Slashdot Mirror
Weaponized Robots Could Take Point In Future Military Ops
Lucas123 writes "This past week at Ft. Benning, weaponized robot prototypes from four robotics companies — Northrop Grumman, HDT Robotics, iRobot Corp. and QinetiQ — demonstrated their abilities to traverse rugged terrain, fire machine guns and take out pop-up targets from a distance of 150 meters. 'They're not just tools, but members of the squad. That's the goal,' said Lt. Col. Willie Smith, chief of Unmanned Ground Vehicles at Fort Benning. For example, the Northrup Grumman's CaMEL (Carry-all Mechanized Equipment Landrover) can run for 24 hours on three-and-a-half gallons of fuel, and can be equipped with a grenade launcher, an automatic weapon and anti-tank missiles. The CaMEL also can identify targets from three-and-a-half kilometers away, using a daylight telescope or thermal imaging. The robots have also demonstrated their ability to be air dropped behind enemy lines or into remote terrain."
Great for the ones leading the robots, whether it be governments, corporations or lords.
Crappy for whomever they are sent against as they will not disobey orders.... Whether they be American citizens, homeless people, freedom fighters etc...
Sorry, but as much as I like the thought of taking people out of harms way, the potential for abuse here far outstrips any gain we could possibly have for it. So long as they know a huge portion of the military will refuse to do some things, it restrains the ones giving orders, as soon as they know they will follow all orders, no matter how fucked up, and never disobey or defect, the sociopaths of the world with power can get REALLY creative then....
"State-based aggressors" basically went out with the fall of the Soviet Union. 9/11 brought Asymmetrical Warface (terrorism) to the forefront. Drones reverse the asymmetry.
Drones and autonomous war robots have been the ultimate dream of generals through the ages. Soldiers who don't question orders. Who will kill anyone without hesitation or conscience. And who don't return bearing drug addictions and PTSD which can make them a burden - or a menace - to the peasants paying for it all back home.
It all sounds so wonderful, but just the other day came a plea from Malala to discontinue the use of assassin drones. And if anyone is entitled to cheer for the efficient extermination of the Taliban she is the one. It's not enough that they tried to kill her once, they're recently declared that - big brave Warriors of God that they are - they will try to kill this girl again.
So maybe it isn't so wonderful after all. War is not a mathematical or academic exercise. Donald Rumsfeld tried to treat it as such, and we've seen the results.
Maybe the best way to win a war is not to go to war.
Remove the hyberbole from your argument and people are much more likely to take you seriously.
For an example of something where the two sides had something close you need only look at WWI. The two sides had very close capacity, the result was a multiyear quagmire that resulted in the death in tens of millions of people as neither side was able to quickly 'win'. Because it was so drawn out with everyone tied down it also directly resulted in the Spanish flu killing tens of millions of people. Wars that are "fair" are wars that kill far more people than wars that aren't and history is riddle with countless millions of dead bodies that prove my point.
The US hasn't targeted civilian centers since WW2, luckily technology has changed quite a bit since then. The reality is that they have spent billions of dollars developing better technology for the sole purpose of not hitting civilians. Hitting civilians only pisses off the local population and it places your assets at risk for another run because your original military target still has to be taken out. A more accurate weapon is far more valuable for any military. Unless your Hezbollah or a similiar terrorist organization, there simply isn't any value in using weapons against civilians.
The US provides more foreign aid than other country on earth and has done so for decades. Any number of nations depend of the US for medical and food aid for basic survival and have for decades. I know it's popular in certain circles to hate on the US, but try doing a little actual research before hopping on the hype train.
I keep asking myself how they will prevent them from shooting the wrong person
Wrong question. The right question is whether they would be more or less likely to shoot the wrong person than a human soldier would. Many atrocities, such as My Lai and No Gun Ri were committed by soldiers angry over the deaths or maiming of comrades and fearful for their own safety. Since robots don't have emotions, they would not have committed those massacres.