© 2005 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/robots-in-combat/
This article is marked as 'retired'. The information here may be out of date, incomplete, and/or incorrect.
Officials in Seoul, Korea have recently earmarked the equivalent of $32.4 million dollars to develop a next-generation robot for use in combat situations. These insect-like automatons are intended to be bristling with weapons, and will fight alongside humans soldiers either under remote control, or guided by their built-in artificial intelligence. What this means is that if these robots become a reality, their software will be entrusted with life-or-death decisions on the battlefield.
Although South Korea’s will be the first armed combat robots to be operated by artificial intelligence, they won’t be the first to carry weapons. Weaponized flying drones, also called Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), have been used by the United States military since the U.S. Air Force fitted their RQ-1 Predator drones with Hellfire air-to-ground missiles in 1995. Nowadays, armed UAVs are common, including some with laser-guided weapons such as the Viper Strike. But these drones will not fire without an explicit order from a human controller… for now.
The robotics company iRobot, famous for their Roomba automated vacuum cleaner, develops a number of Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) for the U.S., such as their PackBot Explorer which can explore dangerous areas without risking soldiers’ lives. They also have robots designed to tote heavy loads in combat situations, such as ammunition and support equipment. For these purposes, robots are perfectly suited, and have proven invaluable in recent combat situations.
Earlier this year, the U.S. put some of their new armed Talon robots into duty. These twin-tread remote-controlled robots can carry any one of a number of weapons, including the M16, 50-caliber machine guns, or the M202-A1 with a 6mm rocket launcher. Such robots can also be fitted with “disruptor” guns that can disable enemy bombs and mines. A remote operator uses a twin-joystick interface to guide the robot and its weapons from up to a kilometer away, depending on terrain. Technology like this makes one wonder if basement-dwelling computer gamers will become a military force to be reckoned with in the coming years.
From the Wired article:
“This opens up great vistas, some quite pleasant, others quite nightmarish. On the one hand, this could make our flesh-and-blood soldiers so hard to get to that traditional war — a match of relatively evenly matched peers — could become a thing of the past,” he said. “But this might also rob us of our humanity. We could be the ones that wind up looking like Terminators, in the world’s eyes.”
Also on the military robot horizon is the Robotic Extraction Vehicle (or “REV” to the Acronym-Loving U.S. Military (ALUSM)). This armored, self-navigating ambulance is being developed to carry wounded soldiers from the battlefield to field hospitals in record time. No doubt this will act as a stop-gap until a self-navigating robot repair truck can be developed to maintain armies of artificially-intelligent robot soldiers in the field, after which point the expensive and fragile human soldiers can be phased out.
So far, these wireless robots have only seen action against relatively low-tech enemies, but it makes one wonder what might happen should the need arise to battle a foe who has the technological resources and know-how to turn these robots on their masters. Should the signal’s encryption be broken, a compliment of armed, remote-controlled robots inside a defended area could quickly become a dangerous liability under the control of an enemy.
One thing is certain… few events push the envelope of technology as effectively as war. I will refrain from commenting on the bleakness of that remark.
Korea Times article
Wired article
Military.com article
© 2005 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/robots-in-combat/
Since you enjoyed our work enough to print it out, and read it clear to the end, would you consider donating a few dollars at https://www.damninteresting.com/donate ?
“6mm rocket launcher” is a typo?
lol. I didn’t notice that.
Thats a pretty small rocket launcher.
Better brush up on my Halo skills, might be able to win a pension.
Be sure not to miss Big Dog by Boston Dynamics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww&feature=related
This is a terrible idea. The loss of human life is the greatest deterrence to war as we know it today. With robotic soldiers it would be possible, perhaps even probable, to have a completely war-driven economy, where it doesn’t matter who you’re fighting as long as you are. It would be like Orwell’s 1984 where nobody even knows who is fighting who anymore. NO war is the answer, not robotic war.
OOOOOO-kay Pollyanna. In case you have never pulled your head out of the sand, the threat or fact of people dying by the hundreds/ thousands/ millions has never NEVER ever prevented a war. Wars are started by politics and, more basically, human greed. You have what I want. You won’t give me what I want. So, I will come and take what I want.
A little military history. Back in the days when battles were fought by so called civilized rules. Armies, a few hundred to a thousand or so, would line up on opposite sides of a field, and in a structured, stylized fashion, slaughter each other. The key being each other. However, there were always special units, most often disguised, on each side that would target non-combatants. It was a way to gain a tactical advantage. Wipe out the other guy’s village. Cutoff his supplies and sanctuary. Demoralize your enemy.
As technology progressed, almost all major leaps have been accomplished during war time, the size of the armies grew. Atrocities increased in proportion to the size of the army committing them. Defensive technology increased to prevent wholesale slaughter. Offensive tech increase to offset the defensive. The whole time humans were killing humans. First, by the hundreds. Then the thousands.
Up till now I have been referring to European and Asian combat that evolved from the first human city/ state enclaves thru the Middle Ages up to the beginnings of Man’s conquest of the New World.
Enter the North American Colonists. When the Colonist arrived, black powder tech was the state of the art. Armies in Europe/ Asia still lined up, fired volley after volley at one another with their muskets, exchanging cannon fire, until someone blew the charge, then both sides would run at each other with bayonets and sabers. We’re havin’ some fun now! Civilized, HUH?
Now on the North American continent, there was an indigenous species of Homo-sapien. Maybe you have heard of them…….Indians. The Indians were a basically a bunch of tree huggers, living off of the land. They didn’t grow up with the European model. However, territorial disputes and jealousies. Basic greed again, arose from time to time between tribes. These were most often settled in the old fashioned, time honored means of bashing the crap out of your rival. The Native Americans also improved on their technologies greatly during times of strife and conflict. One of their most successful contributions to the art of warfare was the advent of guerilla tactics, which they had perfect over millennia, as they had never learned how to stand in rows and columns and die by the numbers. The Colonists learned this new fangled strategy during the French and Indian War, and through numerous small engagements in and around that conflict. Oh, how I love run on sentences, but I digress….
The British are coming. The armies of jolly ol’ England, not having had the benefit of first hand battle against the Indians, knew nothing of Irregular Formations and Tactics, i.e. Guerilla Warfare. They came, They saw, WE KICKED THEIR butts. They, the British, complained and whined, and in the end, because they wouldn’t adapt, capitulated. The British are running.
An interesting side note regarding technology improvements on the battle field and whining about them. In WW I, the British were the first to use tanks in battle to support the infantry stuck in the trenches, enabling the grunts to advance and take and hold ground. Ending the years-long stalemate that had decimated both sides in a war of attrition, gaining neither side so much as an inch of territory in that time. The Germans complained and whined, and in the end, adapted and made their own tanks, and felt so good about it, that in the sequel, WW II, the Germans introduced the French and Polish to the Blitzkrieg. Yes, I am quite aware that I could have added a few more “.” in for grammatical effect, you know- Shock and Comma!!!!!
Enter the First War of Communist Aggression, Korea. Both sides with an almost even combat footing in terms of strength. North Korea/ China- a whole lot o’ dudes with guns. South Korea/ U.N. (read U.S.A. and Friends) – not so many dudes but way cooler guns. GO JOE!!!
Result- Stalemate unbroken to this day ( http://www.vetshome.com/korean_cease_fire.htm )
Hmmmmmm, Equality of Strength = Unending conflict. Oh, by the way, I’ve been THERE/ DONE that. US ARMY ’87 to ‘93 including a tour of DUTY on the DMZ in Korea. What have you done, Pollyanna?
Anyway.
Where was I?
Oh, yeah.
Now, the US is stuck fight the modern version of a “civilized” war in two countries against the modern version of a guerilla army. Now I will freely admit that we should never have involved ourselves in Iraq. Any one who voted for W the first time and was surprised we invaded Iraq, is a moron. Why is it a Moron, wouldn’t you want less of them? W is the reason I and a lot of other prior service didn’t go running back to re-up after 9/11. That and we are pushing “Old Fart” status. Even if September 11, 1991 hadn’t happened Good O’ George would have found a way to finish what Daddy started. No Thanks! By the way, I am also Republican.
Now by using Pollyanna’s logic that robotic combatants are a “terrible idea”, and that there must be another “answer” for war, you give the Terrorists an advantage that helps them to compensate for our technological and numerical superiority. Thus you have what we essentially have in Iraq right now, a tie game. Now I use the word terrorists for a reason. We are not fighting another crusade. We are doing battle with a network of gangs comprised of thugs, murderers, thieves, drug runners, and cowards. They are led by a cadre of psychopathic fanatics for whom the appearance for religious fervor is only a means to gain control over the masses and insure their own personal power base. These “men” are in turn controlled by a few psychopathic mass serial killers who could care less what God wants, as long as they get what they want. It is called greed, people, injected with pseudo religious politics. Now we could have and can now turn our backs. Let them have their way. We would decline as a superpower; some other country (ies) would ascend to that lofty position, thus giving the terrorists a new target(s). The bloodshed would continue, probably getting worse. Technologies would grow more destructive. Atrocities would grow more horrific.
Since we are there now, and since the birth of our country, America has been defined as the Defender of Freedom, Self-Determination, and the right to the Self-Expression that Silvervox has exercised here, we might as well use every available tool we can to limit the enemy’s ability to conduct operations, to limit civilian casualties, and save our soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines lives.
As much as I disagree with President Bush, I’ll take him over a Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam, or Bin Laden anytime. Until “Countries beat their swords into plowshares”, we will need every advantage we can get. And if the Pollyannas don’t like THAT, then I guess maybe they could always move some where more peaceful, like the Sudan or Rwanda. I hear that China is a hotbed of liberalism and human dignity………
By the way, I appologize for any spelling and grammer mistakes, they are in there. Apparently, MS Word Spell Check can not overcome an all consuming indignant rant…..
Oh yeah, …… Jellyfish!
DI article. Nonsequitor makes a powerful point….from someone who has obviously been there. I’m an idealist. I wish we could all put the weapons down. But even in my own neighborhood I see selfishness and greed…this from people who profess to believe in unselfishness and service.
Until we are all unselfish…war will be inevitable.
Just a note: artificial intelligence isn’t something we need to worry about we can’t even produce real intelligence yet. Artificial stupidity might be a better phrase to use, and that is something to worry about.