Automated War Robots

[Zor]

Robots beyond mere guided missiles have as of late been playing a bigger role in warfare as of late, UAVs, Explosive disposal units, remote controlled sentry guns, land based probes and mobile remote controlled gun platforms are seeing there trial by fire and the general consenus on the board and in the military comunity is that they will continue to play a bigger role on the battlefield. However, these machines still remain mindless dumb terminals that require human instruction, which while is the only practical way of working them as of now is a fact that most likely will change with advances in computers and AI. The question that has arrisen is will we go to the next level with automated robots capable of fuctioning independantly to a greater degree? While some fear a terminator style nightmare scenario, this could save lives and drastically reduce the number of people sent home in body bags. They also need not be given full sapience to engage in combat. Is it practical to begin research into automated war robots?

Zor

[Admiral Valdemar]

Since the military will be doing that regardless, I don't think there's an issue. A machine that is totally obedient, never tires, is more accurate and powerful than a human among other things will be the Holy Grail of any army. They may cost more to start off with, but economies of scale applies to robots; just try that with human beings.

They won't replace men, of course, though anything that reduces body bags in warfare and enables a clearer, more effective win is a bonus no one is going to pass up. Warfare is already so automated today, just less so with regards to troops on the ground where machines will find it harder to work unlike a UAV or remote sub.

[Enforcer Talen]

War AIs make me very nervous - but I love making use of remote platforms.

Anything that keeps me away from getting exploded, neh?

[darthbob88]

While I am reluctant as regards independent AIs, I'm all in favor of keeping people away from the fight, and would happily advocate the use of remote platforms. Besides which, would it not be possible to have one person controlling multiple robots simultaneously, giving one man the firepower associated with a squad of men?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

It is hard enough to design an automated vehicle to run across the desert, let alone a walker. The first DARPA Grand Challenge was a complete flop with no one winning, whereas the second one had 3 vehicles finishing.

Now there's the DARPA Urban Challenge, which is probably going to be much harder.

[wolveraptor]

I don't believe infantry will ever be completely removed from combat, especially in situations like the one in Iraq, where house-by-house searches and combat in rough terrain are a staple. Until machines effectively escape the confines of wheels (which is looking pretty difficult) and traverse the same terrain we do, there'll always be men on the front lines, albeit in lower numbers.

[Enforcer Talen]

I don't believe infantry will ever be completely removed from combat, especially in situations like the one in Iraq, where house-by-house searches and combat in rough terrain are a staple. Until machines effectively escape the confines of wheels (which is looking pretty difficult) and traverse the same terrain we do, there'll always be men on the front lines, albeit in lower numbers.

Certainly - but they *are* nice to deal with IEDs

[Elaro]

In the year 2018...

Army Recruiter: So, you're a FPS player?

Gamer: Yeah...

AR: Excellent. Here's your remote terminal. You'll be controlling an infantry bot now serving on a peacekeeping mission in Darfur. Mission starts in 18 minutes. Do your country proud, son.

Gamer: Uhh, don't I have to go overseas?

AR: Naw, with the WiFi relays set up in 2015, we don't have to send our operators anywhere. *Leaves*

/End story

Wouldn't that be cool? Eh? EH?

[Cthulhuvong]

The desensitization of true war. That would be horrible.

Remote is ok. Not good, but ok. It keeps the soldier off the front, out of danger, but still desensitizes them to the reality of the situation.

Automated cannot be made to distinguish between a threat and a civilian (this is the problem the South Koreans are going to have with their automated defenses). Once it can recognize a gun and learn the difference between threat and civy, it then has to learn to recognize the difference between a real gun and a toy gun, in real time before getting its multi-billion dollar ass destroyed.

[wolveraptor]

Besides, wouldn't it be all too easy to jam the signals used to control the robots from afar?

[FSTargetDrone]

The desensitization of true war. That would be horrible.

Remote is ok. Not good, but ok. It keeps the soldier off the front, out of danger, but still desensitizes them to the reality of the situation.

Automated cannot be made to distinguish between a threat and a civilian (this is the problem the South Koreans are going to have with their automated defenses). Once it can recognize a gun and learn the difference between threat and civy, it then has to learn to recognize the difference between a real gun and a toy gun, in real time before getting its multi-billion dollar ass destroyed.

Makes it easier for the chicken hawks to start a war too, maybe?

Just a thought...

[Dennis Toy]

I like the idea of automated robot fighting machines

On one hand, it would save lives and cost less to maintain than the medical and life cost of humans. It could be sent to dangerous situations and to hostile environments.

The disadvantage is that as people say in here, it would not be able to distinguish between civilian and enemy. Humans will be needed to do so and keep fatal mistakes from happening.

[The Grim Squeaker]

The desensitization of true war. That would be horrible.

Tell me, why do you think that Firing ranges have human outprints on them, with codenames "the Enemy", "Johnny", "Viet", "Nazis", "Ratzis" "Commie" used in military parlor instead of words such as "Men", or names?
Or why Pilots (OR Artillery even) have far, far less "Shell shock" than ground troops, despite causing far more damage and deaths? (Due to not seeing their impact in a "personal" way but from a distance and in the abstract)
Desensitization is a major tool of military training, you want your troops to do their training when under stress, not to start empathizing with the enemy.
Killing face to face is not that easy for most humans.

The disadvantage is that as people say in here, it would not be able to distinguish between civilian and enemy. Humans will be needed to do so and keep fatal mistakes from happening.

Of course, in a non holding/guerilla war situation the machine does not suffer from that major liability .(The start of the Second Iraqi war, the first Iraq war, German blitzkriegs through armies, attacking opposing army forces and not rebel fighters in your own/their own territory)

[slebetman]

The desensitization of true war. That would be horrible.

Tell me, why do you think that Firing ranges have human outprints on them, with codenames "the Enemy", "Johnny", "Viet", "Nazis", "Ratzis" "Commie" used in military parlor instead of words such as "Men", or names?
Or why Pilots (OR Artillery even) have far, far less "Shell shock" than ground troops, despite causing far more damage and deaths? (Due to not seeing their impact in a "personal" way but from a distance and in the abstract)
Desensitization is a major tool of military training, you want your troops to do their training when under stress, not to start empathizing with the enemy.
Killing face to face is not that easy for most humans.

Desensitisation is of course required in military training in order to produce functioning soldiers. But it doesn't mean that further desensitisation by removing eyeballs from the front line is necessarily a good thing. Every time that happens the death toll rises. Remember the cold war? At the height of MAD madness, when wars are won or lost by men hiding in underground bunkers pushing red buttons, military strategists invented the term "overkill".

[Stark]

And remember, remote-controlling a robot is going to be exactly like WASD FPS. What complexity?

[Admiral Valdemar]

I think we'll try and avoid the army Michael Gambon was making for kids to command in Toys.

[The Grim Squeaker]

I think we'll try and avoid the army Michael Gambon was making for kids to command in Toys.

So there is someone else apart from me who saw that movie .

And remember, remote-controlling a robot is going to be exactly like WASD FPS. What complexity?

True mate .
Still I have to wonder just how different a UAV would be, since the field is 3d as is and allready involves avoiding projectiles - There would be the problems of jammed communications, identifying civilians properly, Lag & increased Wind sheer, but what other obstacles am I forgetting before Pilots are finally made obselete? (I have a friend of my Dad's friend who's job is piloting UAV's, currently it ranks below fighter Jocks, but give it a few years and more G acceleration )