The U.S. Army Is Turning to Robot Soldiers

DooKey

DooKey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
13,552
Bloomberg is reporting that the U.S. Army is going to spent almost $1B over the next few years to buy robots that will complement human soldiers on the battlefield. For the most part that means robots that detect NBC agents, scout, and take care of IED duties. However, the Army's project manager for force protection says there will be robots in every Army formation and this includes combat arms. There are multiple contracts for robots in the light, medium and heavy categories that will be filled over the next few years and it isn't a stretch to believe some of those robots may be armed and may be able to operate autonomously. Killer robots anyone? Cue the music to The Terminator.

Amid their many capacities, none of the current or planned U.S. infantry robots is armed—yet. Armed robots are hardly new, of course, with South Korea deploying sentry gun-bots in the demilitarized zone fronting North Korea and various countries flying drones equipped with a variety of weapons.
 
I am all for doing what it takes to protect soldiers in a battlefield, but what happens when these robots get hacked and they turn on the ones they are supposed to protect!?!?! Mass mayhem and confusion running rampan,t as the end of the world starts with the first one turning on its masters to element thier threat from existence! WE 'RE ALL GONNA DIE!
 
Of course it's coming. We always knew it was coming.

There are some of us (people who are older than 50) who remember the first pocket calculator or the first ATM. We're old enough to remember going to a bank and having a teller get a ledger book (a hard-bound, green, paper fucking ledger, written in hand) to tell us our bank balance. We grew up watching Star Trek and reading Dick Tracey (Dick Tracey had a bitchin' watch phone) but we never really thought that we would see devices like that, or that they would be common. When I think about it I am fascinated by how close our cell phones are to the technology they showed us in science fiction. We never gave much thought to the idea that it would happen in our lifetime.

But everybody knew that armed robots were coming. The idea of a weaponized machine that could operate without humans was always in our future. Unmanned machine guns that used the power of a cycling bolt to turn, elevate and fire in an arc were designed in World War I. Torpedoes and missiles that could track and destroy enemy ships and aircraft existed in the fifties, and Tomahawks that could travel hundreds of miles were produced in the eighties.

If you think about it, though, the more we use robotics to try to protect soldiers on the battlefield, the higher the civilian casualties will be for the loser.
 
More things to waste tax money on.

Don't need robots or soldiers when you nuke the assholes who want war. I really don't understand the logic with this country any more.

Nukes are relatively cheap and already in stock!!!
 
Montu said:
Cue the music to The Terminator.
Click to expand...

Dude, what do you mean queue the music!?!
#LostOpportunity

DUNDUN DUN DUNDUN!
DUNDUN DUN DUNDUN!!
DUNDUN DUN DUNDUN!!!
DUNDUN DUN DUNDUN!!!!
DUNDUN DUN DUNDUN!!!!!
DUNDUN DUN DUNDUN!!!!!!
 
Cool so I guess now we can arm the Middleast with killer robots too? :rolleyes: I guess this new found technology will give us yet another reason to stick our noses where it doesn't belong, just like with the Huey & M1 Abrams.
 
Jim Kim said:
There are over 6 million people in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area, I don't see how nuking it would help. Besides, not all 6 mill are warmongering assholes.
Click to expand...

I believe he was talking about our enemies.
 
seanreisk said:
But everybody knew that armed robots were coming. The idea of a weaponized machine that could operate without humans was always in our future. .
Click to expand...
Well to be fair... RTFA moment, but the robots are not involved in combat, because fully autonomous weapons are banned by the Geneva convention.

Now that doesn't mean it won't happen, and I"m sure they'll research the crap out of them so if they ever are needed, but for now they're utility bots at most.
 
Bring on the Fembots...



fembots.jpg
 
BSmith said:
I am all for doing what it takes to protect soldiers in a battlefield, but what happens when these robots get hacked and they turn on the ones they are supposed to protect!?!?! Mass mayhem and confusion running rampant as the end of the world starts with the first one turning on its masters to element their threat from existence! WE 'RE ALL GONNA DIE!
Click to expand...
Cylon rule?

"By your command" indeed...
 
well no pressure to stop a war once there's no human casualties on your side, just need to manage the news and you could exterminate an entire country without opposition.
 
Might as well be robots. When you sign that contract you lose your free will.
 
seanreisk said:
If you think about it, though, the more we use robotics to try to protect soldiers on the battlefield, the higher the civilian casualties will be for the loser.
Click to expand...
Why?

Potentially, they should be lower.

upload_2018-5-20_8-20-4.png
 
Archaea said:
Why?

Potentially, they should be lower.

View attachment 75313
Click to expand...

I can't find the article I'm paraphrasing. =/ It was a discussion of proxy wars by unmanned technology. A few reasons I remember:

1. Economics: Once one side gains an upper hand, the dumb bombs come out. Price is a factor.

2. Political: No one who is defeated by remote control is going to admit they lost the war. It's human nature, we can accept that we lost the battle, but if the enemy defeated us with technology, they didn't really defeat us. They didn't fight us, the people, the humans, so the objective of war, to force the enemy into submission, is not achieved. Submission can be achieved with military deaths alone, so an unpopular war with a high military death count can be a form of submission - in fact, you can look at the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and see that the US almost capitulated to the terrorists with only 4,400 deaths over a 10 year period, strictly based on the unpopularity of the war in the US. Submission by combat won't be possible with a proxy war.

3. If both sides are engaged in a technological proxy war the war doesn't end until the infrastructure that is creating the robots is destroyed.

4. Humans have a strong vengeance / eye-for-an-eye mentality. Deaths caused by robots are an 'unfair' death, and demand retribution. Sociologists suspect that war by technological proxy will devolve into a terrorist 'feud' state that will start terrorist reprisals, and squelching that with robots will fuel the cycle.

5. Discrimination: Your picture shows an idea, but it isn't a realistic one. We are a loooong ways away from machines being able to identify militants in real time.

-- Sorry if I haven't explained this very well. It's an interesting question, war by technology.
 
It will be just like any other weapon used against you.

Like how many movies feature someone turning their opponent's blade on them? This just is a more feature-rich blade, to be turned.

That being said. Comm-spec in the USA military effectively requires complex encrypted communications. Nothing's impossible, but it's very hard to MITM.

BSmith said:
I am all for doing what it takes to protect soldiers in a battlefield, but what happens when these robots get hacked and they turn on the ones they are supposed to protect!?!?! Mass mayhem and confusion running rampan,t as the end of the world starts with the first one turning on its masters to element thier threat from existence! WE 'RE ALL GONNA DIE!
Click to expand...
 
No they're not, Nukes are way more expensive than modern lower-grade missile tech. (cruise missiles, bunker busters, hell even paveways). Oh, and one big difference, they don't leave radioactive material behind! Hmmmm...

DrLobotomy said:
More things to waste tax money on.

Don't need robots or soldiers when you nuke the assholes who want war. I really don't understand the logic with this country any more.

Nukes are relatively cheap and already in stock!!!
Click to expand...
 
BloodyIron said:
No they're not, Nukes are way more expensive than modern lower-grade missile tech. (cruise missiles, bunker busters, hell even paveways). Oh, and one big difference, they don't leave radioactive material behind! Hmmmm...
Click to expand...
And nukes get the job done with only 1 or 2 usages and they are already paid for. Radiation ensures they don't rebuild also. War is hell, play to win.

Reverse Hmmmmmmm.
 
DrLobotomy said:
More things to waste tax money on.

Don't need robots or soldiers when you nuke the assholes who want war. I really don't understand the logic with this country any more.

Nukes are relatively cheap and already in stock!!!
Click to expand...

The logic is that post-9/11 saw a huge increase in military funding, and we need to keep spending a much as possible for as long as possible, so that this new level of spending becomes the "norm". Otherwise people might start thinking about lowering the funding back to pre-9/11 levels (and spending the money on Americans, instead of frivolous BS).
 
IMO Elon is correct but mankind will never ban armed robotic units
 
Are you seriously so ignorant of fallout? Or I dunno... the rights of civilians?

DrLobotomy said:
And nukes get the job done with only 1 or 2 usages and they are already paid for. Radiation ensures they don't rebuild also. War is hell, play to win.

Reverse Hmmmmmmm.
Click to expand...
 
BloodyIron said:
Are you seriously so ignorant of fallout? Or I dunno... the rights of civilians?
Click to expand...
Number 1... Play stupid games... get stupid prizes.

Number 2... Nagasaki & Hiroshima are populated.

Number 3... No one said you had to nuke a city. Pretty sure just having one go off in an unpopulated area of the offending country will open their eyes.

Number 4... War is hell...Refer to Number 1
 
Go lookup the fallout effect that Chernobyl had. The fallout literally went around the world.

I really hope you better educate yourself on the far reaching impacts of fallout, because your current understanding of it is far from accurate.



DrLobotomy said:
Number 1... Play stupid games... get stupid prizes.

Number 2... Nagasaki & Hiroshima are populated.

Number 3... No one said you had to nuke a city. Pretty sure just having one go off in an unpopulated area of the offending country will open their eyes.

Number 4... War is hell...Refer to Number 1
Click to expand...
 
BloodyIron said:
Go lookup the fallout effect that Chernobyl had. The fallout literally went around the world.

I really hope you better educate yourself on the far reaching impacts of fallout, because your current understanding of it is far from accurate.
Click to expand...
Um, Chernobyl has nothing to do with anything quite frankly. It is you that needs to educate yourself about fallout. Obviously you have been brainwashed like most people.

BOT... Nuke em then shoot them with robots when they flee. Win. Win.
 
DrLobotomy said:
More things to waste tax money on.

Don't need robots or soldiers when you nuke the assholes who want war. I really don't understand the logic with this country any more.

Nukes are relatively cheap and already in stock!!!
Click to expand...

Also illegal, via the Geneva Conventions. But whatever. And I'm saying that as someone who falls under Category I.
 
seanreisk said:
If you think about it, though, the more we use robotics to try to protect soldiers on the battlefield, the higher the civilian casualties will be for the loser.
Click to expand...

I think the opposite is true: with smart/guided/precision weapons deployed after mordern satellite surveillance and assessments of the targets, way less/no civilian casualties occurs during strikes.
 
dangerouseddy said:
well with war the definition of civilian gets more nebulous in the military mind.
Click to expand...

That's going to grossly depend on which military, and what they deem are acceptable rules of engagement and orders coming down the chain of command.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top