posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 07:40 AM
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
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
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.