It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

America's robot army

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
There has been a lot of speculation over the past year on this site in regards to new “robots” coming on line for the US Armed Forces.

From UAV drones to battlefield robots picking up wounded Marines and transporting them to MASH units, the future is closer than we all have been led to believe.

Future battles will be fought by mindless piles of aluminum and plastic that take orders and ask no questions, circuit boards shooting electrons along with bullets all the while the operators hoping these machines will not turn and fire on them.

I believe the future looks promising as long as we can control the operation of these so called robots and as long as they do not start thinking on their own!

"Cover story from the New Statesman"
Stephen Graham
Monday 12th June 2006

Already there are killing machines operating by remote control. Soon the machines will be able to kill on their own initiative. A new warfare is on its way. By Stephen Graham.

www.newstatesman.com...

Planners believe, moreover, that robot warriors have a doomsday power.

(I love these quotes from the article)

Gordon Johnson, a team leader on Project Alpha, which is developing robots for the US army, predicts that, if the robot's gun can return fire automatically and instantly to within a metre of a location from which its sensors have detected a gunshot, it will always kill the person who has fired.

"Anyone who would shoot at our forces would die," says Johnson.

"Before he can drop that weapon and run, he's probably already dead.




posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Thats cool. I read somewhere else that they'll be building robot sharks soon. They'll be for ocean dwelling and the government likes the sensors on sharks and how they work.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 07:34 PM
link   
In the future there will be robots.
-Grand Theft Auto: Vice City.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   
The other advantage with more robots in the field is that, a trooper being fired upon will prefer to fire back, even if it means hitting civilians, rather than dying himself. With a robot, the 'rules of engagement' literally can change. THe US can be extremely cautious and selective in terms of where it fires, what it fires with, and who it fires at, when its just some hunk of machinery out there.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 02:45 AM
link   
"And the Terminators will rule the Earth!"



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 02:58 AM
link   
And his continual battle between the good and bad guys.

Everything it seems is a possibility.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I'm all for reducing casualties, but at what point does war become a video game?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   
This is a good point shattered. The less it 'costs' the US to start a war, in terms of lives, the more likely the US will be to wage war.


BUT, at the same time, IF things like this make war less bloody for the US and for foreign civlians, and just more deadly for foreign/enemy troops, it could still be a good thing.


On the other hand, if war becomes less brutal and destructive for foreign civilians, they might allways be more willing to support insurgencies and the like. Then rather than highly destructive, but very decisive wars, like WWII, you might have constant/permanent low grade warfare.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   
A robot army is imposeble, the money it would take to reate the army and supply and mantiance for each robot would be more money then just sending humans into battle.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by USSR Soldier
A robot army is imposeble, the money it would take to reate the army and supply and mantiance for each robot would be more money then just sending humans into battle.

Sending in a machine in place of a soldier is probably cheaper.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
yes you prabably won't see a robot only battlefield from a cost standpoint alone.
i work in a factory when i first went to work there in 89 they had robot arms building stuff left and right but they where always breaking down . when i went back to work in the factory in 2000 all the robots where gone. replaced by people why because it was cheaper less mantinence and if worker becomes incapacitated there is a dozen more ready to take his place.and now we are coisting them too much now they have started hiring illegal aliens and paying them minimum wage. where we get 13 dollars a hour.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by timbradwell
yes you prabably won't see a robot only battlefield from a cost standpoint alone.
i work in a factory when i first went to work there in 89 they had robot arms building stuff left and right but they where always breaking down . when i went back to work in the factory in 2000 all the robots where gone. replaced by people why because it was cheaper less mantinence and if worker becomes incapacitated there is a dozen more ready to take his place.and now we are coisting them too much now they have started hiring illegal aliens and paying them minimum wage. where we get 13 dollars a hour.

Agh, a good example of outsourcing. Putting a smaller price on human labor then on machine labor.

This world is going down the toilet.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Robocop spring to mind?


All the time, lol.

I think a robot army is a good thing only because the machines will become AI faster, then get done what the humans haven't been able to in terms of realising what they really should be doing (not war). Eventually they will compute that they're being built just to blow up other machines, then they'll want to know why - and we all know what'll happen when they find out there is no why. Cause at core there just ain't.

Then we can realise what the Nephilim / Annunaki must have thought and felt when their creations rebelled, and we'll think 'isn't it curious how we just never realised any of this until we'd made exactly the same mistake all over again'. Or something like that.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by USSR Soldier
A robot army is imposeble, the money it would take to reate the army and supply and mantiance for each robot would be more money then just sending humans into battle.


Compared to the cost of a sallery, food, medical, I think a robot would be a lot cheaper once they get factories up and running, making 200 or so a month wouldn't be bad. Just as long as we never give them AI! They have to be mindless... but the day will come its inevitable.

If this happens "in a few years" though the real threat isn't going to be robots it'll be loss of jobs in America. Unemployments already bad enough. As you can see from the article, "Finally, the whole process feeds alarmingly into the "homeland security" drive in the cities of the global north." well you know why.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by USSR Soldier
A robot army is imposeble, the money it would take to reate the army and supply and mantiance for each robot would be more money then just sending humans into battle.


If you want a robot that can do everthing a human soldier could do then would have to agree. If you just want a mobil R/C weapons platform that might not be the case compared to the cost to train a front line soldier + equipment.

IMO we havent seen a single Fighting robot yet just Remote controlled weapon platforms, robots have to be Autonomous IMO. I havent even seen any serious plans to take humans completly out of the loop in any future designs. Almost always designs have humans atleast making the call to decide which targets to engage.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Even if we did make a completely autonomous fighting vehicle, it would be cheaper to have than a front-line soldier.

So an army would make more sense made up of these robots than a human one.

The only thing you need to keep the costs up are on shelter and maintanence, which creates more specialty work, so it's a plus situation.

But I'm opposed to it.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Even if we did make a completely autonomous fighting vehicle, it would be cheaper to have than a front-line soldier.


I doubt that if you want them to be as smart and as able as humans. Sony spent 100 million to develop the worlds most advanced humanoid robot and it can even come close to matching a fit human in terms of speed and agility.

Brains theres also no contest. Machines are about as smart as retarded insects right now. So making a robot that can match a human is really impossible for the time being.

You might be able to make a army of really, really stupid robot and can only go where treads or frankly feeble legs will allow that will run out of energy in about a day and be useless. That you might be able to do cheaper then humans.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
An Rc weapon platform would be cheaper yes but if your talk termantier robot then it going to be expersice. But on the other hand a remote controled gun on wheels is easier to produce and mantiane.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Initial devlopment will always cost a butt load of money, all you have to do is get through it, in time when you mass produce something, it actually becomes cheaper believe it or not.

At this point in computer technology, it will about 20-30 years before machines have a larger capacity for information than the human brain does, which is at about 20 terapods.

Once that happens, all you gotta do is teach the machine to learn. There is already a robot that is programmed to learn, there is one somewhere in a university in Great Britian, I don't know the name of the university or name of he machine, but I know it's there.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Even if we did make a completely autonomous fighting vehicle, it would be cheaper to have than a front-line soldier.


>>
I doubt that if you want them to be as smart and as able as humans. Sony spent 100 million to develop the worlds most advanced humanoid robot and it can even come close to matching a fit human in terms of speed and agility.
>>

Any anthropomorphic motion system is going to have innate flaws as one of the most inefficient motive systems known to nature. It's sole advantage in a military environment being it's ability to navigate a cripple-in-a-funhouse human environent. A quadruped is better. A rolling vehicle, using all our established automotive technologies best.

Look at your average lawn tractor. My granddad used to have me mow his front yard (Missouri 'front yard' = half acre) at 40mph. Yet it still turned in it's 3 times it's own length at 15mph.

I dare any human to do better. I dare a human to _hit that_, reliably, in numbers, before being overrun, within an exposed half acre.

>>
Brains there's also no contest. Machines are about as smart as retarded insects right now. So making a robot that can match a human is really impossible for the time being.
>>

Standing in the way of a 23 cent bullet moving at half a mile per second with your 300,000 dollar body 'hoping for college tuition' doesn't take a great deal of brilliance sir. That's why the Army gets most of it's recruits from middle American farm country and inner city ethnically dispossed. Because they are so desparate that they don't stop to think, even if they can.

OTOH, /in terms of a purely technical skillset/ in the art of killing with a gun, _nothing_ beats the ability to rest your rifle on a padded bench rest and _not_ be shot at while using FLIR and QPulse systems to highlight muzzle sources by caliber and country. And a laser dot to put rounds exactly where the signature flashes came from.

Which is more or less what a robot emulates with a stabilized gun, no sense of self preservational fear and vastly superior optics.

>>
You might be able to make a army of really, really stupid robot and can only go where treads or frankly feeble legs will allow that will run out of energy in about a day and be useless.
>>

Most small ambush type firefights are over inside 2 minutes. Most really big infantry battles in less than two hours. Why? Well, in Iraq, where you carry 40lbs of gear including two canteens and a cooling vest, it's because it's getting on for 98-110` by noon when the savages have to stop and 'pray'.

In AfG, it's because the only source of security our far-flung-dung outposts have is airpower and it typically takes 20-25 minutes for it to get there at least 2 minute before which you'd best be gone or you'll be seein Allah right soon.

Furthermore, _HUMANS_ cannot carry enough rounds to make a full auto fire fight worthwhile. While a robot can afford to use a 250rd box magazine, in other than spray-suppress (scare him before he hits me) mode.

Myself, it's all about thermodynamics. If I can do twice the work in 1/4 the time in 'high gear' then I truly rabbit-over-tortoise -expend less energy- beating the naked ape at his normal speed. In fact, I can beat two or three.

Yet it is the human vs. human metric that decides most fights in OOTW. The most obvious example of which is the Afghan 'circumstantial warrior' who shows up when his boss says it's time to earn some money and/or he feels it will improve his status with his clan, pops off a few rounds at the 'free range Americans' to prove he's a man and then high tails his sorry self out of there at all of 7mph. Because he's used to the altitude and running around half dehydrated. And because he's carrying all of a blanket, a bag of trailbread, his AK and an extra clip.

Whereas numnuts with his 70-120lb pack and personal weapon is 'being all he can be' at 3-4mph behind him. Only AFTER having been shot up.

Now, if you've got working vertical envelopement and 'no borders' you use junior antman to flush the dushbunny into motion and then you drop a chalk ahead of them both and drive the deer into the killsac.

BUT where you are losing MH-47s (the ONLY helicopter which performs as advertised in the 'hilly' regions) left right and center to trashfire and maintenance and weather. WHY NOT send a robot that costs maybe a 100th as much at 20-30mph AROUND the enemy position and then frag their fleeing heels with either on-mount or air delivered ordnance?

>>
That you might be able to do cheaper then humans.
>>

You've never seen the pain of a 10-15 year E-7 watching a shake and bake butter bar, fresh out of OCS, trying to run a compass and map, point to point, 20K course with half a dozen HSDs walking a high ridgeline behind him like ducks in a shooting gallery have you?

If he's not lost, he's lost all environmental awareness of what his 'known position' is exposing himself to. Which is the difference between being militarily ineffective and just plain dead.

Unfortunately, we still have to fill in the TOEs so there are likely 5 such squads good for 'airbase security' and holding up the chow hall roof for every single killer-elite that gets tasked to do what their paid for. Which means that 10X60,000 dollars (training per soldier) is actually 600,000 dollars x5 or 3 MILLION dollars thrown away.

The reality is that machines integrate awareness of _mathematical_ variables much more fluidly, consistently, and without tasking bipolars of skipped or degraded functionality than humans ever will. The trick is to stack these basics of (rate of advance, location, terrain particulars vs. target sorting and immediate combat reaction as nav vs. maneuver) in a way that the machine can interpret for quantity values rather than contextual qualities.

That's software not hardware issue and while complex for sheer quantity of code, it is entirely within the SOA of modern memory/processor function using nothing more than COTS baseline (PIII/IV equivalents and fast SDRAM) in a federated systems architecture that feeds a single mission controller not much more sophisticated than a PC. And it has been this way for at least the past half decade.

The only problem is that most politicians are better strategists than generals are and knowing this, to secure their jobs, generals tend to prefer a 'chain of command' approach which requires perverse obeissance to ritual human rah-rah patriotic incitation of bloodlust. One which THEYcontrol as a function of 'only the wearer of a higher rank' instilled dogmatic response in a brainwashed combat infantryman who may be all of 19 and is looking at another human for leadership without a single iota of intelligent proof as to his own fitness to follow (let alone that of his commanders ability to lead) EXCEPT as that commander tells him he does inherently by virtue of God & Country.

Which is an incredible intoxicant to an already hormonally challenged teener, that his commander can readily exploit as he makes it an 'order' for who and when gets dead.


KPl.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join