Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

War By Remote Control, With Military Robots Set To Self Destruct

Posted by timothy on from the if-you-hear-buzzing-it's-too-late dept.

New submitter RougeFive writes "A new wave of Kamikaze unmanned military aircraft, ground robots and water vessels are being built to deliberately destroy themselves as they hit their targets. Since it now makes more economic sense to have them crash into enemy targets rather than engage them, and since direct impact needs only manned or automated navigation rather than the highly-trained skills of multiple operators, these UAVs could well become the de-facto method of engagement of the future."

12 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. I think I've heard of this kind of warfare before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I believe they're called 'missiles'

  2. bombs with non-traditional locomotion... by ethanms · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sounds like they're simply missiles/bombs with non-traditional methods of locomotion.

    In the scheme of things it's an easy sell, because they'll say "hey, we either send in the smart bomb and use lower yields and more accurate target detection, or we level the place".

    Like any weapon the trick will be using them to only injure those that you specifically want to injure. Getting lazy, sloppy or inhuman with these things will be the same as with any other type of weapon.

    My biggest fear with these UAV's is that we take the human factor out. I'm not talking about a human's ability to not kill innocent people--we know that is subjective--I'm talking about the military's decisions to carry out certain types of strikes when we literally have no "skin" in the game. It's already an issue with super accurate missiles and current generation of UAV's, these roomba-bombs may only make it worse.

    1. Re:bombs with non-traditional locomotion... by ethanms · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...and of course we don't want to ever forget the lessons learned from the Terminator franchise or to a lesser degree RoboCop... which is that total automation of these devices can just as easy be turned back on you or your populations.

    2. Re:bombs with non-traditional locomotion... by ethanms · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A lesson can take many forms. An example of a "lesson" not based on history, but on fiction, could be Aesop's Fables, they're widely considered to be "lessons" for children, if disagree with the term lesson being applied that's fine, but frankly most people know what I meant, and since that's the point of written and spoken language, I'm cool with it.

      Anyway, it's a matter of semantics--my point, which of course is half-joking, is that a movie, which was fictional, which came out in 1984 which contained depictions of remote controlled, and self-directed, armed robots which were created to replace human military personnel in dangerous situations. I know it's fiction, but at a high level it's awfully parallel to what we are apparently working toward today. So the lesson/speculation/advice/whatever that I believe should be taken away from this work of fiction is that it would be a good idea to avoid turning all control over the killer robots to a single mind (whether it's a single human, small group of humans ("hive mind"), or artificial intelligence).

  3. What's old is new? by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I do believe that you're right. 'Guided Missiles' specifically.

    I guess the difference here is that the UAV can do more than just head to a target for destruction, and CAN be recovered intact for reuse if the operator doesn't chose to detonate it. A cruise missile was launched at a specific target. This you could launch for recon then use destructively if a target of opportunity pops up.

    A Missile+, perhaps.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:What's old is new? by schlachter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Planned obsolescence. The optimal design for an defense company is one that must constantly be replaced.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  4. Re:You mean... by radtea · · Score: 3, Interesting

    but over WIFI and more expensive?

    Like autonomous and more expensive, although there's no need for them to be. Smart rocks will soon be almost as cheap as dumb rocks, if enough stupid people with technical educations are let loose.

    For the people who feel like killing people is a good way to spend their time and use their education: please use plain language to describe what you do. "Method of engagement" is a coward's way of saying "means of killing people and destroying things."

    Take the extra time to use the extra words that actually describe what you're using your incredibly sophisticated abilities for, and don't hide behind euphemisms like some prim Victorian virgin who doesn't have the guts to say she wants a good hard fucking.

    --
    Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  5. Pros and Cons by DeathToBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They rely on a very developed infrastructure. This is true of all drones, of course, but I think it's a problem being widely overlooked. It's okay so long as you're fighting insurgents in Pakistan and Afghanistan; once you're fighting someone with the ability to disrupt your communications infrastructure then half your weapons become useless. And once you're fighting someone with a weapon that can target radio emissions they become downright dangerous...

    It seems to me that the main development that has enabled these is battery technology. The idea of drones is not new. The idea of Kamikaze aircraft is not new. What is new is a small, quiet kamikaze drone that doesn't have a significant heat signature because suddenly batteries are good enough to keep one flying long enough to be useful.

    --
    Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
  6. Rocket Bombs and Buzz Bombs by grahamlord86 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nice to hear we now have a obscenely expensive version of the WW2 V-1 "Buzz Bomb"... or Rocket Bomb for the 1984 nerds out there... I'm amazed we even bother to deploy soldiers these days.

  7. Jhadi robots and hero robots by Old97 · · Score: 4, Funny

    What happens to a robot that "martyrs" itself for the cause? Does it go somewhere where it is greeted warmly by 72 robots still in their original packaging? For other causes would their be posthumous medals awarded and parades and all? If not, then who gets the "credit"? Oh, so that's the point!

    --
    Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
  8. Re:Legitimate question by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Indeed, it always bothers me greatly to hear Americans saying things like, "We're not at all like them! They're bad people! They kill innocents in the pursuit of their objectives!"

    As if the US hasn't likewise declared objectives and knows damned well that they're going to be killing innocent people in the pursuit of their objectives, and has ruled them to be "acceptable losses" to achieve their objectives.

    I mean, *Really*? You don't see the glaring moral hole there?

    --
    Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
  9. Design meeting discussion by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Funny

    I suspect the conversation went something like this:

    General: Team, we need to find a way to double the range of these drones, but I don't have any additional design money for this project.

    Senior Engineer: There's no room in the flight profile to double the energy storage - it would require a complete redesign.

    Manager: It can't be done; we can't do this for free.
    .
    .
    .
    Junior Engineer: What if it didn't need to return?

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?