number of aircraft would accomplish the same goal, using already existing systems. Bonus, once the bird is in the area, she can provide close air support.
Re:Next-generation Bangalore Torpedo by geekoid · 2010-06-02 04:44 · Score: 1

Maybe we should just make a robot the jumps over the barrier, finds it's makes, and drags them back across the barrier.
When someone has a barrier, make the barrier obsolete.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Next-generation Bangalore Torpedo by geekoid · 2010-06-02 04:47 · Score: 1

Becasue she has infinite ammo?
Your solution is more costly, more risky, and removes ordinance that could be used for targets better strtegic locations.
Right now? yes, use aircraft, or some of are new wickedly accurate artillery. The solution here is cheaper and more accurate then both of those.
Of course it's not cheaper or more effective then good foreign relations and diplomacy.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

the only thing missing by slick7 · 2010-06-01 05:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

the only thing missing is SKYNET, but I'm sure that it's lurking around some corner or in some dark alley.

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.

Call it the Boomba by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 05:33 · Score: 0

This will work well as long as it doesn't go over any dark soil (or carpet) Then it will let out a pityful tone and ask for it's cliff sensors to be cleaned.

Too expensive. by bussdriver · 2010-06-01 05:44 · Score: 1

cheap plastic barrels + some water (to get enough weight) and roll them forward - if its down hill, even easier!
the "robot" can be some form of remote control car that rolls a few at a time... that is if you want to be fancy about it.

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news

My cat was right by PPH · 2010-06-01 05:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

It never did trust the Roomba.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Asimov by feeble11 · 2010-06-01 05:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm all for blowing sh*t up but there is some sad irony that a company named iRobot is developing a weaponized robot while the man who wrote "I, Robot" also wrote the three laws of robotics forbidding fictional robots from harming humans.

Re:Asimov by DaveV1.0 · 2010-06-01 06:07 · Score: 3, Informative

This robot is not designed to harm humans. It is designed to clear obstacles and explosives from the path of humans. Also, this is not an autonomous robot, but rather a misnamed remotely controlled vehicle that is 100% under the control of human. The three laws would never be applied to this device.

--
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Re:Asimov by blair1q · 2010-06-01 07:12 · Score: 1

Well, Asimov was a writer of (among many things) speculative fiction, not a megalomaniacal warmonger.
The latter would not hesitate to deploy robots with no concept of humans other than as targets or debris.
Re:Asimov by blair1q · 2010-06-01 07:14 · Score: 1

The three laws would never be applied to this device.
Tautology.
Just to make things clear: the three laws will never be applied to any device intended to be used to win a war.
Re:Asimov by CAIMLAS · 2010-06-01 13:02 · Score: 1

Asimov " wrote the three laws of robotics forbidding fictional robots from harming humans" did he?
He also wrote books in which there was a unified theory of everything, allowing anything and everything to be mathematically proven. And don't forget the as-humans-as-humans robots.
But that's OK. It's entertaining science fiction - key word, fiction. (I am glad you made note of that yourself.)
In the real world, we have earthquakes which prevent city-domes; entropy preventing the prediction of everything; and human nature interfering with utopian ideals.
But if we can get rid of all the earthquakes, entropy, and humans, I'm sure it'd be possible.

--
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Re:Asimov by The_mad_linguist · 2010-06-01 18:05 · Score: 1

the three laws will never be applied to any device intended to be used to win a war... against humans!
Re:Asimov by geekoid · 2010-06-02 04:42 · Score: 1

The three laws didn't work, remember?
There are a lot of things used to win a war, most of them aren't directly harmful. Food prep, transport, logistics, making boots, and so on.
In fact, the three laws apply very nicely to this device, if it was actually a robot. It doesn't harm people, is used to prevent harm to people, needs to protect it's own existence(be retrievable)*
*the last one is speculation,. I am assuming the military will want to retrieve it. Hell, you could make one that comes home on it's own.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Mod parent UP!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 06:12 · Score: 0

Mod parent UP!!!

Good idea by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 06:15 · Score: 0

Now that actually DOES make sense.

Oh, wait, no. The Neato robotics solution of going over the entire minefield ONCE would get the field cleared faster, and you'd know for certain that the whole field was cleared. I don't think the Roomba's random walk functions actually guarantee the entire minefield got driven over...

Re:Good idea by IronTomRackham · 2010-06-04 06:53 · Score: 1

You don't truly get what this marketing stuff is all about, do you? ;)

your doin it wrong. by nimbius · 2010-06-01 06:34 · Score: 1

The idea to stress behind war-oriented robots is to stay away from "battlebots."

built supercomputers and technologies to address the underlying causes of war, and attack those causes. poverty, famine, fear, education, etc...

what we've done is created a 2 million dollar device that pulls the trigger...not very amazing at all.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.

What they're REALLY calling it. by nortonmansfield · 2010-06-01 06:39 · Score: 1

The Boomba.

I want this... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 06:45 · Score: 0

I want this for my morning commute!

Does it have an MCP? by mgierhart · 2010-06-01 06:58 · Score: 1

...and they have a plan.

How much explosive power in a mine? by CODiNE · 2010-06-01 07:29 · Score: 1

Would one of those big ole tire unibikes with a remote control survive a few booms? I saw pics of them from Burning Man, maybe heavy enough to set off the charges but bouncy enough to stay alive?

--
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz

Re:How much explosive power in a mine? by jklovanc · 2010-06-01 13:03 · Score: 1

Tires only detonate mines they run over. Even if you are willing to run the tires back and forth a number of time there is no way to be sure that every square inch has been covered.
Explosives detonate mines in the area that they cause overpressure. They also break wire which would stop a small vehicle.

what could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 08:19 · Score: 0

killall humans. killall humans. killall humans.

(no longer a joke)

Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 08:27 · Score: 0

The Cylons were created by man... they rebelled... they evolved...

One small problem. . . by shadowfaxcrx · 2010-06-01 08:29 · Score: 2, Funny

This brilliant plan will be foiled when the enemy buys a $99 add-on virtual wall and erects it in front of the minefield.

--
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."

Dear iRobot Engineers by LifesABeach · 2010-06-01 11:05 · Score: 1

Could you take the '710, remove the guns, put a vacuum cleaner on it so that it can clean stairs? Not to many land mines in my house, but dust bunnies roam at will.

On the other hand... by denzacar · 2010-06-01 11:11 · Score: 1

When you send the unpopular guy to check for mines it's a win-win situation.

Not as much when you blow up the +$100k robot.

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens

Great for Crowd Control by Macrat · 2010-06-01 11:30 · Score: 1

Just think of the effect this will have on the "professional" protesters in Berserkey, CA.

Asimov's points forgotten? by Phoe6 · 2010-06-01 16:07 · Score: 1

Having a name as iRobot and creating a destructive robot is clearly threading on a path away from the three laws of robotics that we know about.

--
Senthil

Re:Asimov's points forgotten? by geekoid · 2010-06-02 04:37 · Score: 1

haha, did you not read the books? the laws, as it turned out, were pretty useless.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

My reaction by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-01 17:24 · Score: 0

Screw the political mumbo-jumbo and foretellings of doom. Let's talk about our feelings!

My first thought after seeing that thing fire was, "Why does it have such a long line for the parachute? And did they fire a blank shell for the test run so they could release it to the public without showing the explosive capabilities of... HOLY SHIT!"

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

STALKER by loki+verloren · 2010-06-01 18:32 · Score: 1

the description of the robot clearing mines made me instantly think of Stalker, as in the game, and the movie based on the old russian novel roadside picnic. replace explosive mine detonator device with bolts tied with cloth strips and the stalker saying 'clear to walk ahead' heheh

Now introducing the Boomba! by JustABlitheringIdiot · 2010-06-02 04:26 · Score: 1

Announcer:Specifically designed to root out the most stubborn dirt bags from even the most remote cave depths.
Customer: Can I set it and forget it?
Announcer: Absolutely and when you come to pick up the bits cleanup is as easy as 1, 2, 3. Just wipe with a damp rag.
Customer: Amazing! I have to have one.
Announcer: Well it's only available on this special TV offer for 3 easy payments of $33,333.33. Call today while supplies last 1-800-555-5555!

The commercial aspects for this by geekoid · 2010-06-02 04:36 · Score: 1

would include a robot that vacuums by day, and keep raccoons away at night.

Sign me up.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Asimovs 3 rules by llprice · 2010-06-04 15:15 · Score: 1

Isaac Asimov is rolling in his grave. We will ignore those 3 rules at our peril: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics

Slashdot Mirror

iRobot Demonstrates New Weaponized Robot

188 comments