Good thread idea! Now based on hostile future robots: Some of these ideas are good, but if it is the ultimate robot it would have defense mechanisims against these attacks.
I thought of tricking it to fall into a hole, with a fake person as bait hanging above it, but if they have radar, and heat seeking, they would be able to detect something strange, and avoid it.
Putting the robot in water is a good idea, unless its waterproof, and electrifing it is good, unless they have a outer shell to protect it from elctricity, and electromagnets.
I guess the best way would be to talk to the guy who programmed the robots, he would know the weaknesses, and flaws. Mabey a robot seeking hand held grenade launcher.
My best idea is to have the robot get into and elevator and cut the cord and let him fall all the way down below the ground, and blow up above the robot, so he gets squished with rubble. Then start it on fire, and set up land mines all around the area just in cast it comes back.

5 practicle ways:

1.Thermite
2.Gelled fuel bomb
3.destroy any outer electronics to disable(using a gun)
4.kill the operator
5. IED



Current robots have a gun and grenades, so have fun trying to firebomb/thermite it. They are also a better shot than you. An IED is the only sane way if you want to live.

[edit on 29-11-2008 by LordBaskettIV]

How about a

Paint ball gun to the camera eyes? Wait... are they wearing goggles?
Better yet, camouflage



[edit on 29-11-2008 by ATS4dummies]

Saltwater time to learn how to surf people Saltwater does wonders to circuitry!!!!!!!!!!!

A magnet the size of a small car, a few hunderd feet of chain, a nearby locomotive, a giant ACME slingshot and a cartoon roadrunner.
Yep, I've got a great idea.

That sounds like a perfect ending, with a great opening for a sequel. Brilliant!

Guns work just fine. Just because machines aren't alive doesn't mean shooting them won't break them. Shock alone damages electronics pretty badly. A flamethrower would also work fine against a robot; electronics don't like to run hot. Assuming the robot is sealed fairly well, concussive blasts WON'T as work well on a robot. Depending on how well armored the robot is, shrapnel from fragmentation explosives can go from very effective to completely ineffective.

It all depends on the structure of the robot, really. If it was built just like a tank, then only weapons that can hurt a tank will hurt it. If it's built without armor, or with armor over only the most essential components to save weight (like modern day combat robots), then you can damage it with small arms.

Robots are just complicated, expensive machines; there's nothing that makes the inherently better at absorbing damage than humans. There is certainly the potential for that, yes, but resilience comes at a price in weight and money.

If they where built too tough to knock out with conventional weapons id say out smart them.
1- computers will probably always suck at analysing complicated terrain.
2- if it looks human it must be human, blow them up with blow up dolls
3- if its a army of robots they will probably communicate with wireless systems we should be able to intercept, decode and send our own commands or viruses - computer geeks to the rescue.
4- build billions of cut out Bush posters and let them waste their ammo on the cut outs.
5- destroy the worlds atmosphere with a series of nukes so that they cannot use solar energy and will have to rely on human bodies to generate electricity. . . . . unless they figure out the nuclear power could be better and that the nukes would do more damage to living things on earth than robotic

Read through this thread again.

Notice how EVERY SINGLE TIME someone makes a legitimate suggestion on how to make a practical EMP gun, or a legitimate defense against robots, someone follows with a joke? (albeit, some quite funny)

They are trying to get you to believe that making an emp gun is just as implausible as making two swinging logs crush a walker from the Empire Strikes Back. Why is that?

Some of the suggestions on here are real, and actually workable. (Thermite, for example).

Thermite only works when it's in contact with the thing you're trying to melt. I guess it's a fine option if the robots let you just run up to them and put bombs on them, or on top of them, but there's a reason nobody uses thermite grenades as their preferred anti-tank weapon, even if it'd penetrate just fine.

I'd imagine that combat robots will generally be smaller than most AFVs, and many will probably be smaller than a person. I think you'd have a hard time throwing a thermite charge so it lands on a person in a way that it will stay in place, so it follows that it could be just as difficult to stick one onto a small robot.

Furthermore, I'd really think that military grade robots would be shielded against EMP, just like military vehicles and aircraft. EMP would certainly short out radars, radios, and anything else that needs an antenna to function, but the main electrical components would probably be kept in a grounded Faraday cage arrangement. Detonating an EMP blast around a robot would probably just prevent it from receiving new orders, and damage all the civilian electronics in the range of the blast.

The effectiveness of an EMP blast would therefore depend greatly on it's strength and the level of autonomy of the robot. Using one on any combat robot in use today would put it out of action. But that's because modern combat robots are fully controlled by telepresence.

A concentrated Napalm mixture more tar like then liquid.
Even if its heavily armored the heat will fry the circuits.

automus Robots contain circuitry, eletronic circuitry - hum, Microwave aimed at circuit boards would cause it to mal function. Glue - sticky based product - would put the robot out of it programing parameters, it would need to see, laser blindible.. ? photo flash causes graphic error - reboot the bot.... ??? tons of things could be deployed against a mechanical foe.