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.

 

Rise of the Machines.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Think it will replace the soldiers on the ground? NAHHH...even with introduction of the UAVs and UCAVs for the Air Force, pilots have not been replaced...yet, I been reading how pilots a couple of years ago feared they were being replaced, but it didn't happened, years later to this day. Its possible in the future it could happen...but now we may just see men and machines fighting together, instead of relying on machines to fight our wars. Not to mention right now its just remote controlled. No worries there..........yet. Don't need to feed them, don't need to sleep, don't need to bury them, and so on. However, still need to fuel them, replace parts and so on, nothing is free in war.




posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   
While the military will always be more technologically advanced than the civilians, the process of technological change is very similar in the military to that of civilian society (except during a major war, such as World War II).

For example, look at the OICW. Its been in development for over 10 years now, yet it has not been fielded in any form and was eventually canceled. Force XXI never got past testing phase and was deployed in a very limited manner with the 1st Cavalry Division and the 4th Infantry Division. Then there's the absolutely unrealistic Future Force program.

You can compare a lot of that to the Information Superhighway concieved by Bill Gates. Bill Gates predicted the Information Superhighway would supercede the Internet and that it would be in service by at least 2004. Bill Gates has been wrong on both counts.

Unless the U.S. has off-the-charts economic and financial power, as well as highly advanced/efficient energy resources, there is just no way any of the future technologies and machines will be fielded as a frontline military force in substantial numbers. At most, we may see robots involved in support roles, but even that is years away.

Predominantly human militaries are here to stay.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I couldn't disagree more. If anything robots will be CHEAPER than humans. You don't have to feed them or provide medical or dental care. They won't need a pension or health care in old age.

There won't be any flag draped coffins or funerals to protest either. Robots are coming.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   
I agree, robots are coming. If they can make a Segway it's only a matter of time before they make a Segway that can carry a machine gun, and make them enmass.

Nobody wants to go to war anymore, There would be a massive resistance to a draft. Not only could machines be built in massive quantities but one or two soldiers could sit at the controls in a remote location and control many of them at a time. One soldier could have the firepower of a dozen fielded bodies using robots.

I don't think it is right around the corner, but I do believe its coming.

Just my thoughts,



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 02:04 AM
link   
MW,

Well, let me say that the XM307 and XUV combination are crap because they seem to assume that both the vehicle itself and certainly the operator using it are going to be fighting 'the same ol' way'.

Which is ridiculous because a trained soldier sees targets as icons and bearings and 'matches to shoot' on a suppressive basis while maneuvering dynamically to avoid becoming a predictable target himself.

In this, no amount of firepower or armor is going to protect a larger, singular, target from being hit by directed explosives or other _preemplaced_ weapons systems which treat it as a discrete engagement rather than a combine arms/team based one which the relative ubiquity, small signature, ability to access unique terrain and of course overall 'cheapness' of the man still provides for.

I am also /less than impressed/ by the LSTM, I don't care if it IS 'just like a Predator' you _do not_ solve interface problems by going wireless. If you can bring power to the turret, you can sure as hell bring datafeeds off it.

In truth, the fact that the XUV is apparently designed for remote area use doesn't really justify it's apparent bulk, lack of all terrain mobility and probable cost. If you are replacing soldiers on a patrol-period and loss basis you have to do so within their cost bracket which means smaller, lighter, more able to negotiate 'through the trees!' route alternates that maintain both the shortest interval window between recoverage and the highest ability to avoid prepositioned traps by ORM/IED type devices.

Indeed, the best way to analyze the effectiveness of systems like these and particularly the notion of 'through the soda straw, tunnely' remote human operation is to envision a similar system of flex-armed, balloon tired, 2-3ft tall, SINGLE FUNCTION vehicles whose attack methodology is that of a swarm coming across the snow or out of the thickets at 40mph with the ability to gain or lose up to 2-3ft in terrain clearance as the arms move up and down independent of the wheelmotors and the vehicle 'steers' like an office chair from hell providing excellent all terrain and evasive capabilities.

If each such Noveau Goliath was equipped WITH ONE STICK OF DYNAMITE a swarm of them could exceed the XUV's pedestal optics ability to even /see/ let alone track and engage 10-20 such 1,000 dollar systems. And so it would become a race between running away (if LOS acquisition was early enough) and trying to get them to linearize into pure pursuit curves behind you.

And being 'whelmed where you stood as you tried to engage each target as a discrete only to find that they advanced faster than you could slew to engage them.

Such is why you need to develop most of your mission controls /offplatform/ and then treat the engagement conditions as a whole by tagging targets as synthetic symbology and letting a very fast auto-turret do the engaging with minimal human (= ultrawide bandwidth) intervention. Indeed, if you keep the costs down, you can create virtual global presentations based on a 'camera on the vehicle behind the lead vehicle' basis of not simply overwatch but real time storage and synthesis of terrain matrix (as a wireframe or shaded polygon system, generated by the offboard master CPU).

Especially if you also used secure/directional MMW relay, either through other vehicles and a mast or UAVs, the result would be the ability to let a 'killer robots' engagement play out by designated zones of target occupation and a more fluid (bounding) TEAM movement drill which cross covered multiple such zones.

All with a minimum of fixed vs. turreted sensorization on a single video channel which meshed sensor FOVs like the DASS system for cheapness, bandwidth conservation and ease of subsequent iconization to a dumb trooper otherwise apt to be saturated with too many individual optical-quality views and not enough perspective.

The SWORDS video I have seen before. And as before, I will simply state that while the general configuration is rather wasteful for the volume that sprouts masts and sensors vs. the volume which encapsulates under-armor other systems; the real problem is inherent to weapons mounts which are entirely too biased towards existing human-portage systems (and thus apt to attract attack simply to gain the use of an M240 or M249). And which further are prone to inducing vibrations through the targeting optics which AGAIN hampers not only single target accuracy but the ability to treat the sensor presentation as a synthetic 'him, him and him' (vs. 'anything in this target box') speed-engagement solution rather than a shot-by-shot replacement.

It doesn't matter if you are looking at a sniper quality shooting platform. What matters is whether, at typical combat ranges, you can qualitively defeat a quantitative target overmatch in time to destroy the threat before taking disabling damage yourself.

CONCLUSION:
If these units are truly going to supplement if not supplant (by virtue of cost and LINK dependency) grunt infantry, they have to be able to snap-engage at least as many targets with at least as much instinctive ease of tactical employment (everybotty knows its job and doesn't have to be tweaked onto targets within its given coverage arc by X many operators).

Or you will find that humans are made MORE vulnerable by the presence of robots which, like tanks, will attract explosive and/or armor piercing fires that the companion troops are even less able to withstand but for which threat forces will become ever more COE focussed on attacking without direct exposure.

Idiots.


KPl.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Hmmm...If wars become "bloodless" in the future, then we will no longer be able use the excuse of "widespread death" to avoid declaring wars in the future. If the cost in human lives is removed from war, then the "world leaders" will simply be free to declare more wars & then this world will never see peace."


[edit on 25-10-2006 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 12:20 AM
link   
I would not say this would make wars bloodless, but bloodless for the people comanding the robots. The robot occupying a city or blasting at who know what could take down many civilians. Considering that the person looks through a black and white camera with dubious quality, they might not be able to idenity between one human shape and another.

Also, seeing that the person is looking through a screen, and detached from the robot, who is to say they could not go berserk and just start shoting things all around. If someone is up close pulling the triger they probably would have more moral qualms then if it seemed to be a video game.



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 02:19 AM
link   
MD,

>>
Hmmm...If wars become "bloodless" in the future, then we will no longer be able use the excuse of "widespread death" to avoid declaring wars in the future. If the cost in human lives is removed from war, then the "world leaders" will simply be free to declare more wars & then this world will never see peace."
>>

Wars are an ego trip by which we deceive ourselves into cheering for or believing ourselves to be the 'great killers' in our society.

The more you remove humanity from that solution (and certainly the LESS YOU HAVE TO PAY to have us on the field) the less it will seem like a humanist blood sport and the more it will seem the alien ugliness that war really is.


KPl.

JP,

>>
I would not say this would make wars bloodless, but bloodless for the people comanding the robots. The robot occupying a city or blasting at who know what could take down many civilians. Considering that the person looks through a black and white camera with dubious quality, they might not be able to idenity between one human shape and another.
>>

Crap. Humans have the best day-color vision of all the animal kingdom, except possibly some birds. At night we have the worst, even given late generation goggles which most soldiers /hate/ because they trade peripheral for conditional tunnel vision. Furthermore, if some /smart amateur/ has a total contempt of engagement with your 'pro' A-team players in leaving an IED in a coke can and you have your foot blown off because 'see it or not doesn't matter if it's one of 100 littering the street you're walking down'

WHO IS THE DUMBASS for playing wolf in Breyr Rabbits Bryar Patch?

A droid that costs around 160 grande (the equivalent of training plus life insurance for every booted muzzle mutt) can be blown to bits, cannibalized and rebuilt. It can serve a hundred years without pay grade or cost of living increases and it will never look at you with eyes that ask 'was it worth it?' as it learns to play ball with it's kid on one leg and a stump.

>>
Also, seeing that the person is looking through a screen, and detached from the robot, who is to say they could not go berserk and just start shoting things all around. If someone is up close pulling the triger they probably would have more moral qualms then if it seemed to be a video game.
>>

THINK about what you just said. Because it is as clear and stupid a case of reverse psychology as you're ever likely to hear. A human who is tired of being sniped at from a window in a mosque he can't enter is likely going to enter that building and kill everyone there when the sniper finally bags his left and right best friends. A man who is 'playing a video game' is never going to feel that attachment to his pet robot (which he may never even see, first hand). And indeed, both because the robot is itself a smaller, harder, target silouhette and becuase it has MAGNIFIED OPTICS he can be trained to take the time to make the 1-shot-1-kill event happen.

Rather than spraying and praying over a berm wall as Vietnam War grunts did in places like Hue and An Loc and Saigon and Khe Sahn.

Indeed, you cap one off into a civillian when no human is at risk and there is a VIDEO RECORD of your deliberate carelessness, you are gonna get exactly what you deserve and your silicon combat cameraman will be the very device which hangs you by the nuts.

Just like you deserve.

I would say that that is more likely to curb the 'berserker impulse' than anything related to false assumptions of combat pressures or 'grainy images'.

It's when _humans_ can cover for each other in relying on a joint fear of punishment that you get instances of failure to report a multiple rape homicide. The slaughter of a family and children 'on their knees at prayer' after an insurgent ambush outside their house. Or the sexual torture and humiliation of inmates at a prison LONG after any intel value they have has expired.

Such is where the real potential for tarnishing the honor of the armed forces lies. And unlike your fantasy fears, these are very real because they have already happened.


KPl.



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 07:59 AM
link   
The main problem I see here is just another step on the trend to "depersonalize" the horrors of war...In current-day warfare, a lot of people just have to push a button to commit mass murder. Introducing warbots into the mix only depersonalizes it more.

With a generation or two of kids growing up on "video wargames" for their computers...People are being "trained" to believe that commiting mass murder is "ok" as long as they don't have to see the horror on the faces of their victims.

Just another step in the political process of "dehumanizing the enemy", it seems, is just a matter of reducing your own soldiers into less-than-human machines that would have no compunctions against killing people.



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Midnight Destroyer,

War has a function. It is to amalgamate resources, ideas and peoples under a common system. Good bad or ugly, it's the same all over the animal kingdom and when you are honest about the 'why' it becomes easier to understand the how.

What happens when you fail to acknowledge that it IS war. When you fail to label a civillian populace as 'enemy' with all the consequences that comes from continuing to exercise non-uniformed resistance against an occupational force.

Then you get into a situation whereby you a policing an insurgency.

And the numbers of you that die vs. them become untenable for the lack of dominance you display in controlling what you initial actions say you have taken.

This alpha-beta psychology reversal is at the root of all failed attempts to 'colonize' small wars by big powers and has little to do with morality and much more in reference with the notion that what you can't hold to the ground and make bleed you shouldn't be allowed to spoil the genes of from back when we had something personal to really fight about.

That said, what hasn't been shown is what happens when a man all fired up on the words of a mullah who will _never see combat_ charges into the sights of a robot and gets splattered like a chump for doing so.

Because even if he pulls the string on that suicide vest, or RPG all's he's done is 'kill' a silicon chip. And I think that a few weeks of doing so would rapidly change the mindset of even the most extreme of muslim fanatic who wishes to get his chance at Paradise will do so if there is uncertainty in the 'quality' as much as _certainty_ of his martyrdom.

>>
The main problem I see here is just another step on the trend to "depersonalize" the horrors of war...In current-day warfare, a lot of people just have to push a button to commit mass murder. Introducing warbots into the mix only depersonalizes it more.
>>

It's very personal when a death machine shoots you in the eye with a BB gun knowing that there will be no miss and no overpenetration.

The reality remains however that a Muslim Suicide Jockey has no idea of the names, lives or cares of those he blows up in a market or busy street.

Tends to take the "Let God Sort'em Out..." interpretation to mean bag the limit.

>>
With a generation or two of kids growing up on "video wargames" for their computers...People are being "trained" to believe that commiting mass murder is "ok" as long as they don't have to see the horror on the faces of their victims.
>>

You want to teach a kid respect for violence, make him eat everything he kills.

Wars would end tomorrow.

We ARE hunters. We have /way/ too many years spent evolutionarily optimizing for that trait (and still do give unwarranted if subliminal emphasis to those who would physically fulfill that role most adeptly) and it's not going to go away.

OTOH, an F-16 cannot police the mean streets, it can only drop 500lb GBU-38s on them. And an F-16 will buy you 168 college graduates or killer robots for that (amazing ain't it?) self same 160,000 dollars you are throwing away on a worthless git who only signed on to be a hero and get some college money to begin with.

>>
Just another step in the political process of "dehumanizing the enemy", it seems, is just a matter of reducing your own soldiers into less-than-human machines that would have no compunctions against killing people.
>>

We dehumanize humanity when we live a lie of a 10 billion person population by 2050 and the assumption that 'there's enough for everyone'. If we wanted to make a working, LASTING, society, we would invent robots that could replace all human labor so that there was literally 'no profit' to be had from our toils and then slash the population to no more than 1 billion, planet wide.

Then everyone could forget the insanity of profiteerism covering for capitalism and democracy would be implicit to the notion of everyone having what they wanted instead of everyone being 'equal under democracy' which is itself a facade of commercialism and consumerism.

Ain't gonna happen though. And do you want to know why? Because we like to express dominance as the sole instinctive assessement of why we should have more than the next guy and the best way to make that happen is to butcher him and hold his three brothers and two sisters hostage to a machine that 'understands' how to kill under our control far more readily than it can ever be taught to build without our intervention.

The potential of militarized robotic UGV in this case is to help keep victory-as-dominance 'definitive' enough so that the value of what is stolen or otherwise 'liberated' is retained rather than spoiled for either the unhappy or the occupier.


KPl.



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   
well i think 100 years down the line it will all be machines (terminator style).

billions are spent on military equipment to save lifes, if technology comes into play to protect a country without putting 'man' or 'woman' in the middle of the battlefield then they will do that.

the thing is though, nations like the US/UK will lose their military advantage over other nations as everything will be more or less the same (i.e.) robot against robot.

some may argue that, the US for example may have the BEST machines (like a PS1 against a PS2).

but it won't work like that, maybe at first it will....but after a while everyone will be on par with each other.

[edit on 29-10-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   
You people are looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope. Military victory is largely a product of national and political will. When AQ beheads people on video they do so out of a desire to sap America of her will to fight.

Robots don't have weepy relatives to appear on TV, pulling out heartstrings
Robots can't be tortured
Robots can't testify before congress about war crimes
Robots won't appear in hospitals with gruesome battle scars
Robots won't recount the terror and horror of war in books or TV talk shows

And on and on...

The one, great weapon that AQ has is a will to fight and commit horrendous act of violence. Robots will greatly defuse that weapon.



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
well i think 100 years down the line it will all be machines (terminator style).

billions are spent on military equipment to save lifes, if technology comes into play to protect a country without putting 'man' or 'woman' in the middle of the battlefield then they will do that.

the thing is though, nations like the US/UK will lose their military advantage over other nations as everything will be more or less the same (i.e.) robot against robot.

some may argue that, the US for example may have the BEST machines (like a PS1 against a PS2).

but it won't work like that, maybe at first it will....but after a while everyone will be on par with each other.

[edit on 29-10-2006 by st3ve_o]


That's a stupid argument. Aircraft have been around for more than 100 years, yet America airpower remains unsurpassed.

Warships have existed for thousands of years, yet could the sum of the rest of the world's navies challenge America's Navy?

[edit on 29-10-2006 by Number23]



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
If anyone was to use a robot army against someone else and vice versa first off we would have a serious problem:
1: Minerals, not enough material to make armies of that size for very long in a real war
2: As someone else said: world leaders would go to war more often and throttle the living daylights out of each other. Parts of the globe would become no mans land where you can find about a mile deep pile of robots that got blown to kingdom come and active ones still roaming around
3: POWER, being able to recharge them in long term battles is hard, so it would be a massive relay system, instead of food it would be batteries going back and forth as well as parts and ammo. You just trade one problem for another
4: Hacking, someone hacks the system and the army goes lone ranger on you then attacks Rambo style and wiped you out.

5: DESPERATION. Leaders would become so desperate to stop others the amount of nuclear weapons in an arsenal would skyrocket out of proportions. People would realize they cant hold out long term and try and take you down with them and blow part of the world up. Then everyone else joins in and backwater Earth becomes a lifeless mass in space reeking of radiation. Poorer nations will go heavy on bio and that would make things even worse.

Theres 5 problems with robot armies, #5 is what would most likely happen, that or a stalemate where no one has enough left in them to fight and humans wind up killing themselves off the slow and painfull way. Sticks and stone fighting here we come.

Robots can be usefull, but the concequences of FIGHTING robots is too grave a matter right now. Humans are still better than machines at doing many things and frankly it should be left that way. Too much reliance on machines will get us all killed.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Number23
That's a stupid argument. Aircraft have been around for more than 100 years, yet America airpower remains unsurpassed.

Warships have existed for thousands of years, yet could the sum of the rest of the world's navies challenge America's Navy?

[edit on 29-10-2006 by Number23]


i think that is maybe a biased statement!

america have only been on top for the last 60 years, i don't know where you 100 from
(infact you could agrue they've only been top for the last 15 after the collapse of the USSR) but in WW2 did they have the best ships/aircraft?
20 years before WW2 america never even had a substantial military!

but if you want to talk about recent,

(yes) aircraft - f-22 (yes america can claim they have the best)
(no) warship - british type45 come into service next year.
(yes) carriers yes, but nations like britain and france have work in progress
(no) tank, challenger2
(yes) equipment, but nations like britain/france/germany have equipment equally as good.
(yes) submarines, but again other nations have things on par and work in progress
(no) training of troops, americas training is piss poor.

SUMMARY - as said america have been on top for the last 60 years, but they have by no means 'dominated' nations are now catching up and i stick to my original statement about robots/unmanned projects.

america have no advantage over other nations ucav designs (neuron, ucavraven/corax) for example.

[edit on 31-10-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Vekar,

>>
If anyone was to use a robot army against someone else and vice versa first off we would have a serious problem:
>>

No. Because robots, at least in the first generation are going to be run by command link and he who can spectrum-dominance deny that owns the battlespace with some very expensive salvage sitting on it. OTOH, getting close and using robots at distances where traditional close combat work (MOUT/FIBUA) would require infantry skills may be the difference between commiting to a fight that needs winning and staying away from an 'unpopular' war. Needless to say, you will still need dominant logistics, targeting and general intel superiority to GET TO the point where these miracle machines debus and that will tend to mean men in the background running the maneuver campaign regardless.


>>
1: Minerals, not enough material to make armies of that size for very long in a real war.
>>

Oh please. A T-800 series Terminator, depending on which reference you use weighs between 440 and 2,000lbs. An M1A2 with all the option extras runs close to 60 tons. Just on /getting thar fustest with the mostest/ a robot wins because you can also DROP all the 'camping gear' while theoretically hefting weapons systems in the 150-200lb range with kill effects similar to that of say a Hellfire or even Maverick rather than a Javelin or a LAW. That you can also run with these for a couple hours at 30-40mph and then engage and withdraw at equivalent speed further implies that you can actually maintain a pace of battle which is harmonious with the overall mechanized effort.
As is, tanks greatest weakness lies in the simple fact that they have to use infantry to dig out entrenched positions and the very act of stopping and generating a covering base of fire to do so takes longer than the enemy requires to detonate mines or fire off a salvo of ATGW and _run_.
Lastly, if a single robot can carry an explosive charge ala suicide bomber into a line of robotic infantry with 'full 6 axis stabilized fires' it MAKES SENSE for it to do so. With the /least/ investment in a throwaway asset. i.e. a 500 dollar Tamiya dune buggy with acoustic and optical motion sensors and a couple pounds of C4 trumps a Terminator if they meet 'coming around a corner'. A hundred of these things beats a platoon of Terminators, head on. And while it may take a 2:1 numerical advantage to beat back the direct fire capabilities, cost wise, you are trading at a 10:1 advantage favoring the cheapo modern day Goliath. So theoretically you can throw a thousand sacrificial units at a company of robotic infantry and still come out having spent less than half the cost.

>>
2: As someone else said: world leaders would go to war more often and throttle the living daylights out of each other. Parts of the globe would become no mans land where you can find about a mile deep pile of robots that got blown to kingdom come and active ones still roaming around.
>>

Drivel. Thanks to Nuremburg which basically equated wars of nationalism with crimes against humanity, nobody wants to go into a hot zone where there 'isn't an exit strategy'. If only because they set a precedent for having /other/ technically advanced nations start to 'peacekeep' as a colonial process.

Why waste BILLIONS of dollars for something you're not going to keep? Particularly when you are already living on a Chinese Food Diet, up to your eyeballs in debt with the enemy able to control the most basic of transportation costs by which your 'service economy' is run?

Wars will become less /visible/ and more apt to be represented as megacorp 'security pacts' with figurehead leadership groups whereby everyone gets a piece of the pie and few actual battles are fought. For those 'aggressive negotitations' which DO occur the nature of the war will be defined by spoiling tactics such that the line between criminal/terrorist activities and those of outright battle will be minimal and most defined at the borders of host nations who support and give safe haven to 'patriotic guerillas' that are themselves penny-ante'd by outside agencies only so long as they serve a larger political or economic function.
You don't send people across borders. But nor do you send robots with a 'made in USA' labeled commlink. You send UAVs and missiles or artillery.

>>
3: POWER, being able to recharge them in long term battles is hard, so it would be a massive relay system, instead of food it would be batteries going back and forth as well as parts and ammo. You just trade one problem for another.
>>

Nope. Not so. The fuel cell is the future of warfighting and the smaller you scale your platform, the more efficient and easy to manufacture the current variety become.

Furthermore, the basics of energy density are pretty well defined so whether you're using a gasoline derivative at 12-15kwh/kg (kilowatt hours per kilogram) or hydroge at around 30-35, you can never really exceed the basic utilization rate per volume, _per ton_, that say that same M1A2 brings to the battle with about 3,360lbs of fuel onboard. The Abrahms, while nominally good for about 265nm is in fact a '2-3hr tank' between tactical topoffs in most conditions of run-stop-run intermittent use at inefficient power settings.

ANY motorcycle can beat thos numbers and I seriously doubt if the robotic warfighters will need more than that.

Indeed, if you go with a miniature RTG 'atomic battery' like the Terminator employs, you can move up to about 2,000kwh/kg (2 MILLION hours) and start to talk about _year long_ deployment intervals between refueling using a pile of say 50-70lbs.

>>
4: Hacking, someone hacks the system and the army goes lone ranger on you then attacks Rambo style and wiped you out.
>>

It's likely that corruption of the outside LINK will simply lead to a 'Revert to standing order 424' RTB in the first generation. After that, robotics will be advanced enough, /cheap enough/, in their target recognition and environmental navigation skills to be largely autonomous. In such a for-grins instance, specific mission orders will come to units distributed across a wide battlefield using high power direction (pseudolite or satellite) relays in ultrawide bandwidth burst encrypts of at most a few seconds that in turn prevent any specific localization to platforms operating in broadcast mode as passive receivers. Once programmed, units will maneuver independently to a key point, coming together only long enough to perform the assault.

In this period they may or may not use intra-unit datalinks but the will be _highly_ guarded bandpipes of much narrower accepted data formats and thus only really suitable for situational awareness updates.

At no point in this process will a robot be subject to 'hacking'.

>>
5: DESPERATION. Leaders would become so desperate to stop others the amount of nuclear weapons in an arsenal would skyrocket out of proportions. People would realize they cant hold out long term and try and take you down with them and blow part of the world up. Then everyone else joins in and backwater Earth becomes a lifeless mass in space reeking of radiation. Poorer nations will go heavy on bio and that would make things even worse.
>>



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   
No. Robots can be defeated like any other weapon by a counterfire that is non-symmetrical and mass-engaging. Mines and Artillery to deny maneuver and particularly target approaches. Automated LOS-Heavy batteries towed into position with very thick frontal armor and the ability to service huge numbers of targets at very high rates in 'boxed fires'. And of course the opposite end of the spectrum: Lightweights which drop intelligent topattack or in fact dive down if not drive up and to self destruct.

The nature of infantry warfare is just complex and dense in it's obstacles and hazards that the creation of robots will only mean the alienation of humans completely from the battlefield. It may be /hoped/ that, without a direct impetus towards propogandized psychologies of dominance and vendetta, wars will become less and less 'interesting' because they drain the taxpayers wallet without allowing them the spectators voyeuristic ability to displace their personality onto another's face.

In any case, while robotics promises the viability of suicide tactics as a method to leveral an alinear battlefield by /either side/ (a gift from Al Quaeda as much as a predestination of the Terminator) the fact remains that they are neither better nor worse than a main battle tank or jet aeroplane in terms of lethality and ease of disablement or destruction on the battlefield itself. The only thing they really provide is cheapness and a slightly smaller signature within a package that combines the best traits of the tank, the soldier and the remote sensor in one. Cost will rise as sophistication does and the need to ship them to a given location will still require that 'the rich defend the poor from the barbarian' (before staying indefinitely exploiting resources to pay back the 'good cause' effort).

>>
Theres 5 problems with robot armies, #5 is what would most likely happen, that or a stalemate where no one has enough left in them to fight and humans wind up killing themselves off the slow and painfull way. Sticks and stone fighting here we come.
>>

The simple fact of the matter is that if you want to control politics, you control perceptions. Whether those be of privelege, security or economic wealth depends on the moment. If you want to control economics, you control commerce and specifically transport and communications.

Comms will be fought in outer space. Global Distances will not magically shorten for loads heavy enough to insert let alone sustain a warfighter (we still have the two best water barriers on the planet). And the ultimate definition of robotics as a statement in 'business as war as much as of it' will be to replace human laborers so that the suddenly megawealthy conglomerates of the east with their antlike hordes of population will be defeated, not on the battlefield. But in the factory (by even cheaper humanoid robots adept at multiple tasks and biometrically conforming to our former work areas). And in the classroom (where a smaller minority of lazy but well fed and well stimulated Western societies will continue to bear the brunt of innovation through new classes of automated wetware augmentation inserts as the 'robots in your head').

>>
Robots can be usefull, but the concequences of FIGHTING robots is too grave a matter right now. Humans are still better than machines at doing many things and frankly it should be left that way. Too much reliance on machines will get us all killed.
>>

No. The consequences of developing an effective automated warfighter doctrine and force structure NOW is the least that it will ever be because only a few select countries can engineer the LINKS and precision mechanics which let _miniaturized_ platforms perform more efficiently than conventionally scaled vehicles and weapons systems. Either we establish dominance now and simply 'never give up the lead'. Or we face the inevitability that our worthless legions will drive us to the poorhouse until corruption and economic downfall mean that we can no longer afford them. OR their replacements.

In the science of military engineering as with sleddog racing, if you ain't the lead mutt, your view of someone else's butt walking away from you never changes.

The difference is that we may never fight China. They have learned the lessons of the Germans and the Russians well enough never to make us their Dorsai.

But if we don't defeat them on the battlefield and rape their resources of all that we need, we cannot justify an armed forces which /could/ do so, if they ever give us justification.

Thus robots have two overwhelming plusses on their side: Cheap (one induction, no retention/retraining/rank advancement process among -many- other leverages). And the fact that what we build to kill today, can _build_ tomorrow. In a way that finally frees us from the Capitalism myth that everyone must continually keep crafting new areas of relevant work so that the profits of labor and commerce for it's own sake may keep the system going.

'The System' of resource consumptive madness is what will drive us to warfare like none seen before. For food. For oil. For clean water. For suitable climate. For living room. And for simple envy of what we have and others do not. Replace the labor portion of the population with a 'one child per household' rule of rapid population desaturation, and we may yet achieve a habitable (



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I didn't think about that CH, everything would be recoreded so that would have a deterent to the whole murder rape thing, if everything was recorded.

Especialy rape if someone was some rolling robot, how are you suposed to have sex or at least realy feel for it or want it if you are a robot.

Though that would be assuming that the athoratys monitoring or above the soliders would punish them for said actions, and not cover them up.

Robot soliders would not fix all problems. Iraq still is a costly ($$) mess (full of secitarian violence, often targeting other Iraqies).

and if US troops were robots doing the same duities that current US ground troops do it still would have most of the problems of the current conflict.

But... with robot footsoliders filling roles then loss of life for americans would be significantly lower.

Though wars would still be costly for money and resorces, more so because even if you have a robot soilder you need to pay the payroll of the guy manning it who wants some money for collage (tech support, technictions) same amount of man power needed if not more, and at considerably higher cost paying for the robot and any other junk needed for it.

Robots (new ones, some have been used though not on the ground with guns and moving) could be a improvement, but are just another weapon. War never changes, people fight it with ever changing tools, from a stone axe, to today with a robot.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Working with machines all day, the machines I keep seeing that are supposed to be the "Fighting force of tomorrow"... these things are laughingly simple, basic systems.

If you worked with robotics as much as I do, when you watch those video's of the "Next best technology" you would kick yourself laughing, then ask...
"Okay, that was funny, now, seriously, where's the real ones?"

I'm not joking in the slightest, those systems you are seeing on T.V shows are like, 20 year old technology. I can't believe they are passing them off as current tech... and if they are, who are the lazy sons-of-b**ches who designed them, I want their jobs!

Those machines we've seen so far are nothing more than your run-of-the-mill bomb disposer, with a gun strapped on... hell, I'd build those on minimum wage, it's easy.

Now, if they had some form of gyro stabalization on the cannon mount to stop that rediculous vibration we keep seeing in the videos, then I'd start taking them a little more serious. Even that is easy to do.

It allways looks like they didnt bother to design and machine their own parts for efficient use of space... instead they just took a bunch of things sitting around the parking lot at the armory and strapped them together...

SERIOUSLY, YOU ARE OVERPAYING THOSE ENGINEERS!!! FIRE THEM, AND HIRE REAL ONES!!! I'LL DO IT FOR HALF THE PAY!



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   
the robots will come and they will take all the jobs theyll be better soldiers better fighters better doctors theyll make all human life obsolute but if they get too rowdy just turn them off by their switch on their bodylol



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join