NationStates Jolt Archive

http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=171204474
The Pentagon's research wing, DARPA, sponsored its second annual car race for cars guided by artificial intelligence. A few cars crossed the finish line in the required time, and won $2 million.
DARPA hopes that this will spur innovation in robotics, and eventually, autonomous robots may replace some, or even all, troops on the battlefield. So is this a new era in warfare, or a nice idea that has no application in practical warfare?

So wars would be won by whoever can make more or better robots?

I wonder if the use of robots would mean that politicians would have fewer qualms about sending their little robocops on killing sprees through civilian populations.

http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=171204474
The Pentagon's research wing, DARPA, sponsored its second annual car race for cars guided by artificial intelligence. A few cars crossed the finish line in the required time, and won $2 million.
DARPA hopes that this will spur innovation in robotics, and eventually, autonomous robots may replace some, or even all, troops on the battlefield. So is this a new era in warfare, or a nice idea that has no application in practical warfare?

Well, it would allow you to use novel weapons. They already have a laser that will permanently blind humans in an instant. If we don't have any live US soldiers on the ground, we can use it at no risk to ourselves.

Also, it won't do the enemy any good to capture "an American soldier" if all he ends up being is a militarized robot. No one to taunt, capture, torture, or humiliate by dragging through the streets.

They don't sleep, either. Imagine the terror of being stalked by a completely impersonal machine that kills without conscious thought and never sleeps, eats, jokes, or does anything human.

Well, it would allow you to use novel weapons. They already have a laser that will permanently blind humans in an instant. If we don't have any live US soldiers on the ground, we can use it at no risk to ourselves.

Also, it won't do the enemy any good to capture "an American soldier" if all he ends up being is a militarized robot. No one to taunt, capture, torture, or humiliate by dragging through the streets.

They don't sleep, either. Imagine the terror of being stalked by a completely impersonal machine that kills without conscious thought and never sleeps, eats, jokes, or does anything human.
Cool. It would be like Terminator, only we'd be in control of Arnold.

They don't sleep, either. Imagine the terror of being stalked by a completely impersonal machine that kills without conscious thought and never sleeps, eats, jokes, or does anything human.
That's one thing that we'd have to consider, being how they get their power. Batteries last only so long, solar power is inefficient, and gas would take up too much space. We could put small plutonium buttons in them, which NASA does all the time for their probes, but it might be too dangerous for surrounding innocents and handlers.

That's one thing that we'd have to consider, being how they get their power. Batteries last only so long, solar power is inefficient, and gas would take up too much space. We could put small plutonium buttons in them, which NASA does all the time for their probes, but it might be too dangerous for surrounding innocents and handlers.
Not to mention the fact that if the enemy captures one of the robots they can take appart the nuclear battery and get material for a dirty bomb.

http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=171204474
The Pentagon's research wing, DARPA, sponsored its second annual car race for cars guided by artificial intelligence. A few cars crossed the finish line in the required time, and won $2 million.
DARPA hopes that this will spur innovation in robotics, and eventually, autonomous robots may replace some, or even all, troops on the battlefield. So is this a new era in warfare, or a nice idea that has no application in practical warfare?
It may be an adjunct to human forces, but it's going to be a long, long time before it can ever replace them. I, for one, am glad that I won't be around to see it. :(

It may be an adjunct to human forces, but it's going to be a long, long time before it can ever replace them. I, for one, am glad that I won't be around to see it. :(
Poor you. I hope to see it in my lifetime. War is just too dangerous for humans to fight in these days.

Poor you. I hope to see it in my lifetime. War is just too dangerous for humans to fight in these days.

Doubly so for the people who aren't doing the fighting but are still there. As for this, I don't see it working anytime soon. None of the cars actually won the race. Most of them didn't even move. I heard that some of them actually drove off cliffs.

Your terminator is more likely to shoot itself in the head then anything productive at the time being.

Poor you. I hope to see it in my lifetime. War is just too dangerous for humans to fight in these days.

War has always been dangerous. ;)

Robotic military weapons? Hurrah - Gundams aren't far behind!

I think we have entirely the wrong idea about what is practical, here.


We already have the first UAVs, some adapted to carry weapons, and a full-out combat version will be flying soon enough.
The vehicles that are being designed right now would be to replace tanks, LAVs, and other similar ground vehicles.
Helicopter style vehicles are on the drawing boards.
Infantry-style robots will never be put on the field. This is partly due to the power source problem, among others.

I think we have entirely the wrong idea about what is practical, here.


We already have the first UAVs, some adapted to carry weapons, and a full-out combat version will be flying soon enough.
The vehicles that are being designed right now would be to replace tanks, LAVs, and other similar ground vehicles.
Helicopter style vehicles are on the drawing boards.
Infantry-style robots will never be put on the field. This is partly due to the power source problem, among others.

Don't say never, but they're at least 20 years away.

So wars would be won by whoever can make more or better robots?

I wonder if the use of robots would mean that politicians would have fewer qualms about sending their little robocops on killing sprees through civilian populations.
Fewer than none? So they would have negative qualms? It makes me wonder just what a qualm is anyway.

Fewer than none? So they would have negative qualms? It makes me wonder just what a qualm is anyway.

It's a type of flightless bird.

We already have the first UAVs, some adapted to carry weapons, and a full-out combat version will be flying soon enough.
The vehicles that are being designed right now would be to replace tanks, LAVs, and other similar ground vehicles.
Helicopter style vehicles are on the drawing boards.
Infantry-style robots will never be put on the field. This is partly due to the power source problem, among others.

What exists today is mostly remote UAVs are they not? And those that are run by AI tend to be very limited in their role so far as memory serves. Not very much above a cruise missiles target recognition system, which most would admit, makes it a very limited purpose weapon.