NationStates Jolt Archive

First, a few links:
http://www.darpa.mil/j-ucas/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/ugv.htm

There was a thread a few days back about the future of US infantry - and I thought that something was missed. Yes, we're making the human infantryman more lethal and survivable, but we're also going in another direction entirely.

Robots are already in use in Afghanistan and Iraq, in the air and on the ground. Some are completely autonomous (there's a "follower" robot that will follow a man around, carrying his extra gear in Afghanistan now). Some are remotely operated vehicles (including some that are armed in Iraq).

The advantages of robots should be quite obvious -
1. Protesters won't be able to call for the President to "call our troops home". Well, they could, but no ony has any sympathy for a robot. Of course, that also means that those yellow ribbons may eventually go out of fashion, unless you sent your automated vacuum cleaner to the next conflict.
2. Insurgents would have no humans to fight. Imagine being overrun by implacable US robots. Imagine trying to piece together the wreckage of a US robot (that took quite a few of you with it) so that you can demand ransom on al-Jazeera.

You see where this is going.
STAR 21 - Strategic Technologies for the Army of the 21st Century describes a project named "Arnold" (no, I'm not making this up - you can buy the PDF).

It describes Project #48, Arnold, as "an unmanned ground vehicle package with sufficient artificial intelligence in conjunction with advanced optical and acoustical technology to recognize targets and acquire and deliver the required firepower."

Which means that one released by its human masters, it will be able to choose by itself when and at what to open fire. This will "eliminate dependence on on-board personnel" while "enhancing the lethality of the killing zone".

They also list other advantages: "reduced soldier vulnerability," and, "reduced manpower requirements."

This means, in all probability, no need for a future draft, no need to extend huge numbers of National Guard and Reserves (indeed, for the remotely operated robots that still require some human operators, they will probably remain at home on their PCs, while participating in the war).

Think it's silly? The prototype for "Arnold" was demonstrated in 1997, and was presumably in full scale production in 2002.

I think that the only reason we haven't seen it on the battlefield yet is that it has political ramifications of its own. That, and a few bugs to work out.

as i am doing an engineering degree at this moment, i would like to point out that is is bloody hard to get even a small portion of what they are suggesting to happen.

sure, its feasible, but would you be willing to send in an AI controlled truck worth more in research and design than a small fleet of stealth bombers into real live combat, on its own, in unknown terrain, without decades of prebuild testing? :|

as i am doing an engineering degree at this moment, i would like to point out that is is bloody hard to get even a small portion of what they are suggesting to happen.

sure, its feasible, but would you be willing to send in an AI controlled truck worth more in research and design than a small fleet of stealth bombers into real live combat, on its own, in unknown terrain, without decades of prebuild testing? :|

the problem is that robots are comparatively cheap compared to manned systems.

Boeing has evidently succeeded in air-to-ground automated aircraft attack systems, and is working on air-to-air automated combat systems. The models for these environments are simpler than ground combat systems, and the aircraft without a man in it can maneuver in ways that a manned aircraft can never achieve, making the combat model even simpler.

Ground combat remotely operated robots are already in use in Iraq. They were instrumental in Fallujah, making the combat casualty rate skewed heavily in favor of the US forces, which entered combat without the necessary minimum 3 to 1 numerical advantage (in fact, the numbers look like slightly less than 1 US soldier to 1 insurgent at the outset). The insurgents took ghastly casualties over 90 percent, while the US troops were down below 10 percent (killed and wounded).

This was the first use of robots armed with machineguns. They were used for looking around corners (thus avoiding US casualties) and to enter rooms first (send the robot in first). The robot had the additional value of being harder to kill than a human - you needed an RPG or a grenade to stop it - mere rifle fire wasn't going to affect it.

A US infantryman, not counting his pay, costs about 75,000 dollars in training costs per year. Most of the robots they've bought for ground combat so far cost less than 30,000 for an initial cost.

But the biggest cost is human. You will have people wringing their hands over "poor Joe, who got called up to go to West BumHoleIstan," but no one will cry over a bunch of robots who were turned into scrap while they assaulted some insurgent stronghold in that country.

The other nice thing about an autonomous robot is that it does not sleep. Therefore, you can sustain operations at a pace that no conventional army and no insurgency can ever hope to match.

Robots will also have an initial psychological advantage. It's one thing to hear that the nearby valley is patrolled by American troops. You figure, "well, they might not see me, and if they do, I can fight". It's easy to fight someone with a face. But if you knew that the nearby valley was patrolled by mindless automatons that never slept and killed without mercy and were hard to kill - you might have a hard time finding volunteers for the patrol.

At this point, it's only a matter of software and testing. The robot body is already there. The main driver for this will be the "we didn't lose any American troops in the war".

Actually, I DID comment on that in the other thread - noting that if they get that suit built the soldier will probably be plugged into it from some nice air-conditioned office in florida.


Removing the domestic human casualty in a war removes one of the biggest emotional hurdling blocks to selling the public on the need to go to war: flag-draped coffins.

Actually, I DID comment on that in the other thread - noting that if they get that suit built the soldier will probably be plugged into it from some nice air-conditioned office in florida.


Removing the domestic human casualty in a war removes one of the biggest emotional hurdling blocks to selling the public on the need to go to war: flag-draped coffins.

Yes, you did comment on it, but I felt it go short shrift.

I was wondering - what would be hurdle be then?

Yes, you did comment on it, but I felt it go short shrift.

I was wondering - what would be hurdle be then?


Costs and technology mostly. To build a single machine as versatile in mobility and weapons as a human is very dificult. To send out an army of enough specialized machines to handle all available terrain is a damn pricy proposition.


Well, and they have to finish up that 100%-up adaptive network to manage them with... what did they call that project again.... Skynet? :D

From what I've read, they aren't trying for a single robot that "replaces" a human. Evidently, the job can be done by an assortment of smaller robots that perform individual tasks. And yes, they are networked.

So think of robots about the size of a child's red wagon. I've already seen the "follower" robot. It can recognize one human out of a group, and follow him around. It was very popular in Afghanistan, as they used them to carry extra equipment up and down the steep terrain.

I think there would be two psychological advantages. The first one, that you brought up, is the removal of the main hurdle for opposition to any war. The second one, that might be less well publicized until after the war starts, is the stark terror they will induce on the enemy.

From what I've read, they aren't trying for a single robot that "replaces" a human. Evidently, the job can be done by an assortment of smaller robots that perform individual tasks. And yes, they are networked.

So think of robots about the size of a child's red wagon. I've already seen the "follower" robot. It can recognize one human out of a group, and follow him around. It was very popular in Afghanistan, as they used them to carry extra equipment up and down the steep terrain.

I think there would be two psychological advantages. The first one, that you brought up, is the removal of the main hurdle for opposition to any war. The second one, that might be less well publicized until after the war starts, is the stark terror they will induce on the enemy.
I don't see the use of robots to replace the combat soldier in the forseeable future. AI is still the holy grail of computer science and probably will be for many years. There is no substitute for "boots on the ground," especially in an insurgency or counterinsurgency conflict.

The use of robots to build confidence among potential local allies, identify insurgency cadres, interface with the local populace, etc., is not only technologically unfeasable, it's almost ludicrous.

Oh my God, it's Terminator all over again!! [/sarcasm]

Well, and they have to finish up that 100%-up adaptive network to manage them with... what did they call that project again.... Skynet? :D


Skynet! Still can't hold a candle to Al Capone in a fight thought. Anyway.

In your other post, you mentioned that the machine would likely be controlled by someone way far away? Indeed, that's what I've seen whenever they mention robot troops, though it seems to be completely self defeating.
first of all, there's the delay, which you simply can't get round without breaking... physics. Which isn't happening. Secondly, there's the transmission of data. someone on a seat with a mouse in his hands is simply not as alert as a soldier on the ground, and since he is not there, can never truly get a feel for the battlefield, meaning the insurgents/enemy army which is there has the advantage simply in being more alert. There is nothing that can be done about that. Secondly, fighting a battle on a screen is difficult, especially when dealing with a delayed response, and the fact that, there is no way he's going to be able to see every little motion on his monitor, that machine is an ambush trap. A waste of metal, because it's going to be junk for roadside bombs, mortars, and rpgs.

And ones commanded by an AI... wouldn't go down well with the public, simply because the mass of people are going to see it like a skynet, or similar.

I don't see the use of robots to replace the combat soldier in the forseeable future. AI is still the holy grail of computer science and probably will be for many years. There is no substitute for "boots on the ground," especially in an insurgency or counterinsurgency conflict.

The use of robots to build confidence among potential local allies, identify insurgency cadres, interface with the local populace, etc., is not only technologically unfeasable, it's almost ludicrous.

The holy grail is here. Rodney Brooks broke that assumption, and most autonomous robots today use his concepts.

Until the mid-1980's, AI researchers assumed that an intelligent system doing high-level reasoning was necessary for the coupling of perception and action. In this traditional model, cognition mediates between perception and plans of action. Realizing that this core AI, as it was known, was illusory, Rodney A. Brooks turned the field of AI on its head by introducing the behavior-based approach to robotics. The cornerstone of behavior-based robotics is the realization that the coupling of perception and action gives rise to all the power of intelligence and that cognition is only in the eye of an observer. Behavior-based robotics has been the basis of successful applications in entertainment, service industries, agriculture, mining, and the home. It has given rise to both autonomous mobile robots and more recent humanoid robots such as Brooks's Cog. This book represents Brooks's initial formulation of and contributions to the development of the behavior-based approach to robotics. It presents all of the key philosophical and technical ideas that put this "bottom-up" approach at the forefront of current research in not only AI but all of cognitive science.

1. Protesters won't be able to call for the President to "call our troops home". Well, they could, but no ony has any sympathy for a robot. Of course, that also means that those yellow ribbons may eventually go out of fashion, unless you sent your automated vacuum cleaner to the next conflict.

What if the president's a robot?
Besides, they would still be killing humans, unless the other army is made of robots too. In which case we all can relax and see the war on TV. We'll just pay our taxes to the winner.

The holy grail is here. Rodney Brooks broke that assumption, and most autonomous robots today use his concepts.

Until the mid-1980's, AI researchers assumed that an intelligent system doing high-level reasoning was necessary for the coupling of perception and action. In this traditional model, cognition mediates between perception and plans of action. Realizing that this core AI, as it was known, was illusory, Rodney A. Brooks turned the field of AI on its head by introducing the behavior-based approach to robotics. The cornerstone of behavior-based robotics is the realization that the coupling of perception and action gives rise to all the power of intelligence and that cognition is only in the eye of an observer. Behavior-based robotics has been the basis of successful applications in entertainment, service industries, agriculture, mining, and the home. It has given rise to both autonomous mobile robots and more recent humanoid robots such as Brooks's Cog. This book represents Brooks's initial formulation of and contributions to the development of the behavior-based approach to robotics. It presents all of the key philosophical and technical ideas that put this "bottom-up" approach at the forefront of current research in not only AI but all of cognitive science.
It still takes an inordinate amount of time to "train" entities like Cog to perform even the simplest tasks a two year old can do in his sleep. AI is still the unfound Holy Grail, IMHO.

It still takes an inordinate amount of time to "train" entities like Cog to perform even the simplest tasks a two year old can do in his sleep. AI is still the unfound Holy Grail, IMHO.

That explains the robot I saw (and is in use in Afghanistan) that can recognize one soldier out of a crowd, and follow him. It's used for carrying your extra stuff when you go out on a long patrol.

Sounds cool. Though I bet the robot would be something simpler like a toy car on 6 wheels that can climb practically nearly any terrain and a machine gun.

On the other side of the robot, a Counter-Strike addict. :D

Just a small question: How hard is it to deploy a electromagnatic pulse (Yes, like the ones in the Matrix that screwed every machine). I know that if you deploy a nuke, its blast generates one, but does any mean of generating such pulse, that can be taken to a battlefield exist?

What if the president's a robot?
Besides, they would still be killing humans, unless the other army is made of robots too. In which case we all can relax and see the war on TV. We'll just pay our taxes to the winner.
Enemy humans don't count. We're supposed to kill those. Thats what war is about.

Just a small question: How hard is it to deploy a electromagnatic pulse (Yes, like the ones in the Matrix that screwed every machine). I know that if you deploy a nuke, its blast generates one, but does any mean of generating such pulse, that can be taken to a battlefield exist?
Yes, one can be generated without a nuclear explosion. www.eskimo.com/%7ebilb/freenrg/empweap.html

Yes, one can be generated without a nuclear explosion. www.eskimo.com/%7ebilb/freenrg/empweap.html

All US electronic equipment (from your M1 tank to the Sabre tactical radio) are all immune to electromagnetic pulse.

It's part of the military spec. From the Cold War.

All US electronic equipment (from your M1 tank to the Sabre tactical radio) are all immune to electromagnetic pulse.

It's part of the military spec. From the Cold War.
Yeah, I guess it would be. It's not hard to shield electronics from EMP. Just surround them in a grounded metal mesh. It would absorb the excess energy and harmlessly ground it out.

Enemy humans don't count. We're supposed to kill those. Thats what war is about.
What about friendly humans? Do those count?

I think we had gone over this before. The purpose of war is not to kill people, but to leave the enemy unable to fight. This usually includes, but is not limited to, killing people, but is not the main objective. If you can destroy the enemy's capacity to produce weapons, deploy them to the battlefield, or feed its population, then you can win the war. The US lost in Vietnam, even though they lost many less people than the VC; and it was purely with political manouvering.

Killing people is the main objective of the infantry and is what happens as a result of war, but it's not the main objective of war.

Therefore, since we are talking about battle robots, we can imagine a war totally conducted by robots. Robot factories make the robots and the robots go and fight other robots. Humans need not get involved. Capisce?

What about friendly humans? Do those count?

I think we had gone over this before. The purpose of war is not to kill people, but to leave the enemy unable to fight. This usually includes, but is not limited to, killing people, but is not the main objective. If you can destroy the enemy's capacity to produce weapons, deploy them to the battlefield, or feed its population, then you can win the war. The US lost in Vietnam, even though they lost many less people than the VC; and it was purely with political manouvering.

Killing people is the main objective of the infantry and is what happens as a result of war, but it's not the main objective of war.

Therefore, since we are talking about battle robots, we can imagine a war totally conducted by robots. Robot factories make the robots and the robots go and fight other robots. Humans need not get involved. Capisce?
Sounds like a Philip K Dick story.

Yeah, I guess it would be. It's not hard to shield electronics from EMP. Just surround them in a grounded metal mesh. It would absorb the excess energy and harmlessly ground it out.

The problem is not shielding the electronics. It's the waves that it recieves as it goes through the air. Hell when I was out in Iraq, sand in the air caused enough static electricity in the air to cut down the functional range of the Saber radio to 1/2 range or even less(which isn't very far since it's a UHF freq powered through like 5W of energy). Same would go for the M1A1 tank radio a VHF SINCGARS radio. God I hated being a radio operator, especially when officers were like "WHY CAN'T WE TALK".

The problem is not shielding the electronics. It's the waves that it recieves as it goes through the air. Hell when I was out in Iraq, sand in the air caused enough static electricity in the air to cut down the functional range of the Saber radio to 1/2 range or even less(which isn't very far since it's a UHF freq powered through like 5W of energy). Same would go for the M1A1 tank radio a VHF SINCGARS radio. God I hated being a radio operator, especially when officers were like "WHY CAN'T WE TALK".

What they're worried about in the thread from EMP is actually destroying the internals of the robot with EMP.

Hard to do. You could, with a lot less power, make it difficult for them to talk to each other. But do you really want an autonomous robot in your area, and have it not able to talk to its commander?

It might just decide that this is not the time to just watch you, but perhaps it should kill everything in sight until the jamming stops.

Then some hax0r at a garage in an US suburb hacks into DoD system and entire US armed forces stop working... :D

I just hope US army doesn't plan to use Windows 95 on the robots' software ;)

Sounds like a Philip K Dick story.
The funny thing will be when robots look at each other and go "This is stupid, why are we killing each other?" and decide to kill humans instead.

So if these kind of remote control soldiers are built, will that make gamers the most valuable future soldiers? Will the army be putting up recuritng stations is internet cafes? My vote goes for a system ala The Last Starfighter, best player gets taken and put into service.

Then some hax0r at a garage in an US suburb hacks into DoD system and entire US armed forces stop working... :D

I just hope US army doesn't plan to use Windows 95 on the robots' software ;)

"Windows: Battlefield Edition has performed an illegal operation and will shut down"

I was thinking that. It could be very embarrassing.

So if these kind of remote control soldiers are built, will that make gamers the most valuable future soldiers? Will the army be putting up recuritng stations is internet cafes? My vote goes for a system ala The Last Starfighter, best player gets taken and put into service.

The first generation seem to operate partially or totally under human control.

The goal, it would seem, is as little human control as possible.

"Windows: Battlefield Edition has performed an illegal operation and will shut down"

I was thinking that. It could be very embarrassing.

*takes a redneck accent*

"Jimbo, why isn't the f**king tank firing!"
"It crashed! I'm gonna call technical support!"
"STFU and grab a rifle!"
:D