Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Robot Soldiers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Robot Soldiers

    ** This thread discusses the article: Robot Soldiers **
    boomer400 predicts: "You can bet that robot warriors will never work in the field except in isolated instances." And gas-powered machines will never replace horses in war, either. Horses can find food on the way. But you'd have to find a way to get fuel to the machines, and that'd just take way too much infrastructure. And repairs and spare parts? Don't even THINK about trying to repair a big complex tank out in the field. -dan

    Comment


    • #17
      Robot Soldiers

      ** This thread discusses the article: Robot Soldiers **
      Hmmm, I see your point so I suppose I should amend my statement to read : ...in our lifetime. That being about 40-50 years barring discovery of a fabulous non petroleum based power source that can generate enough newtons to drive a motorcycle, last 72 hours at 70%load w/o recharge or replacement, isn't explosive if hit by a 20mmm AP/HE directly, weighs less than 25 kilos, and is controlled by remote signalling that is uninterruptible. In reality, it's really just easier to have human operators as cannon fodder. And I mean no disrespect to anyone who serves, served, or has family, friends, etc. in the military. It is entirely possible and is currently reality to have "robotIC" equipment that serves military roles. The Predator is an example of telepresence but requires human operators and decisionmaking. The KH satellites were similar although more automation than "robot". I think "robots" requires some level of self awareness and decisionmaking capability. Maybe if IBM can come up with a Deep Blue Combat version X 10000 in a laptop sized package, you might be able to do it. I just think in terms of sheer adaptability, humans will outperform robots for quite some time, especially in combat which is very chaotic. As for the original question, I think that the project name says it all: Future Combat Systems. But like I said barring unforeseen development of unknown power sources....it's a pretty far future. It sort of sounds like "the Terminator"!

      Comment


      • #18
        Robot Soldiers

        ** This thread discusses the article: Robot Soldiers **
        I agree with all you say. Things happen in degrees. As you point out, the Predator is a small step in that direction. What we will see are advances where the "machines" do more an more and the human intervention gets less and less. At what point they can be considered to be "robots" can be debated, but as you say, it should at least include SOME degree of autonomy. But I DO think that humans will be physically on the front lines less and less. It may be like the games out now, where a human controls through virtual reality, and maybe controls more than one "machine"/"robot". The opportunities for use terrorism will increase as well. It'll be interesting to say the least. And the moral questions it raises will be ranted about in here I'm sure. -dan

        Comment


        • #19
          Robot Soldiers

          ** This thread discusses the article: Robot Soldiers **
          I don't want to see anyone die in any stinkin war. That having been said by me, let me continue. What really bothers people is when technology kills people. I think its more okay, or less bad, if people kill people one on one without any technological help. So on a tech scale, hand to hand = 0; knife=1; handgun= 2; handgrenade=3; landmine=4; dumb bomb=5; smart bomb=6; cruise missile=7; tactical nuke=8; strategic nuke from B1 or B52=9; and the big scary ICBM = 10. Now that being said, all of those things exist. Try not to have one for your personal defense in your back pocket, and see what happens...or better yet, just live next door to someone who has the biggest and you should be okay, and then you can spend your money on virtual girlfriends and greenpeace?(those violent anti violent types you know).

          Comment


          • #20
            Robot Soldiers

            ** This thread discusses the article: Robot Soldiers **
            I'm not sure that it really bothers people that technology kills people. Most people nowadays are more comfortable with laser guided bomb "surgical" strikes that "shock and awe" "targets". And when confronted in their frontyards with a nutcase holding a knife, they are happy to whip out the shotgun or .45 to blow the nutcase away. , I think that most people subconsciously realize that killing something from 20 feet away is a heck of a lot easier than killing them at arms length. Killing someone by hand is very difficult unless you are trained to do so or have murderous intent. A knife fight is a very personal and messy business. Pulling a trigger is way easier than mano a mano in a phone booth. And the moral/ethical issues are much easier to deal with if you don't have to smell the guy you're killing. Maybe, the technological fear that you mention is more related to the efficiency of how we can kill people now coupled with the "fallout" of what we can do in a bigger scale. So a deliberate #10 job has a lot of side effects that most people are uncomfortable with because they know it might get back to them sooner or later. The #10 accident then has a lot more weight than a # 3-5 type accident. So, a #10 accident between India or Pakistan has a lot more implications to worry about than say a #5 accident. A #10 accident could trigger a #10 deliberate attack. The problem I see with robotic systems is that you have to create some way of "moralizing" or "ethicalizing" the system (a la Asimovs Robotic Laws). It would be hard to a robot to distinguish civilians and noncombatants and combatants. Where do you draw the line? A person is not holding a weapon, holding a weapon, has potential to hold a weapon, has intent to hold a weapon, has intent to hold a weapon for you, has intent to hold a weapon against you, is planning to switch sides, surrender, fake surrender with a bomb? Where does it end? In a fluid environment, like downtown Baghdad, programming a robot system to operate independantly would take years. Using current games as an example, they generally have very simple scenarios. Capture The Flag, team vs. team, independant melee (deathmatch) are the usual scenarios wrapped in sometimes very compelling visual environments. You can even have AI combat as well. However, rarely is the human condition mirrored in its real complexity. Maybe the gov has something setup like that but I tend to doubt it as it's more focused on technological features. And the gov tends to be more amoral than moral so it's the last place I would expect to see moral/ethical standards strictly upheld.

            Comment

            Working...
            X