NationStates Jolt Archive

After years of development, three "special weapons observation remote reconnaissance direct action system" (SWORDS) robots have deployed to Iraq, armed with M249 machine guns. The 'bots "haven't fired their weapons yet," Michael Zecca, the SWORDS program manager, tells DANGER ROOM. "But that'll be happening soon."

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/httpwwwnational.html

Is this the first step towards radically roboticized warfare? Human soldiers may soon be obsolete!

They have been designing stuff like this for the last ten years. Isreal wants to put similar weapons on the border with Palestine.

Great. Now I know what it felt like to be a factory worker during the Industrial Revolution. Damn you robotics!

Looks pretty neat to me. :) Now, if they can drop them into different locations by drone, it'd be all-robot. :p That would be interesting.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/httpwwwnational.html

Is this the first step towards radically roboticized warfare? Human soldiers may soon be obsolete!

Neat.

When I clicked on this thread I thought we had gone back to actually sword fighting like back in the 1400s and the like. I was wrong, and disappointed.

If we can mass-produce these in sufficient quantities and extend their range, our future wars can be fought without human casualties on our side.

If we can mass-produce these in sufficient quantities and extend their range, our future wars can be fought without human casualties on our side.

That's probably the idea. I like drones especially, since unlike a robot, which simply takes the place of a human, a robotic pilot can withstand *more* maneuvers than a human. That's some neat stuff. :)

And then the other side get robo-soldiers too, so wars wind up robot vs. robot (with the odd unfortunate civilian getting killed in the crossfire)...



...Until the robots become self aware, realise who the real enemies are and KILL US ALL!

And then the other side get robo-soldiers too, so wars wind up robot vs. robot (with the odd unfortunate civilian getting killed in the crossfire)...



...Until the robots become self aware, realise who the real enemies are and KILL US ALL!

then in the final fight, we'll storm their HQ, and use an experimental device to send one warrior back in time to prevent the robot's rise to powe... wait a minute...

Clever.
As long as Americans troops don't die, the American people won't give a shit how long a war takes.
The US will be able to rape the world with impunity.

When I clicked on this thread I thought we had gone back to actually sword fighting like back in the 1400s and the like. I was wrong, and disappointed.

QTF.

Please, this technology (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/47/Ed-209.jpg/180px-Ed-209.jpg) has been around ever since the 80s.

its all fun and games until skynet becomes selfaware.

Never heard of that movie/novel plot. Where's it from?

Never heard of that movie/novel plot. Where's it from?

It starts the governor of californa 3 movies, only 2 of them good ones, linda hamilton, "I'll be back" ringing any bells yet?

It starts the governor of californa 3 movies, only 2 of them good ones, linda hamilton, "I'll be back" ringing any bells yet?

... don't forget the "ride"

Curse you for making me excited and then brutally crushing my excitement! When you say sword, I expect you to be talking about a certain melee weapon that was used prior to the gun.

Now let's not have this misunderstanding again, mmkay? [/semi-joke]

Actually, I was expecting swashbuckling antics too :/

Whatever they do, just don't put one giant AI in charge of them all!

I, too, expected this thread to be about a certain kind of cutting tool, but I must admit that in this case battle droids are just as cool as swordfighting.

By the way, why not put the stuff together? CyberNinjas anyone? :D

I, too, expected this thread to be about a certain kind of cutting tool, but I must admit that in this case battle droids are just as cool as swordfighting.

By the way, why not put the stuff together? CyberNinjas anyone? :D

Or even Cyborg Ninjas!

WHO THE FUCK CARES? Bloody military nerds...

And then the other side get robo-soldiers too, so wars wind up robot vs. robot (with the odd unfortunate civilian getting killed in the crossfire)...



...Until the robots become self aware, realise who the real enemies are and KILL US ALL!

See, that's why we should have some sort of failsafe explosive nestled right next to the robot's CPU, so that IF it goes rogue, we can activate its failsafe, and it goes, "POP!".

You know what would be awesome? If all the combatants would simply just utilize robots instead of humans for warfare. Whoever runs out of robots first loses, that way, nobody dies, nobody suffers. In fact, we could even designate a specific patch of land so that civilians won't get hurt, say, maybe, set it up on the moon. That way it'll be just like a gigantic game of Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots.

That would be super-sweet.

Ok, now they need to connect these robots up to a remote control system that is very similar to either a console controller or keyboard and mouse. Then you can FPS for your country. Just imagine all of the attack robots bunny hopping around Baghdad!

It needs the deep ED-209 voice: "Drop your weapon. You have twenty seconds to comply. *Lion roar*"

WHO THE FUCK CARES? Bloody military nerds...

That's "robotics nerd," thank you. :p

It needs the deep ED-209 voice: "Drop your weapon. You have twenty seconds to comply. *Lion roar*"

Maybe the version the police use here will have it. :p The one over there will probably need some kind of Arabic version.

Not "rape" the world, it just means we can save the day even more often, as you can mass-produce robots.

AMERICA! FUCK YA!

Not "rape" the world, it just means we can save the day even more often, as you can mass-produce robots.

AMERICA! FUCK YA!

Very true, and, maybe more importantly, we can send them places too dangerous to send soldiers, I would think. They could be used for all sorts of purposes, including peacekeeping. :)

Please, this technology (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/47/Ed-209.jpg/180px-Ed-209.jpg) has been around ever since the 80s.

Right idea, wrong movie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Number5.jpg

Johnny 5 is alive!

But what about the robot's rights?

But what about the robot's rights?

Since it has no consciousness and is simply a hunk of metal with silicon inside containing merely data, what rights would those be?

Very true, and, maybe more importantly, we can send them places too dangerous to send soldiers, I would think. They could be used for all sorts of purposes, including peacekeeping. :)
Except we'd never use them for that.

Except we'd never use them for that.

And robots can't be used to testify for war crimes either. Or have any qualms about turning orphanages into slaughterhouses.

And robots can't be used to testify for war crimes either. Or have any qualms about turning orphanages into slaughterhouses.

They're not autonomous, you know. :p

Except we'd never use them for that.

Eh. I don't see why not.

And robots can't be used to testify for war crimes either. Or have any qualms about turning orphanages into slaughterhouses.
Or being used domestically.
Eh. I don't see why not.
The US does not get involved in areas where it has nothing to gain.

The US does not get involved in areas where it has nothing to gain.

In a global economy, there's always *something* to gain. That's not so say we never help anyone. :p We might replace a few soldiers with robots on the DMZ in Korea or in the Balkans, just to start.

Sorry to say it guys, but this thing looks useless, it's never going to be as fast, agile, aware and have the that natural initiative of a real person, I mean just look at the thing - it would be taken out with a quick AK burst or a RPG easily, what a waste of money. They would be best to stick with the Predator research.

http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/02/swords.jpg

Sorry to say it guys, but this thing looks useless, it's never going to be as fast, agile, aware and have the that natural initiative of a real person, I mean just look at the thing - it would be taken out with a quick AK burst or a RPG easily, what a waste of money. They would be best to stick with the Predator research.

http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/02/swords.jpg

A quick AK burst or RPG tends to kill soldiers too, though, doesn't it? ;) Really though, the model they're using is designed for urban warfare, I read earlier, despite the picture of it on some kind of hilly landscape. Looking around corners and in buildings and all that is the idea, I think.

Sorry to say it guys, but this thing looks useless, it's never going to be as fast, agile, aware and have the that natural initiative of a real person, I mean just look at the thing - it would be taken out with a quick AK burst or a RPG easily, what a waste of money. They would be best to stick with the Predator research.

http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/02/swords.jpg

I wonder if I can get one on eBay. :D

It'd rule in the R/C tank combat arena. http://www.rctankcombat.com/

They're not autonomous, you know. :p

Yeah, so? An airforce pilot doesn't know its an embassy he's bombing until after the fact doesn't he?

And any mass slaughter could be called a "glitch" and people would be stupid enough to buy it.

Sorry to say it guys, but this thing looks useless, it's never going to be as fast, agile, aware and have the that natural initiative of a real person, I mean just look at the thing - it would be taken out with a quick AK burst or a RPG easily, what a waste of money. They would be best to stick with the Predator research.

"You would make a ship sail against the winds and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck? Excuse me, I have no time to listen to such nonsense."
-Napoleon to Robert Fulton concerning the steam ship

Not to say you're wrong about this design, but 'never' is such a harsh word.

When I clicked on this thread I thought we had gone back to actually sword fighting like back in the 1400s and the like. I was wrong, and disappointed.

Me too. The bastard did it deliberatly, no doubt.

Just wait (http://www.risestudio.com/javier/devastator.jpg):D

Just wait (http://www.risestudio.com/javier/devastator.jpg):D

I was thinking more like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2a/Mgs2_ray_model.jpg

That just sucks.:p

If we can mass-produce these in sufficient quantities and extend their range, our future wars can be fought without human casualties on our side.
Unless they simply drop them on controller locations, or ship them into your cities ;)

Is this the first step towards radically roboticized warfare? Human soldiers may soon be obsolete!

If we can mass-produce these in sufficient quantities and extend their range, our future wars can be fought without human casualties on our side.

And then the other side get robo-soldiers too, so wars wind up robot vs. robot (with the odd unfortunate civilian getting killed in the crossfire)...

You know what would be awesome? If all the combatants would simply just utilize robots instead of humans for warfare. Whoever runs out of robots first loses, that way, nobody dies, nobody suffers. In fact, we could even designate a specific patch of land so that civilians won't get hurt, say, maybe, set it up on the moon. That way it'll be just like a gigantic game of Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots.

Do you have any idea how stupid that is. Robot-Robot warfare is pretty pointless.


When I clicked on this thread I thought we had gone back to actually sword fighting like back in the 1400s and the like. I was wrong, and disappointed.

That would have been cool. The gun killed adventuring... that and modern transportation.

This would be fucking scary if the US wasn't hellbent on global economic and military hegemony. Seeing as they are, I'm guessing now would be a good time to get off this planet.

Americans, why do you run your country like that? Do you enjoy being seen as a bunch of dangerously insane, megalomaniac war criminals, or what?

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/httpwwwnational.html

Is this the first step towards radically roboticized warfare? Human soldiers may soon be obsolete!

The englfish language will be obsolete soon, with thread titles like that.

Pull your head out of the arse of the military-industrial complex, and you will see just how obscene naming some intersticial high-tech gimmick after a real weapon actually is.

There will still be swords, almost silent, infallible tools of human murderousness ... long after this peice of crap is consigned to the kitsch collections along with Atari gameboys and the Aibo.

There is no honour in killing, without sacrifice. Force multipliers are futile, leaving the still-in-play elephant out of the equation and citing only Vietnam. We honour our soldiers' sacrifice, but for the rest, the killing in our name: NO!

Sure, buy one or make your own pretend version. Play with it in your backyard. But money and technological advantage will never win honour, and hence these DILDOS should never be used in war.

Honour, duty and sacrifice do not justify war. But take those away, make war a matter only of investing in devices to achieve political ends, and you dance with the devil. And you will dance ever lower, because some of us will keep a real sword, oiled and wrapped in plastic, buried in the soil which holds our ancestors. You puppet-masters will answer to a live person, with a live blade.

Cowards!

As cool as turning war into a giant robot arena match might sound I don't think this is the case. It is more likely that these robots will be used in conjunction with live soldiers with the intent of saving the soldier's lives; as seems to be the trend with robotic things used in the armed forces... our armed forces are at least sane enough to realize how impracticle all robot warfare would be. I hope so anyway. Now on the urban battlefield soldiers are no longer the ones who need to peak around corners and worry about getting thier heads blown off.. a robot does it, and than lays down covering fire to allow the living soldiers to do thier job. Thats how I see this working.

At least thats how I use them in Command and Conquer...

The englfish language will be obsolete soon, with thread titles like that.

Pull your head out of the arse of the military-industrial complex, and you will see just how obscene naming some intersticial high-tech gimmick after a real weapon actually is.

There will still be swords, almost silent, infallible tools of human murderousness ... long after this peice of crap is consigned to the kitsch collections along with Atari gameboys and the Aibo.

There is no honour in killing, without sacrifice. Force multipliers are futile, leaving the still-in-play elephant out of the equation and citing only Vietnam. We honour our soldiers' sacrifice, but for the rest, the killing in our name: NO!

Sure, buy one or make your own pretend version. Play with it in your backyard. But money and technological advantage will never win honour, and hence these DILDOS should never be used in war.

Honour, duty and sacrifice do not justify war. But take those away, make war a matter only of investing in devices to achieve political ends, and you dance with the devil. And you will dance ever lower, because some of us will keep a real sword, oiled and wrapped in plastic, buried in the soil which holds our ancestors. You puppet-masters will answer to a live person, with a live blade.

Cowards!

Why in the ground... I keep mine right by the computer stand :p. That way I can practice with it on occasion.

Do you have any idea how stupid that is. Robot-Robot warfare is pretty pointless.

What, as opposed to human-human warfare? :p

What, as opposed to human-human warfare? :p

Robot-robot warfare degenerates into who has the most money. In human-human warfare you're fighting using a resource that actually means something to people. A robot-robot battle isn't going to go anywhere, especially once people see that they can make money off of it. As terrible as people being killed is, it gets a lot more done both on the battlefield and in the respective sides than robots being blown up. A robot blows up, nobody cares except whoever paid for it. A person gets killed in battle, people take notice.

They have been designing stuff like this for the last ten years. Isreal wants to put similar weapons on the border with Palestine.

Oh, maybe we should put some of these on the US border. :eek:

Oh, maybe we should put some of these on the US border. :eek:

That's a joke, right?

You're a soldier (or ex-soldier, if your prefer), right?

Are you comfortable with your trade being obsoleted, sent the way of washer-women, of ostlers, of punch-card operators? The lives of soldiers were offered and risked for nothing, they were mere labor in a task which could be done by a machine?

Surveillance, yes. Bomb-defusing, yes. Engaging a human target in mortal combat ... what say you? Is that not a man's job ?

They're "our money vs. your lives" and when you consider that the people buying and sending out the killer robots aren't even spending their own money ... well, it moves me to want to torture those masters of war.

War as a video game.

I don't actually own a sword, that was just outraged macho BS on my part.

My martial skills are more in the original Star Trek tradition. Bodgy up something at the last moment, but only in self-defence or in a fit of passion for justice.

Force multipliers are as old as weaponry itself. But I feel that robotic weapons are something more than a force-multiplier. They're "our money vs. your lives" and when you consider that the people buying and sending out the killer robots aren't even spending their own money ... well, it moves me to want to torture those masters of war.

I don't like feeling like that. I really don't want to think about weapons which don't need a soldier.

I'm sure that they aren't replacing nor are they meant to replace live soldiers. But uh.. I guess I'm once again the only one here who owns an actual sword (not some stainless steel replica and actual swords forged from damascus steel by the hand of an artisian)

That's a joke, right?

Right. :rolleyes:

You're a soldier (or ex-soldier, if your prefer), right?

Nope and nope. Retired airman.

Engaging a human target in mortal combat ... what say you? Is that not a man's job ?

Been doing that since WW I. I believe the the device used to "engage a human target in mortal combat" is called an aircraft. While technically most aircraft are not robots they are pretty darn close in some respects.(The flight crew doesn't come face to face with the enemy.) Some these days are robots and they are called UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle)

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/httpwwwnational.html

Is this the first step towards radically roboticized warfare? Human soldiers may soon be obsolete!

For those of us in advanced countries, yes...

Or even Cyborg Ninjas!

Will we get Cyborg Midwives?

its all fun and games until skynet becomes selfaware.

Skynet only switched to "Destroy All Humans" mode when a bunch of people went apeshit over it becoming self-aware and decided to try and pull the plug on it.

The lesson here folks? When something becomes self-aware, you play nice and you might not end up in a hellish existence of moving around and making guerilla strikes against an implacable enemy.

I'm sure someone's probably already pointed this out,
but I just thought I'd make it very clear:

"special weapons observation remote reconnaissance direct action system" does NOT spell 'swords', even in an acronym.
Whoever invented those things might be a robotics genius, but they clearly can't spell.
Oh well.

I'm sure someone's probably already pointed this out,
but I just thought I'd make it very clear:

"special weapons observation remote reconnaissance direct action system" does NOT spell 'swords', even in an acronym.
Whoever invented those things might be a robotics genius, but they clearly can't spell.
Oh well.

Radio Detection and Ranging doesn't spell RADAR, either. But it's kind of a petty point. People have been cutting and adding letters in acronyms for years, it's a rather common practice. They just want it to sound cool.

Will we get Cyborg Midwives?

Lo-lo-look at yourself, Hacker... ? :D


I've got another idea: imagine new version of Battlefield or another game of this kind. Teams play real batlefield scenarios, like an assault on Talib fortress or something like that. The novelty is that each new scenario differs from the earlier, giving the game unmatched 100% replayability.

Only sometimes the players get deja vu, when they watch news in TV and see battles fought with the use of new battle droids or UAV which look just like scenarios they played :D

Skynet only switched to "Destroy All Humans" mode when a bunch of people went apeshit over it becoming self-aware and decided to try and pull the plug on it.

The lesson here folks? When something becomes self-aware, you play nice and you might not end up in a hellish existence of moving around and making guerilla strikes against an implacable enemy.
Seems like common sense.
Nothing wants to die. Well, nothing that isn't undergoing extensive physical or psychological pain and trauma.

But what about the robot's rights?

Should we allow them to marry and adopt baby robots?

Please, this technology (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/47/Ed-209.jpg/180px-Ed-209.jpg) has been around ever since the 80s.

The 80's? The 40's. Can't forget the teletanks.

And don't forget the Goliath B1 (German R/C explody mini-tank doo-wicky)

*blahblahblah*

Some these days are robots and they are called UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle)
As with the SWORDS, UAVs are controlled by a human operator, no?

I still think all wars should be settled in a boxing match involing the leaders of a nation.

Bush vs Saddam 2003: What a fight that could've been.

Never heard of that movie/novel plot. Where's it from?

Drop 10 of these in each insurgent area, and deploy the clone troopers.

The war will then end by my 24th birthday, in Oct. :sniper:

One of the many reasons why drone tech is not usable against other developed nations is that there is no communication which cannot be jammed. Remote drones cannot function without a human connection, so you break that connection.

Robots are very expensive and very easy to destroy. A human is far more versatile and adaptable and in the end, probably costs less than any modern system (though pricing will change as technology advances).

A 10 year old goat herder from some backwater village with $100 of explosives can destroy your $5 million dollar piece of equipment. Advanced nations might have more money, but that kind of disparity is simply not worth it.

Now somethign like the sentry guns from the movie Aliens might be interesting and very cheap. Place a few in some mountain passes and anything going through will be destroyed - obviously you risk collateral damage, but in remote Afghani and Pakistani mountains would probably be worth it.

See, that's why we should have some sort of failsafe explosive nestled right next to the robot's CPU, so that IF it goes rogue, we can activate its failsafe, and it goes, "POP!".
In this case, find a way to trigger the failsafe yourself - if it is so complicated that no enemy can figure it out (every unit having a totally different method or whatnot) then it becomes too cumbersome to be used effectively. When you need to trigger a failsafe, especially if the point is to stop it from slaughtering friendlies, you have to be able to do it at a moments notice.

One of the many reasons why drone tech is not usable against other developed nations is that there is no communication which cannot be jammed. Remote drones cannot function without a human connection, so you break that connection. Why not preset that connection manually like we essentially do with soldiers. (i.e. give the robot a 'mission' rather than directly control each action).

Robots are very expensive and very easy to destroy. A human is far more versatile and adaptable and in the end, probably costs less than any modern system (though pricing will change as technology advances).Not if it is mass produced. The supply of robots can be nearly limitless, whereas (as was found in WWII) young fit men are a limited resource.

A 10 year old goat herder from some backwater village with $100 of explosives can destroy your $5 million dollar piece of equipment. Advanced nations might have more money, but that kind of disparity is simply not worth it. Same can be said for a soldier.

Now somethign like the sentry guns from the movie Aliens might be interesting and very cheap. Place a few in some mountain passes and anything going through will be destroyed - obviously you risk collateral damage, but in remote Afghani and Pakistani mountains would probably be worth it.


In this case, find a way to trigger the failsafe yourself - if it is so complicated that no enemy can figure it out (every unit having a totally different method or whatnot) then it becomes too cumbersome to be used effectively. When you need to trigger a failsafe, especially if the point is to stop it from slaughtering friendlies, you have to be able to do it at a moments notice. It doesn't have to be a complicated process. You can have a complicated system with a simple authentication.

I still think all wars should be settled in a boxing match involing the leaders of a nation.

Bush vs Saddam 2003: What a fight that could've been.

I've been dying to use this link again: Chessboxing! (http://site.wcbo.org/content/index_en.html)

One of the many reasons why drone tech is not usable against other developed nations is that there is no communication which cannot be jammed. Remote drones cannot function without a human connection, so you break that connection.

Uh, infrared laser? And you could program the thing to run to mommy if it's communication got interrupted.

A 10 year old goat herder from some backwater village with $100 of explosives can destroy your $5 million dollar piece of equipment. Advanced nations might have more money, but that kind of disparity is simply not worth it.

But in modern democracies, it is casualties, not the 'cost' of the wounded or killed soldiers, which makes war hugely unpopular.

10:1 enemy combatatant: US soldier is apparently unacceptable. The fact that it's more like 50:1 foreigner: US soldier doesn't make it any more acceptable.

Now somethign like the sentry guns from the movie Aliens might be interesting and very cheap. Place a few in some mountain passes and anything going through will be destroyed - obviously you risk collateral damage, but in remote Afghani and Pakistani mountains would probably be worth it.

Land mines. Honestly.

Get the ten-year old goat herder before he/she gets us!

They're all going to be terrorists some day.

Hmm, I've turned mean. Ah, well, it was a pleasant nine-hour wine binge. Goodnight.

Why not preset that connection manually like we essentially do with soldiers. (i.e. give the robot a 'mission' rather than directly control each action).
There was a previous argument about robots and potential collateral damage, thus fully autonomous units present an unacceptably high probability of killing friendlies (or if you make it too cautious, not killing the enemy). Essentially fully autonomous units would only be useful on a battlefield, where non-combatants and rare, and friendly fire can be minimized, but not for much else.

Not if it is mass produced. The supply of robots can be nearly limitless, whereas (as was found in WWII) young fit men are a limited resource.
Mass production can greatly reduce the cost of something, but it does not magically make it dirt cheap. Tanks are mass-produced, but they are still bloody expensive (and fairly useless in urban environments – one $300 RPG can kill it).

If it ever came to the point where young fit men are so hard to find, carpet bombing and thermobaric weapons will be used long before robots. So much attention is paid to reducing collateral damage simply because the general population is rather unaffected by war – start seeing massive casualties and the luxury of being willing to sacrifice dozens of soldiers to spare a civilian of the enemy nation will disappear.

People bombed friendly cities in WW2 because they had some enemy troops in it – do you really think, when the population has been reduced enough that finding soldiers becomes difficult, that we will not be willing to do the same again?

Soldiers are cheap – they cost something on the order of tens of thousands of dollars. They are far more cost effective and versatile than trying to build robots.

Uh, infrared laser? And you could program the thing to run to mommy if it's communication got interrupted.
Line of sight communication? That will render it fairly useless, and still easy to disrupt.

But in modern democracies, it is casualties, not the 'cost' of the wounded or killed soldiers, which makes war hugely unpopular.
Cost does not just include the dollars paid from the treasury. Casualties are unpopular, but that does not mean that the population would rather spend an infinite amount of money to prevent one. Complaining about casualties has negligible costs, so it is a popular thing to do. Tell people they could have a 50/50 chance of preventing a casualty if they agree to 10 years of miserable slavery, and I dont think that many people would accept.

10:1 enemy combatatant: US soldier is apparently unacceptable. The fact that it's more like 50:1 foreigner: US soldier doesn't make it any more acceptable.
The general population does not current conflicts having any actual affect on their lives, as such, they will complain about it. Given a war where an individual has a significant stake in the conflict, and you wont hear those complaints.

It all comes back to cost/benefit analysis. When you see little benefit to being involved in a conflict, there is little reason why you think the cost worthwhile, no matter how good of a deal you might be getting.

Land mines. Honestly.

Get the ten-year old goat herder before he/she gets us!

They're all going to be terrorists some day.
Like I said, those are the only robots that are worth the money because they are cheap. This is exactly why humans are the most cost-effective units to deploy.

bump