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."
I usually find LMGTFY a bit obnoxious, but in this case it is the top hit for "take point". Goodness.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I for one ... oh forget it.
What does this even mean?
Obviously, it's a reference to use of robots in sexual encounters (but not in the Japanese way). From the Urban Dictionary definition of point man:
"When going out with a group of male friends with the intent of picking up women together, the point man is the friend that will always jump on the hand grenade, while the wing man's responsibility is to distract the cock blocker friend."
So the robot is to be the point man, while someone else (presumably you) pick up the girl. You might need a second robot as the wing man, of course.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
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....
our killing machines already often target innocents, we bomb people who did not attack us, our land mines and cluster bomblets kill innocents years after a conflict over.
I'm sure that using robots against opponents will in now way build resentment and hatred for the United States, who is more than willing to sacrifice others in their wars, but has no taste for putting their own lives on the line for their beliefs.
This may win the US battles, but it's going to lose the war on building any sustainable relationships with other cultures.
It means most people today not only aren't veterans but don't even know one.
And so it begins...has Skynet finally arrived? :)
You surely cannot believe that the last 2 presidents have been human beings?
It's the future and whining about it is no different than whining about the advent of the rifle or the machine gun or the bow. Your taking the fight away from the human being through a layer of abstraction to keep your soldier alive. The layer of abstraction in this case happens to be a robot, once upon a time it was a gun or a bow.
The people complaining about this are really no different than the Luddites that think warfare should be conduced hand to hand with swords and maces. They wont be satisfied unless their own soldiers are getting killed on the battlefield too. Technology advances whether you want it to or not. Change and human nature are the only things that stay the same.
"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.
The Taliban in Pakistan aren't at the negotiating table trying to get the drone attacks stopped because it's ineffective. They're their because, if you're a Taliban leader, you never know when you're about to be killed by a drone strike - and that kind of takes the edge of all the perks of being a warlord when you get promoted while they're still looking for the last guys smoking boots.
Frankly, the idea that the US would be less hated if they showed up in person with soldiers to kill people is just propaganda from the other side. The US is hated because they're killing a bunch of civilians when they carry out drone strikes. They'd be just as hated if they did it with tanks or commandos.
Frankly, the idea that the US would be less hated if they showed up in person with soldiers to kill people is just propaganda from the other side. The US is hated because they're killing a bunch of civilians when they carry out drone strikes. They'd be just as hated if they did it with tanks or commandos.
It's not propaganda, it is simple common sense. Armored vehicles, drones, etc dehumanize the counterinsurgency force, distances them from the population. It is much easier to hate a thing, an action, instead of a person. Theorists on both sides of asymmetrical conflicts, such as Thompson and Mao, note the importance of earning and maintaining the trust and support of the local population. Insurgents do this by weakening, or appearing to weaken, the position of the government by bombings, attacking key infrastructure or supposedly secure areas, which allows them to essentially set up their own state in areas they control, fulfilling what are normally governmental roles. The government has to block the attempts of the insurgents to undermine their legitimacy. To do this they have to work with the local population, interact with them on a daily basis. Patrols need to be done on foot whenever possible, so as to establish relationships with the locals, so that they will feel safe coming to the government to report insurgent activity in the area. It means meeting with local leadership, speaking to shopkeepers at the market, giving food and candy to children, and helping to rebuild damaged areas or bringing in aid. This subject was actually a significant part of my Masters thesis.
And commandos would probably lessen the collateral damage accrued on a mission, because they are trained to be selective in their application of force. Of course, using commandos for these types of missions would mean higher casualty rates and attrition in units that are already stretched thin, as well as the political ramifications of American troops operating on Pakistani soil (but if you don't think the Pakistanis have indirectly given the US permission to undertake drone strikes on their territory you are mistaken). But no, collateral damage cannot be avoided in asymmetrical warfare for the simple fact that insurgents intentionally hide and operate in areas where they have civilians for cover or protection. So, the idea is to limit collateral damage, which is best done by boots on the ground. You are right. They already have plenty of things to hate us about. Why go out of our way to add one more reason?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
We are "obsessed" with fighting because at its core the human being is an animal. Animals fight for food, for territory, for reproduction. Strip down every conflict in recorded human history and you will find at least one of those elements at it's core. Or, put in other words, resources are and always will be finite. Someone will always have more than someone else, and survival dictates that the only way to get what you need that another has is by coercive force.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Then you only sell one. Wont someone think of the military industrial complex!