Quantcast

Robo GI

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
"I'll be bach..."

A New Model Army Soldier Rolls Closer to the Battlefield
TIM WEINER | February 16, 2005

The American military is working on a new generation of soldiers, far different from the army it has.

"They don't get hungry," said Gordon Johnson of the Joint Forces Command at the Pentagon. "They're not afraid. They don't forget their orders. They don't care if the guy next to them has just been shot. Will they do a better job than humans? Yes."

The robot soldier is coming.

The Pentagon predicts that robots will be a major fighting force in the American military in less than a decade, hunting and killing enemies in combat. Robots are a crucial part of the Army's effort to rebuild itself as a 21st-century fighting force, and a $127 billion project called Future Combat Systems is the biggest military contract in American history.

The military plans to invest tens of billions of dollars in automated armed forces. The costs of that transformation will help drive the Defense Department's budget up almost 20 percent, from a requested $419.3 billion for next year to $502.3 billion in 2010, excluding the costs of war. The annual costs of buying new weapons is scheduled to rise 52 percent, from $78 billion to $118.6 billion.

Military planners say robot soldiers will think, see and react increasingly like humans. In the beginning, they will be remote-controlled, looking and acting like lethal toy trucks. As the technology develops, they may take many shapes. And as their intelligence grows, so will their autonomy.

The robot soldier has been a dream at the Pentagon for 30 years. And some involved in the work say it may take at least 30 more years to realize in full. Well before then, they say, the military will have to answer tough questions if it intends to trust robots with the responsibility of distinguishing friend from foe, combatant from bystander.

Even the strongest advocates of automatons say war will always be a human endeavor, with death and disaster. And supporters like Robert Finkelstein, president of Robotic Technology in Potomac, Md., are telling the Pentagon it could take until 2035 to develop a robot that looks, thinks and fights like a soldier. The Pentagon's "goal is there," he said, "but the path is not totally clear."

Robots in battle, as envisioned by their builders, may look and move like humans or hummingbirds, tractors or tanks, cockroaches or crickets. With the development of nanotechnology - the science of very small structures - they may become swarms of "smart dust." The Pentagon intends for robots to haul munitions, gather intelligence, search buildings or blow them up.

All these are in the works, but not yet in battle. Already, however, several hundred robots are digging up roadside bombs in Iraq, scouring caves in Afghanistan and serving as armed sentries at weapons depots.

By April, an armed version of the bomb-disposal robot will be in Baghdad, capable of firing 1,000 rounds a minute. Though controlled by a soldier with a laptop, the robot will be the first thinking machine of its kind to take up a front-line infantry position, ready to kill enemies.

"The real world is not Hollywood," said Rodney A. Brooks, director of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at M.I.T. and a co-founder of the iRobot Corporation. "Right now we have the first few robots that are actually useful to the military."

Despite the obstacles, Congress ordered in 2000 that a third of the ground vehicles and a third of deep-strike aircraft in the military must become robotic within a decade. If that mandate is to be met, the United States will spend many billions of dollars on military robots by 2010.

As the first lethal robots head for Iraq, the role of the robot soldier as a killing machine has barely been debated. The history of warfare suggests that every new technological leap - the longbow, the tank, the atomic bomb - outraces the strategy and doctrine to control it.

"The lawyers tell me there are no prohibitions against robots making life-or-death decisions," said Mr. Johnson, who leads robotics efforts at the Joint Forces Command research center in Suffolk, Va. "I have been asked what happens if the robot destroys a school bus rather than a tank parked nearby. We will not entrust a robot with that decision until we are confident they can make it."

Trusting robots with potentially lethal decision-making may require a leap of faith in technology not everyone is ready to make. Bill Joy, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems, has worried aloud that 21st-century robotics and nanotechnology may become "so powerful that they can spawn whole new classes of accidents and abuses."
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,015
3
Between a rock and a hard place.

jaydee

Monkey
Jul 5, 2001
794
0
Victoria BC
Maybe the Enemy of the Day will also have robogrunts, and all the real people can stay home and watch TV while all the generals play with their robots and just tell us who won the game, uhhhhhh.... I mean the war. For maximum efficiency we'd really only need one general and one robot on each side. And the general could be a 12 year old kid. For absolute maximum efficiency it could just be a video game. Dubya could easily declare war on everyone on the planet and fight them all at once to get it over with.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
26
SF, CA
genpowell71 said:
NEWSFLASH!!!

They've been trying to make an exo-skeleton for about the last 6 years.
And you expect the development cycle to be, uh, 6 weeks?

These things take time.

If I had to guess, based on current electric motors and power sources, I would say that we're still a good 15 years off on that one. But based on what I've seen in robotics, I'd say we could see self-contained droids in the field in as little as 5 years in support (non-attack) roles... though of course 10 is more likely.
 
I never gave a time frame for fielding of the exo-skeleton. My honest opinion is that the technology isnt available at this point in time. Besides, if they made them it would only mean that the commanders would make up more things to carry and then the skeletons would break. So are they feasible? Not really at this time
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,015
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
jaydee said:
Maybe the Enemy of the Day will also have robogrunts, and all the real people can stay home and watch TV while all the generals play with their robots and just tell us who won the game, uhhhhhh.... I mean the war. For maximum efficiency we'd really only need one general and one robot on each side. And the general could be a 12 year old kid. For absolute maximum efficiency it could just be a video game. Dubya could easily declare war on everyone on the planet and fight them all at once to get it over with.

I have this figured out. We settle all future military conflict with Rock-em Sock-em Robots


and battleship
 

jaydee

Monkey
Jul 5, 2001
794
0
Victoria BC
Damn True said:
I have this figured out. We settle all future military conflict with Rock-em Sock-em Robots


and battleship
Exactly! Just think how many trillions of dollars the US could save if they bought those instead of M-1 Abrams tanks. I guess General Dynamics would be a bit PO'd though. Not much profit to be made refurbishing Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots.
 

-BB-

I broke all the rules, but somehow still became mo
Sep 6, 2001
4,254
28
Livin it up in the O.C.
Damn True said:
Dont be so sure

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/talon.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3661

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,65885,00.html

...and I can't find the article but I read about a semi-robotic exo-suit that a UC Berkeley group is developing that will allow a soldier to carry 3x his own weight and march w/o any more physical strain than if he were carrying no more than his own clothing.

Dang True... This robot looks almost HUMAN!!
 

-BB-

I broke all the rules, but somehow still became mo
Sep 6, 2001
4,254
28
Livin it up in the O.C.
With these things, don't you have to worry about a bunch of kids hacking into your system and taking over your "army".


Also, wouldn't you also want to develpe EMP devices in case the "other side" has these?
 

Zark

Hey little girl, do you want some candy?
Oct 18, 2001
6,254
7
Reno 911
I take it Asimov's 3 laws were ignored for these abominations.

Better freshen up on my bianary before our new shiny robot overlords take power....
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
56,406
22,488
Sleazattle
Instead of building automated soldiers I think it would be cheaper to outsource them from developing third world countries.