Afghanistan Called First "Robotic War"

retroworks writes "Fareed Zakaria (Editor of Time, CNN GPS) writes that one in 50 USA combatants in Afghanistan is now a robot. There are more fighting robots than elevators in the country. Article has links to film of robots in action, allusions to Terminator films."

Comments

Marine Offensive, Move Out!

[xMrFishx]

I know the marines aren't known for their intelligence, but calling them drones or robots, I think that's a little harsh...

Really?

[Daetrin]

"There are more fighting robots than elevators in the country."

That's the metric we're using? So all i need to do to have my own robot war is build a single robot, and find a country with no elevators for it to attack?

Re:is there anybody here...

[Anonymous Coward]

...who does not think that the USA is an evil empire, and take consolation only in knowing that it is also a dying empire?

Get the hell out of the Middle East, USA. Stop killing people. Sort out your shit at home for your own sake.

That's an interesting comment considering the Taliban in Afghanistan dictates half the population should be treated as property (women) and tramples on the rights of the Afghanis to the greatest degree of any society on the planet.

I would say to you - who doesn't think the Taliban is an evil empire and take consolation only in knowing it is also a dying political movement? Get the hell out of the lives of your citizens, stop sending terrorists across the globe to kill innocents, stop killing your own citizens for minor infractions of your "laws". Go read your Koran in peace.

tools, not robots

[circletimessquare]

tools have always been used in war. when we have autonomous decision making mechanisms engaging enemies, then we can talk about robotic warfare. otherwise, the bar is being set too low for what constitutes robotic warfare

Re:tools, not robots

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Where exactly one wants to draw the line between "tool" and "robot" is arguably somewhat arbitrary; but there are definite matters of degree and substantial complexities.

For instance, a simple mine is actually 'autonomous'. It has very limited capabilities; but it exercises those entirely without human intervention, based on sensor data. In both land and naval use, the Chinese were putzing around with recognizable antecedents of those not long after they acquired gunpowder, and various European tinkerers not too long after. Does the use of mines count as "robotic warfare"? Some of the more sophisticated modern examples are just as autonomous and have greater capabilities: a CAPTOR mine has enough onboard computing power to distinguish between ships and submarines by sound, and launch its (homing) torpedo at the latter. All fully autonomous, and circa 1979...

On the other hand, a lot of modern combat "robots" are basically very high performance RC vehicles, albeit often with some sophisticated software handling translation of abstract operator commands into robot actions(with Predators, say, you don't 'fly' them the way you fly an RC aircraft for most of their flight time, they handle a lot of the low-level detail to allow operators to focus on waypoints and target acquisition. With the more sophisticated robotic bomb-defusers and their ilk, their fairly complex manipulators handle all the fiddly little servos internally, in order to achieve manipulator commands provided by the operator).

That's the definitionally tricky bit: there are extremely simple devices that are fully autonomous within the limited scope of their capabilities. There are also extremely sophisticated devices, with almost eerily organic levels of feedback-driven 'housekeeping' going on in order to allow the operator to give the device fairly high level commands; but which are specifically designed to do nothing of importance without the OK from a human.

Then you have the ones that can be used either way: Phalanx CIWS can do fully automatic target engagement(because puny meat-objects simply don't have the reflexes for the job) or can be kept under human supervision(because nothing says "expensive accident" like a trigger-happy Gatling-gun robot operating in the vicinity of friendly aircraft...)

As best I can tell, it seems like autonomy is less of a pure design challenge, and more a question of the practical and PR constraints that you have to abide by in terms of target discrimination... Humans are OK at that, which certainly places them above all but reasonably sophisticated automated systems; but they are hardly perfect. How much of the unwillingness to cut the robots loose is due to their inferiority to humans at this task, and how much is due to human distaste for the idea of automated hunter-killer robots is not entirely clear.(Nor is it entirely clear that they aren't being used: The CIA, for instance, loves drone strikes, and doesn't exactly issue press releases about the operator/drone ratio they are using...)

And how many elevators are there?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Afghanistan seems like kind of a low bar for the "elevators to combat robots" metric, since it has been a mixture of tribal infighting and superpower proxy wars at least since the British showed up(and had a lousy time... and then the Russians showed up, and had a lousy time... and the Americans showed up...); but it is, nevertheless, something of a dramatic shift.

What I'm not looking forward to is what will happen when(if ever) the demand for military combat robots slackens a bit and the producers thereof start seriously targeting the home market. Through a combination of military contractors trying to avoid being vulnerable to having only a single customer and direct transfers of military hardware from the DoD(you may throw an SSL warning if your browser doesn't trust DoD certs) military hardware generally has a way of coming home. Even random sheriffs are burnishing their toys collection(it's a wayback machine link because, for reasons that are completely inexplicable, the broader response to the 'The Peacemaker' was perhaps less favorable than anticipated...) I know, from observing one of their training exercises, that the supply of m16s maintained by the police force in the unbelievably boring and low crime bedroom community where I work is much higher than I would have expected.

This suggests that it is only a matter of time before we can expect to see surplussed predators and such 'protecting and serving' here at home.

Re:is there anybody here...

[Hazel Bergeron]

the progenitors of the biggest genocides in human history(who have yet to apologize for any of them btw),

I'm sorry for every time I have contributed to this country which still does some awful things to its own people and to foreigners. I very much try to be productive while minimising the support I give to my government and businesses which act on its behalf. I'm too young to have been involved in some of the popular[tm] genocides you're probably thinking of ("biggest" is an ill-defined and unhelpful term), so I am not sure it has any meaning for me to apologise for them.

Just to clear things up: it's wrong when the British/French/Spanish/Dutch/etc. empire did it, and it's wrong now the American Empire's doing it.

The difference is that Europe has learnt some (not enough - and always dangerously close to forgetting it) humility while the US is still playing catchup. This is as you'd expect: Europe's had quite a few centuries' head start and two recent world wars to shake us up.

Re:is there anybody here...

[jon3k]

That's some of the most disconnected babbling I've ever seen. We arrest people here for spousal abuse. In the middle east crowds of people will stone a woman to death for adultery. If you cannot see the distinction you are completel disconnected from reality.

And to speak to your other completely unrelated point, everyone in the US has the CHANCE to succeed, nothing is guaranteed, and the privileged and wealthy sure have a better shot at it than the poor.

Re:is there anybody here...

[arkenian]

The US is in Afghanistan for the plunder.. be it oil, pipes, women, whatever. It's no different than one gang of chimpanzees attacking another. The flowery language and 'morality' is pure BS

If there was anything to plunder in Afghanistan, this might actually be a valid argument.... but there's not, and pretty much never has been, which is why most invaders eventually give up.

Re:is there anybody here...

[ToadProphet]

If there was anything to plunder in Afghanistan, this might actually be a valid argument

There's a trillion in resources, apparently 'found' after the invasion.

But more importantly, Afghanistan is the key strategic jewel in the New Great Game shaped around oil politics.

Re:[citation needed]

[ElectricTurtle]

Oh FFS. I just accidentally deleted a very detailed essay in response, but I still want it said so here is the abridged version:

The US did not change Japan insofar as introducing much that was extrinsic, they simply promoted the aspect of Japanese culture they preferred. Japan had been at war with itself culturally for centuries, and could be metaphorically represented by Toyotomi Hideyoshi and Sen no Rikyu. The former was a ruthless bloodthirsty tyrant willing to use bushido as the means to put the world under his feet. The latter was a serene, pacifistic and wise aesthete who wanted nothing more than enjoy the subtleties of life. On the eve of the Imjin War (almost three centuries before WW2) Toyotomi Hideyoshi ordered Sen no Rikyu to commit suicide for (what several historians believe was) his insolence in failing to support the imminent conflict. For the next several centuries, the warrior-oriented mode of Japanese culture and identity would be dominant through the end of the Second World War. (The internal cultural conflict even went so far as the outright persecution of Japanese Buddhists/pacifists.)

Then, due to both the rapid demographic shift caused by so many bushido-bound warriors dieing in the war as well as the pressures exerted by the American occupation, the cultural pendulum swung the opposite direction. The Americans were smart enough not to try to change the Japanese into something non-Japanese, that would never have worked, instead they picked the most useful (to their purpose) aspect of Japanese culture and essentially channeled the Japanese into themselves. A very, very wise and effective strategy. The demographics are striking, the Soka Gakkai sect of Buddhism (which was the only sect in Japan to staunchly oppose militarism) saw an increase in membership of 2500% in less than a decade. A massive and rapid cultural shift indeed, but not inside out, rather one side to another internally.

Re:[citation needed]

[Posting=!Working]

This entire post is a wonderful fantasy that is completely proven false by nearly all of the actual events of World War 2. The Rape of Nanking by itself destroys any notion that their culture had "accountability to yourself for your actions." If you weren't Japanese, you weren't

Look at the rest of the world. Power-mad leaders, self-righteous pompous bastards in the streets. We want to loudly proclaim our strong sense of right and wrong, we want to trample over everyone around us and force them to bend to our system of beliefs, and we'll use any method necessary. Our leaders will manipulate the political sphere and let innocents suffer to further our goals; they'll hire terrorists while proclaiming their vehement stance against terrorism. Accountability is only to the public eye: they only care about saving their own political face, and have no guilt over their actions.

This paragraph accurately portrays the Japanese at the start of WWII.

Read some actual history. What you described isn't even close to an accurate portrayal of mid 20th century Japan.

Re:[citation needed]

[ElectricTurtle]

Holy hell are you ignorant of history. The US ran an occupational government in Japan for seven years. And basically helped them draft their constitution at gunpoint. Democracy in Japan was most assuredly not a natural occurrence.

Re:[citation needed]

[ElectricTurtle]

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you are dangerously equating "strong states" with "socio-political structures [...] similar to those we have in the west". Please tell me this isn't based on something as simplistic as empire = empire? I would very much like to know these 'Western' structures. Perhaps you think that the House of Peers was 'Western' because they wore suits and top hats and followed parliamentary procedure? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

The occupational government in Japan was focused on governance - not on creating a state and the necessary infrastructure and fighting an insurgency.

This is the exact opposite of historical facts. The new Japanese constitution was drafted primarily by US Army lawyers Milo Rowell and Courtney Whitney. The Japanese constitution as passed during the occupation has never been amended.

Further while there might not have been an insurgency analogous to that in Afghanistan or Iraq, if you think the transition was some simple void to be filled, I have to go so far as to say you must be stupid as well as ignorant. Many, many forces were at work against the interests of the US occupation, including but not limited to the zaibatsu, the military and police infrastructure (see The Police In Occupation Japan: Control, Corruption and Resistance to Reform by Christopher Aldous), the yakuza, the Soviets and Japanese communists, etc. Just because the insurgency wasn't blowing shit up did not mean there wasn't one.

Re:tools, not people

[Tetsujin]

humans are not implements, moron

I don't know, there are some real tools out there...