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
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'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.
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
The necessity to convince to people to go and fight has been a limiting factor in history.
This is very true. One pattern that can been seen is that to convince people to fight suicidally in war (i.e., without retreating despite how grim things look -- something that's necessary unless the opponent it completely outmatched) they need to believe it's the right thing to do. This isn't so difficult when fighting defensively against an opponent whose goal is to rape, pillage, and murder. Fighting suicidally against the Vikings, for example, was the only option available.
It gets a little more difficult when the conquerors only wish to oppress. Then ideals need to be fought for -- "They can take your lives, but they'll never take your freedom!"
It gets real difficult when you want to take the offensive. That requires some more abstract ideology -- nationalism, religion, or better yet a combination of the two. A good example of this is the power of the Roman army when it consisted of proud Romans who believed they were civilizing the world (they actually kind of were), and the fall of Rome when the armies largely consisted of mercenaries gathered from conquered territories that were far from the capitol. Nationalism at work. The Crusades are another clear example of this -- fight to keep the holy land holy. Religion at work.
Joan of Arc did both. The Japanese did both in WWII, which was epitomized by their kamikaze attacks. They didn't just fight suicidally -- they fought with suicide.
Basically, a robot allows one to cut the bullshit and just send it out to kill. We're already doing this with drone attacks. Perhaps these things will help illustrate to people how horribly unethical this is.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."