You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Tech
Robot soldiers roll closer to the battlefield
2005-02-16
The American military is working on a new generation of soldiers, far different from the army it has. "They don't get hungry," said Gordon Johnson of the Joint Forces Command at the Pentagon. "They're not afraid. They don't forget their orders. They don't care if the guy next to them has just been shot. Will they do a better job than humans? Yes."

The robot soldier is coming. The Pentagon predicts that robots will be a major fighting force in the American military in less than a decade, hunting and killing enemies in combat. Robots are a crucial part of the Army's effort to rebuild itself as a 21st-century fighting force, and a $127 billion project called Future Combat Systems is the biggest military contract in American history.
Posted by:Dan Darling

#18  I am very reluctant to take humanity out of the loop. Dire shit always seems to come down when we separate power from consequences, responsiblity, or accountability: those things separate dictatorships from representative democracies and republics.
Look at the gap of Power VS Consequences when you have a very very rich President who has never had to deal with Consequences but has always had alot of Power.
Posted by: Crerert Ebbeting3481   2005-02-16 2:02:46 PM  

#17  I agree, Anonymoose, that exoskeletal prosthetics to replace missing limbs would not only be useful, but almost a moral obligation. I was referring to deliberate replacement and augmentation of perfectly good limbs/body parts with artificial ones: I worry about the distance that that would put between such cyborgs (even those who volunteer) and the rest of the citizenry. There is, IMHO, no issue when it comes to medically necessary replacements (with enhancements): Those who have suffered such accidents in the line of duty in protecting the country have more than proven their love of their fellow citizens

(By the way, your example was not exactly a counter-example to mine, since my objection was to full robotic autonomy. Your examples kept people in the loop, which is what I'd prefer happen.)
Posted by: Ptah   2005-02-16 6:45:47 PM  

#16  The Pentagon's point is not to have a better soldier per se, it is to get rid of him. Anything that keeps the human (and his pay, retirement, benefits) such as the exoskeleton idea runs counter to that goal.
Posted by: Zpaz   2005-02-16 2:36:32 PM  

#15  Everyone knows robotic soldiers are useless since robots are required to abide by the three laws of robotics. :-)
Posted by: JFM   2005-02-16 2:35:06 PM  

#14  Man, there's just so much that could be done with this. How about one that buzzes and hisses "ERROR! ERROR! Must STER-I-LIZE!" while making chop-chop motions with a built in pair of tin snips...
Posted by: mojo   2005-02-16 2:12:48 PM  

#13  Ptah: robotics works both ways. You mentioned a robotic exoskeleton, but equally, a soldier that loses and arm or a leg might be given one that is better than the original. If you think about it, putting a weapon in place of an arm is a waste of its potential. There are devices, however, that would prove to be of great usefulness, such as a sensor array and a powerful computer hooked into his units' Wizard network. Sensors could also give him, through viewing glasses and earphones, heightened information about the battle area in front of him--equal to seeing through walls and having 3D imagery. A leg-back-arm prosthesis could be used to give him a powerful lift capability--very useful in a battle situation. There are any number of other adaptations that would serve a dual use of keeping soldiers in combat, and making them an asset to their unit.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2005-02-16 1:38:16 PM  

#12  All kidding aside, the writer DOES make some good points, esp. those about there being a lower threshold for initiating combat operations. I program computers, and know how finite and error-prone programmers, programs, and computers are.

The biggest comfort I have re our armed forces is that they are REAL Americans: in a recent informal poll, a Marine officer discovered that his entire unit would refuse to obey a direct order to disarm the American populace, regarding it a violation of the Second Amendment. Will that sort of reticence be programmed into robot warriors? I favor the Revised Superman Krypton model, where heavily armed robotic suits are worn and directed by individuals. Any AI would be strictly in advisory mode, a-la Cortana of Halo fame. They should not be heavily modified in an organic sense, though, like Master Chief or Robocop are/were. Another acceptable possiblity makes every solider an officer of a mini-platoon of robots, and for which he must take total and complete credit and responsibility.

I am very reluctant to take humanity out of the loop. Dire shit always seems to come down when we separate power from consequences, responsiblity, or accountability: those things separate dictatorships from representative democracies and republics.

As for the "mechanical" aspects of robotics/AI, such as >>low level reasoning<<, path finding, sensory input, discrimination, mechanical platforms, and such: It's just a matter of time, and I am much more optimistic about the answer to "can we?" than the author. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that typical Yankee ingenuity will eventually make this stuff work, and work spectacularly. So much so, that NOW is definitely the time to start thinking about the "should we?" and "how should we?" questions.
Posted by: Ptah   2005-02-16 12:49:01 PM  

#11  note: "Invader Zim" reference.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2005-02-16 11:12:53 AM  

#10  They could contact the outfit with this mold... I love the Japanese, heh.

More "safe" examples... __1__ __2__ __3__

Only in Japan, heh. ;-)
Posted by: .com   2005-02-16 11:10:13 AM  

#9  Then it would truly be an invasion of "Yankee Capitalist Peeeegs"! ;)
Sooooo-eee!
Wonder where they would install the flamethrower?
Posted by: Desert Blondie   2005-02-16 10:58:37 AM  

#8  Jame Retief: the very concept of pink robotic piggies is so horrifying that only an alien invader would ever think of such a think. "Oooo! Pigeeeeeeeeeees!"
Posted by: Anonymoose   2005-02-16 10:25:16 AM  

#7  Lynndie Englund Full Sized Action Figure

Frank, that's a riot!
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2005-02-16 10:20:30 AM  

#6  May be the way ahead, Jame. Or maybe seventy two sloe eyed LegoMindstorms. Jihadi Joe is nothing if not "inventive".
Posted by: gimpy   2005-02-16 10:07:32 AM  

#5  the Lynndie Englund model has an arm with leash and panties held aloft
Posted by: Frank G   2005-02-16 9:57:14 AM  

#4  As they spew red supstance that looks like blood, Jame.
Posted by: plainslow   2005-02-16 9:55:07 AM  

#3  Maybe we could dress the robots up as pigs to get that psychological warfare aspect in, gimpy.
Posted by: Jame Retief   2005-02-16 9:43:49 AM  

#2  Recommend looking at http://www.army.mil/fcs/ for some visualizations. The Army will be UA/UE by 2007. Much of the "future tech" will be add ons to the process tranformation we're undergoing.
I wonder, do you get 72 virgins being killed by a robot vice an infantryman?
Interesting times.
Posted by: gimpy   2005-02-16 9:36:05 AM  

#1  "Deux ex Machina". This all makes sense when you substitute the concept of magic for technology. "But what if the Pentagon discovers the secret incantation that awakens Cthulu and he comes forth to destroy us all?"
Posted by: Anonymoose   2005-02-16 9:07:14 AM  

00:00