backtop

Print 77 comment(s) - last by lcbrownz.. on Mar 17 at 9:29 AM
UAVs and other unmanned technologies will play a bigger role, but are unlikely to replace human ground troops

The director of the U.S. Army UAS Center of Excellence said despite an increase in unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) use and other unmanned technology in Iraq and Afghanistan, ground troops will always be necessary in future conflicts.

Col. Christopher Carlile, who directs the UAS Center of Excellence, recently spoke at the Association of the U.S. Army Winter Symposium last month. He outlined the next 25 years of UAV use and where technological advances could take the country.

"Would you, as an American citizen, agree with the idea of turning a machine loose that is going to kill using biometrics or something else?" Carlile said.  "Culturally and morally, I truly don't believe the American people will be there in 25 years."

There has been increased research into humanoids -- including their use in the military -- as they are more expendable, do not need training, and are able to fly longer distances without fatigue.  Even with these upsides, UAVs will have an expanding yet limited role in the military in the years to come.

Ground troops with "human ethics" could one day be introduced, but face far too many issues at the moment.

Research has also expanded to humanoid ground troops, but the need for soldiers who are able to judge between insurgents and civilians will always be necessary.  Since it’s unlikely robots will be used in traditional ways as soldiers on the ground, research will continue to help develop assistance units.

Even if GIs won't be replaced with droids any time soon, the U.S. military will continue to blend UAV use in roles aside from reconnaissance and coordinated attacks.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
25 years?
By Flahrydog on 3/12/2010 2:48:53 PM , Rating: 3
Why do people pretend like they know what will and will not happen in such a long span of time from now.
I'd be interested to see how many of these predictions really come true.

More specific to this prediction, what is so morally wrong with a person controlling a robot? And making all the kill decisions. That would "replace human ground troops" but would not be "turning a machine loose"




RE: 25 years?
By PandaBear on 3/12/2010 2:54:55 PM , Rating: 3
Until the communication link gets hacked and the robot turn against you, or drop dead.


RE: 25 years?
By AnnihilatorX on 3/12/2010 3:21:42 PM , Rating: 2
If you are to design a communication link for safety critical applications like this, you make it unhackable. Like the new research into quantum satellite communication.


RE: 25 years?
By lightfoot on 3/12/2010 3:25:20 PM , Rating: 5
There is no such thing as unhackable. If you want unhackable you must remove the receiving interface, at which point it is impossible to issue commands.


RE: 25 years?
By PrezWeezy on 3/12/2010 7:58:31 PM , Rating: 4
Unhackable? There is never, has never, and will never be such a thing. Given enough time, skill, and will someone will always be able to break a wireless signal. It may not be quick, but it can always be done. All it takes is finding the 1 weak point in the chain. That's what security is all about, not being invincible, just fixing each problem as it comes.


RE: 25 years?
By Shining Arcanine on 3/12/2010 9:54:50 PM , Rating: 4
Just unplug the system. It will then be unhackable.


RE: 25 years?
By afkrotch on 3/15/2010 12:37:07 AM , Rating: 2
Unless you break into the storage facility, turn it on, then you can hack it.


RE: 25 years?
By msomeoneelsez on 3/13/2010 4:19:20 PM , Rating: 2
While I absolutely agree in regards to current technology, I believe in 25 years or so, judging by the current rate of innovation and development, quantum entanglement may be used to transfer information. Theoretically, quantum entanglement would be unhackable, and possibly even impossible to pick up any signal in between. I would be willing to bet that even 25 years from now, quantum entanglement (and quantum computing even) will still be quite slow compared to other computing standards, so if it is used, it will be quite limited in its use.

Of course, this is merely speculation on what has been done so far, but none of us really knows, do we?


RE: 25 years?
By camylarde on 3/15/2010 4:59:22 AM , Rating: 2
Unhackable maybe, but can the signal be jammed? Sure. Still it's back to the drawing board situation.

But imagine mech style commanding unit with human inside, and terminator style troops in line with him. They guy points laser at something abd presses button. The troops then eliminate the target.


RE: 25 years?
By Iaiken on 3/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: 25 years?
By Etsp on 3/12/2010 6:17:07 PM , Rating: 3
You said:
quote:
Until we figure out some crazy form of relativistic cryptography or the likes

And from the commenter you are replying to:
quote:
Like the new research into quantum satellite communication.

That was EXACTLY what he was talking about.


RE: 25 years?
By porkpie on 3/12/2010 11:27:21 PM , Rating: 5
"You seem to have a fundamental lack of knowledge with regard to electronic communications"

Oh, what delicious irony....

"jamming selected frequencies would effectively render them useless."

Jamming is not nearly as easy as you believe, not against a prepared opponent. To jam an ideal random frequency-hopping link would require an infinite amount of power, as you would essentially have to barrage jam the entire EM spectrum simultaneously...an impossible task.

Note that every nation the US has fought since WW2 has attempted to jam our communications and radar...usually with very limited success. This is exactly what the field of ECCM is all about.

As for actual control of the link, any message OTP is unbreakable. Period. You don't need to invoke hypothetical advances in quantum computing. OTP may not be practical in all cases...but its already used widely in certain ultra-high security military links.

In fact, this entire discussion is rather nonsensical. For decades, we've had bombers, fighters, subs, and other assets directed by wireless communication. Men inside or not, if an enemy had been able to break our communication thoroughly, they would have been able to issue commands instructing those assets to attack targets, potentially with severe loss of life.

The notion that having people "in the loop" prevents such incidents is silly. It can help to reduce the risk....or it can even INCREASE the risk. As example, consider the USS Vincennes downing of Iranian Air 655. Had there been no human decision-making in that loop, that horrific accident would never have happened...the Aegis system correctly identified the airliner as a civilian jet.


RE: 25 years?
By afkrotch on 3/15/2010 12:40:13 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
As for actual control of the link, any message OTP is unbreakable. Period. You don't need to invoke hypothetical advances in quantum computing. OTP may not be practical in all cases...but its already used widely in certain ultra-high security military links.


OTP is breakable. Just not in enough time. By the time you do, they've already moved to something else.


RE: 25 years?
By porkpie on 3/15/2010 6:51:54 AM , Rating: 1
Sorry, this isn't correct. OTP is mathematically demonstrable as unbreakable....infinite time or no.


RE: 25 years?
By afkrotch on 3/15/2010 10:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
How is it not possible? Everything's possible. Grab on old OTP, then try to generate the next one. Use some massive botnet to work towards generating the next one, and in a few thousand years, you'll get it.

Computationally infeasible, but not impossible.


RE: 25 years?
By porkpie on 3/16/2010 10:34:19 AM , Rating: 2
"computationally infeasible, but not impossible."

Sorry, but you don't understand encryption if you believe so. You brute-force break encrpytion by trying shorter keys against a longer message. When you eventually find a key that decrypts to something other than garbage, you have found your key.

But with OTP, the key is as long as the message. That means there are as many different keys as potential messages, which means you will have (for any reasonable-length message) countless trillions of keys that decrypt your message to something other than garbage -- but NOT to the original plaintext.

That's the same reason you can't brute-force break a message with even weak 56-bit encryption...if your message is shorter than 56 bits.


RE: 25 years?
By porkpie on 3/13/2010 9:08:01 AM , Rating: 3
"...since you can't have strongly encrypted wireless due to bandwidth limits"

BTW, I'm still wondering how you came up with this one. Encryption, in general, does not increase the size of the plaintext (beyond some minor block padding in some algorithms). There is no effect on bandwidth requirements.


RE: 25 years?
By Hannibal256 on 3/12/2010 3:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
People can't decide what to have for breakfast let alone that to do in 25 years. =)


RE: 25 years?
By clovell on 3/12/2010 4:36:47 PM , Rating: 4
> More specific to this prediction, what is so morally wrong with a person controlling a robot?

The same thing that Abe Lincoln found morally wrong with the gatling gun during the civil war - the ability to inclift massive casualties on a broad scale with little to no personal risk.

Removing the operator of an instrument of death from its reality has broad psychological implications. On a large-scale, this would embolden the possessors of such a technology to be more agressive.

Such a technology would have to be weilded responsibly.


RE: 25 years?
By AEvangel on 3/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: 25 years?
By clovell on 3/12/2010 5:27:18 PM , Rating: 2
I never said anything about Lincoln being a humanitarian - that wasn't the point at all.


RE: 25 years?
By Kombaji on 3/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: 25 years?
By porkpie on 3/13/2010 12:06:45 AM , Rating: 5
"News flash AEvangel, that is how wars were fought"

I beg to differ. Scorched earth tactics against helpless civilians by invading forces were not common procedure at the time. Looking at major conflicts in the period immediately before and after the civil war (The Mexican-American War, The French Revolution, the Basuto-Boer War, the Austro-Prussian War), none of these employed large-scale reprisals against civilians. In fact, such tactics would not become commonplace until the time of the much later Boer War, c. 1900.

"As far as Notherners being imprisioned for oppostion to the war (Illegal? Really? Do you really wish you owned a slave that badly?"

What nonsense is this? The North didn't fight the Civil War to free slaves, regardless of the propaganda being bruited about. Lincoln himself is on record as saying he would free or enslave every negro in the nation, if it kept the union together. Lincoln himself never freed slaves throughout the Union (his Emancipation Proclamation, issued a year and a half after the war began, freed only those in the states which had rebelled...and was specifically written that, had any of those states returned to union control within the next few months, the order would have been voided.)

Furthermore, Lincoln's actions of jailing any Northern newspaper editor (and anyone else) who criticized his war policy was an unparalleled trampling on free speech and constitutional rights. It becomes even more of a travesty when one considers the Supreme Court at the time ruled against Lincoln's jailings and suspension of habeas corpus -- and Lincoln ignored their ruling outright.

Even by today's standards, when the federal government has far more power, could you justify George Bush imprisoning the entire upper management of CNN, ABC and MSNBC, for daring to criticize the Iraqi war? Or would you deem him a tyrant for so doing?

Unlike what most people think, the first casualties of the civil war were not at Fort Sumter, but rather a group of soldiers in Baltimore, attacked by northern civilians angry over Lincoln's expansion of powers.

In fact, Sherman's March to the Sea didn't cause the largest displacement of civilian refugees during the war. That came in Missouri, when the state's governor, operating under the unlimited powers granted to him by Lincoln's martial law, dispossessed 20,000 citizens of their homes and drove them from the state, under suspicion that some of them might have harbored rebels. Worst of all, even when the war was nearly over and the rebel threat in Missouri long over, Lincoln couldn't convince Missouri to abandon martial law...it turned out the local government enjoyed having the army enforce their unlimited powers. It wasn't until after Lincoln was dead that civil rights were finally restored in Missouri and several other states.

"Burning the Southerners homes was a mercy for the South because it ended the war sooner"

The ends justify the means, eh?


RE: 25 years?
By Boze on 3/13/2010 1:05:36 AM , Rating: 5
I have a bit of a personal stake in the Civil War as my family lost everything we owned, and ended up dirt poor because of it. In fact, it took right about 100 years for our family as a whole to rebuild, and we still don't have a fraction of the wealth we had before the Civil War.

My eldest uncle, the patriarch of our family, researched our family history as far back as he could, to 1500s England, and while going that far back, made some very impressive and enlightening discoveries, namely, that at one time we controlled 16,000 acres of farmland in Mississippi and owned somewhere around 250 to 300 slaves. I have forgotten the exact number; he was doing this research while I was still in the Navy and my mother would e-mail me bits and pieces of it.

Furthermore... even if the Confederacy had been victorious, I doubt seriously slavery would have continued in the United States; slavery was on its way out regardless. Even if my family had lost all its slaves, had we not be stripped of our lands, we could have at least hired workers and continued our large-scale farming operations.

I'm not bitter mind you, a century and a half is long enough for me to not really care, but sometimes I wonder to myself how my life would be different if we still had control of our lands.

Lastly, there's quite a few good books on how the Reconstruction of the southern states has still to this day disadvantaged our economy versus the northern states, and is indirectly responsible for the poverty of many African American families in areas of the South.


RE: 25 years?
By knutjb on 3/13/2010 3:08:05 AM , Rating: 2
To the above Civil War discussions: be careful with applying your morals and ideals of today to an event that long ago. We get mad if a download takes 15-20 seconds longer than we would like, they waited days or weeks for most of their information, then had to act on it, it was the best they had.

Also civil wars tend to be more personal when siblings are fighting each other as was the case in my family. Look how long the scars of that war are lasting.


RE: 25 years?
By thepalinator on 3/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: 25 years?
By porkpie on 3/14/2010 2:14:26 PM , Rating: 2
The Basuto- Boer War, however, took place during the time of the Civil War itself.

Had you read my entire post, you would have seen I separately referenced the much later Boer War. (point of fact, there have been at least four conflicts bearing the name 'Boer' in one form or another)


RE: 25 years?
By Hector256 on 3/12/2010 9:13:04 PM , Rating: 4
What you miss is that as weapons have gotten more powerful over ages and generations, the lethality of combat has actually dropped. We've come an awfully long ways since 70,000 romans died in a few hours at Cannae, or 50,000 Americans died in a few days at Gettysburg. Vietnam lasted what, about a decade, and 60,000 Americans died- in the whole war. Iraq lasted years, and cost about 3,000 American lives, and that was considered horrific.

The reason this happens is that as weapons get more powerful, you need less people on the battlefield and to hold ground. When you have M-16's and Abrams tanks, you don't need to stand shoulder to shoulder with your brothers at arms to hold the line like you did when you wielded a gladius and a pilum. You don't have armies of 90,000 men facing off over the space of a couple square miles, so it's a lot harder to kill people as quickly.

Use of robotics on the battlefield will serve to reduce casualties even more. It's pretty easy to comprehend why. When a machine gets destroyed, who dies? It just costs you $500k or whatever to build a new one, and off you go.


RE: 25 years?
By siuol11 on 3/13/2010 12:06:21 AM , Rating: 4
Our numbers are low. Theirs are rather high... Especially if you count the civilian casualties.


RE: 25 years?
By lightfoot on 3/13/2010 2:56:33 AM , Rating: 5
High compared with ours, but not by historic measures. Especially if you are counting civilian deaths.


RE: 25 years?
By knutjb on 3/13/2010 3:37:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The reason this happens is that as weapons get more powerful, you need less people on the battlefield and to hold ground. When you have M-16's and Abrams tanks, you don't need to stand shoulder to shoulder with your brothers at arms to hold the line like you did when you wielded a gladius and a pilum. You don't have armies of 90,000 men facing off over the space of a couple square miles, so it's a lot harder to kill people as quickly.

I beg to differ, its not because the weapons are so much more powerful. We choose to be more accurate so as not to harm or limit civilian casualties as much as possible. Show me where else in history a military has worked as hard to avoid harming the civilian populace. Why do you think the Taliban blend in with the civilians, safety.

We certainly could fill up the bombers and level all beneath, but we don't. We work to find the smallest weapon that is just big enough for each application and stick it where we want it to go. No civilian is going to be safe in any combat zone, but I didn't see a Dresden in Iraq or Afghanistan.

I'm not going to argue whether Bush did or didn't do the right thing, but we are obligated to finish it. We didn't finish Iraq or Afghanistan the last time we were there. You can pay me now or pay me later, either way you will pay... Clinton failed in his response to Black Hawk down by quickly pulling out at a tragic event, a few days later in Rwanda Col Bagosora kicked off the slaughter of 800,000 people and Clinton didn't even want to call it genocide. Ask Gen Dallaire what happens when we, countries, don't live up to our ideals.


RE: 25 years?
By TETRONG on 3/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: 25 years?
By porkpie on 3/13/2010 11:39:03 AM , Rating: 2
Do you find dying more objectionable at the hands of a robot than a human?


RE: 25 years?
By TETRONG on 3/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: 25 years?
By porkpie on 3/13/2010 12:11:06 PM , Rating: 3
Try as I might, I cannot relate the relevance of that to my question.

And, to respond to your other post below, the belief that one million civilians died in Iraq has roundly and thoroughly been debunked. I hate to stand in the way of a good anti-Americanism diatribe, but facts are facts.


RE: 25 years?
By TETRONG on 3/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: 25 years?
By porkpie on 3/13/2010 3:30:48 PM , Rating: 3
"Frightening isn't it?"

Despite having watched Terminator a few times, it seems less frightening than being attacked by a marauding band of human mercenaries-- who might not simply wish me dead, but might want to rape and torture my family members before my very eyes, prior to killing me.


RE: 25 years?
By sviola on 3/15/2010 1:25:15 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, you can never guarantee that a robot won't do that...


RE: 25 years?
By TETRONG on 3/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: 25 years?
By knutjb on 3/13/2010 3:28:00 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Over 1 million civilians have been killed in Iraq.

If the 600,000 killed number has been widely discredited, where did you come up with a million?

No I'm not marginalizing civilian deaths, just that anti-war groups have a very bad habit of "creating" numbers that are quite outlandish.

I'm also tired of "we're so evil". We have done some very bad things. Put what we have done into historical context, not revisionist history, and we, I believe, have done much less harm than what inaction would have caused. Our inaction contributed immensely to much of the genocide on the African continent. We are usually the ones picking up after European Colonialism.

Peace at any cost has killed more than standing up against wrong doers, i.e. Mao, Stalin, and name that African dictator etc..


RE: 25 years?
By siuol11 on 3/13/2010 12:04:09 AM , Rating: 2
The DOD actually has 25, 50 and 100 year plans. Yes, really.


RE: 25 years?
By knutjb on 3/13/2010 3:06:27 AM , Rating: 2
They do, I know it sounds weird when you look at the dollar amounts but they are on tight budgets, yes there are some exceptions. They don't want to buy more of anything than they have too. BTW just in time management is a dangerous game to play in the military, some items you just can't wait an extra minute for.


RE: 25 years?
By cludinsk on 3/14/2010 11:43:58 PM , Rating: 2
but sexbots will be common in under 10 years


RE: 25 years?
By Bruneauinfo on 3/15/2010 8:05:27 AM , Rating: 2
i was going to vote you up based on your first comment.

but then i read your second comment.


RE: 25 years?
By rippleyaliens on 3/15/2010 2:43:12 PM , Rating: 2
YAH, YAH, YAH.. Still, Even if we ever get to surrogate level robotics, (the movie the surrogates).. You still need that man on SITE, looking, feeling, hearing.. More importantly, someone with rational thoughts.. Terminators, may indeed be close to reality, but would you really want to trust a computer, that will have to rely on Satellites, High powered radios, to control them? You forget that with the uav's up there now, it is a 2 pilot job..YET Still rely on the man on the ground providing up to minute Recon on targets..
25 years, THATS HOW OLD our Stealth planes are.. Something is in the works, but personally i am not prepaired to see $10-20million dollar EACH weapons out there, (robots\terminators etc), when we have people in every corner of the world, starving..uneducated.. etc..


Short-sighted article...
By Shig on 3/12/2010 10:44:37 PM , Rating: 2
You have to be pretty nieve to believe anything in this article.

Extrapolate computational power gains across 10 years, then 20 years, then 30 years...By 2030 we'll be at able to put a supercomputers worth of compute power in a robot for less than a dollar (by todays supercomputer terms).

It'll be far cheaper to use robots in the future. Sure they might be stupid and slow compared to a human, but you'll be able to have far more robotic units on a battlefield than you'd ever be able to have humans.

I'll take the 100 robots to 1 human.

They'll also be easily replaceable. It takes at LEAST 6-12 months to train a soldier with decent combat effectiveness.

You can roll hundreds of thousands to millions of robots off assembly lines in that time.

#'s win wars

I'll take the robots in the future. Humans will simply be in control out of harms way.




RE: Short-sighted article...
By intelpatriot on 3/13/2010 7:07:50 AM , Rating: 4
Roger Roger


RE: Short-sighted article...
By crystal clear on 3/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Short-sighted article...
By crystal clear on 3/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Short-sighted article...
By porkpie on 3/13/2010 11:36:08 AM , Rating: 2
"Did you fight in any war ?"

Did you?

"Ever heard of the Geneva convention & other treaties than govern your actions in war."

How do you believe the Geneva or Hague Conventions are applicable here?

"Those robots you talk about could be hacked & suddenly they become your enemy & destroy you"

As I've already pointed out, if an enemy can corrupt and control your communications, they can redirect your assets to attack you -- with or without humans in the loop.


RE: Short-sighted article...
By crystal clear on 3/13/2010 1:33:34 PM , Rating: 1
Did you?


yes ! not the forum to discuss further details !

How do you believe the Geneva or Hague Conventions are applicable here?

Who controls the robots & who is responsible for their actions !

What if due to a software/hardware error you loose control over the robot,which then becomes massacre machine !

A drone in Afganistan hits a target,which ultimately turns out to be innocent people & not terrorist- who gets blamed for that, the drone or the general.

As for the last point - ok agreed.


RE: Short-sighted article...
By porkpie on 3/13/2010 3:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
"A drone in Afganistan hits a target,which ultimately turns out to be innocent people & not terrorist- who gets blamed for that, the drone or the general."

A general directs a strike fighter to hit a target, which ultimately turns out to be innocent people -- who gets blamed, the pilot or the general?

"What if due to a software/hardware error you loose control over the robot,which then becomes massacre machine !"

What if due to a pilot, ship captain, or tank commander's mental problems, their respective hardware becomes a massacre machine?

"Who controls the robots & who is responsible for their actions !"

You sidestepped the question. Do you believe the Geneva or Hague Conventions limit the use of robotics in warfare?


RE: Short-sighted article...
By Shig on 3/13/2010 10:29:40 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously cyber-warfare goes hand in hand with robotic warfare.

I kind of thought that was assumed.

Plus you can pretty easily put robots on a battlefield that do not need to be remote controlled. We're not quite there yet, but that day is QUICKLY approaching. Facial recognition software + machine guns, do the math.


RE: Short-sighted article...
By Solandri on 3/14/2010 6:48:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Plus you can pretty easily put robots on a battlefield that do not need to be remote controlled. We're not quite there yet, but that day is QUICKLY approaching. Facial recognition software + machine guns, do the math.

There are two ways you I can see this developing. First is the way you point out - autonomous robots being put in the battlefield to fight people. I'm not sure how likely that is. Computer AI is ridiculously easy to fool. Unless it's using something like using retinal scans, a simple set of Groucho Marx nose, glasses, and eyebrows would probably prevent a robot from identifying you. Also, telling friend from foe is a constant problem in the battlefield. The IFF transponders are designed to prevent friendly fire incidents, not to authorize firing on a target. That is, a target can be friendly, unidentified, or enemy. All IFF does is prevent a friendly from being misidentified as enemy. The things do fail, so they do not allow an unidentified unit to be classified as enemy and thus targetable. That judgment rests with the person with the finger on the trigger.

The second way is the way I think is more likely. Robot soldiers will become much more effective at killing than human soldiers ever were. We're already starting to see this in aircraft, where freed of the performance limits imposed by carrying a pilot, aircraft are able be smaller, fly and maneuver faster, and stay aloft longer. Anybody who's gamed against someone using a target bot knows that the things are practically inescapable (movies notwithstanding). So countries will develop armies of robots to fight their wars for them. The robots will duke it out, and one side will lose. Without its robot army to defend its human population, the ineffectiveness of sending human soldiers to fight robot soldiers will be so overwhelming that the losing side will simply sue for peace.

The bigger problem IMHO will be terrorist-type operations. Where someone gets their hands on a combat robot, programs it to kill anything that moves, then drops it off in the middle of a city.


RE: Short-sighted article...
By afkrotch on 3/15/2010 1:27:03 AM , Rating: 2
Who's to say the robots have to kill anyone? Just build like a few million of them, release them into the populace, and have them gather all weapons from everywhere.

Someone can capture the robot and program it to do what? Go out and gather weapons?


RE: Short-sighted article...
By Scrogneugneu on 3/14/2010 9:07:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can roll hundreds of thousands to millions of robots off assembly lines in that time.

#'s win wars


Ever wondered what this means, if there ever is that kind of war against China, the world's largest manufacturer?


RE: Short-sighted article...
By afkrotch on 3/15/2010 1:36:53 AM , Rating: 2
Last I checked, the US was still the world's largest manufacturer. At least according to the United Nations Industrial Development Organization.

We can beat China in a fight with producing robots for war, but throw ground troops down. China wins, hands down.


War of attrition, remote controlled robots
By AnnihilatorX on 3/12/2010 2:42:20 PM , Rating: 2
Aren't UAVs nowadays piloted through satellite links in real-time by pilots at home?

I see the trend of legions of remote controlled humanoids fighting the war when robotic construction technology moves on while AI haven't catched up. This way no moral codes to worry about.




RE: War of attrition, remote controlled robots
By jdietz on 3/12/2010 3:10:48 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think so. The pilot is there to give it basic orders which it then carries out. It can fly by itself for awhile or take some predetermined action if the link goes down. I think it can even do the whole mission without the link.


RE: War of attrition, remote controlled robots
By nafhan on 3/12/2010 3:28:15 PM , Rating: 2
For the larger UAV's, at least, (i.e. MQ-9) the pilots get flying hours for piloting them and they have to go through pilot school before being put in control. In fact, I think that's one of the things holding back more widespread deployment. I'm also pretty sure that the requirement for direct human control goes for any "unmanned" weapons platform the US is currently using.
The Sept. '09 issue of Popular Science had an interesting article on UAV pilots. Here's a link to the online version of the article:
http://www.popsci.com/drones
I'm pretty sure that's the same article I read in the magazine.


By HotFoot on 3/12/2010 3:46:56 PM , Rating: 2
There's a big difference from one UAV to another in terms of how it's operated and levels of autonomy. For instance, some, like the MQ-9, you fly using a camera and joystick. Others, you issue in commands like pre-programmed flight paths, with real-time waypoint update capability.

Some UAVs will automatically fly a pattern around a target once the target is identified - a pattern which maximises sensor-on-target time.

Lost-link can mean abort mission, but there's usually a few steps in-between. Often, climb in a spiral in increments of so many hundred feet and try to re-establish the link. After so many increments, high-tail for home.


By Jeffk464 on 3/12/2010 5:42:05 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see any reason with IFF systems and the ability to program UAV's to recognize enemy military vehicles why you can't have them use their own AI to kill enemy targets of oportunity. Having AI determine human targets is probably a long way down the road.


By afkrotch on 3/15/2010 10:19:05 PM , Rating: 2
The only thing a UAV can do is use auto pilot. Set some waypoints and it's on it's way. If the link is lost, it flies back to home station.

Aside from that, everything else is human pilot control. Like shooting missiles, moving cameras around for intel, laser targeting for jets, etc.

Pretty much the same as a commercial jet, minus the missiles, intel cameras, etc. I mean a commercial jet can takeoff, land, and fly waypoints.


Why replace when you can enhance?
By lightfoot on 3/12/2010 3:22:48 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Technology will not replace GIs

It will enhance them.

The new Miranda warning: "You have the right to remain silent. Dead or alive you're coming with me. Resistance is futile. I'll be back."




RE: Why replace when you can enhance?
By ZaethDekar on 3/12/2010 3:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
I have a feeling it will be turned into a halo esque setup.

Because look at all sci-fi movies that came out and how current technology is going towards those movies.

Now the new generation of children will be going to school and think of this 'great' idea that was really just a childhood memory of a game they played 'back in the day'.

and we are already on our way to there.


By afkrotch on 3/15/2010 10:26:51 PM , Rating: 2
I think we're going more towards the Terminator setup. I mean, look at those robots they had in the 3rd movie. Small hovering drones, and the landbased ones with gatling guns. We already have ghetto versions of that.

http://www.gods-inc.de/macavity/IsleOfShadows/vehi...
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategor...

We're slowly getting there. Soon, we'll die to our robotic overlords.


Of course not...
By The0ne on 3/12/2010 2:56:39 PM , Rating: 1
You need dead kids to spice up the support for war! Can't do that with electronics.

/cynicism off




RE: Of course not...
By MrPeabody on 3/12/2010 3:32:43 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know about the rest of you DailyTechnicians, but it is my sincere hope that, now that TheOne 's cynicism is off, he says something about cute little puppies.


RE: Of course not...
By Sazabi19 on 3/12/2010 3:55:12 PM , Rating: 2
The coolest thing though, is that he never has to go to a gas station again, his car runs off of children's tears and crushed dreams! What an excellent source of power that will never run dry:)


RE: Of course not...
By TETRONG on 3/13/2010 11:38:29 AM , Rating: 2
Your aimless driving around is more important than another persons life?


Girls?
By Sureshot324 on 3/12/2010 5:53:59 PM , Rating: 3
I read that as "Technology will not replace girls".




RE: Girls?
By bkslopper on 3/12/2010 9:48:22 PM , Rating: 4
In a way, tech has replaced women. Starting with the microwave. =P

(runs for cover)


By crystal clear on 3/13/2010 10:31:47 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
UAVs and other unmanned technologies will play a bigger role, but are unlikely to replace human ground troops


UAVs and other unmanned were created with the express purpose to cutdown/minimize human casualties (dead & injured).

They are best used in search & destroy/search & detect missions among other important uses.

There were never created to replace human beings, rather assist them to get things done as & when needed.

You dont fight wars like the one on Normandy beach...taking massive casualties,forget it its over... no more.

The United States have to learn/plan/execute, to fight wars in a 40 to 60 or 90 day time span depending on the objectives etc,gone are those days of long wars from Vietnam to Iraq/Afghanistan.

Like the Israelis do it, quick & short-get in clean up & get out.




By Jalek on 3/14/2010 7:54:05 AM , Rating: 2
You can also fight like the Marines in Afghanistan have been, getting the cooperation and support of the local village leaders and mullahs instead of trying to fight with them as well as the insurgents. Police corruption's low with candidates nominated by the elders, in a culture that values the respect of one's elders and other crazy things like that.

Of course, the brass want that stopped immediately.

It's like 1973 all over again.


of course
By Beno on 3/14/2010 11:54:28 AM , Rating: 2
surely technology isnt going to replace troops any time soon.
but less troops will deployed on some locations on the battlefield.




Easily Defeatable..
By rippleyaliens on 3/15/2010 2:49:58 PM , Rating: 2
If the USA or CHINA wanted to use robots\mass amount of uav's or worse, armored mechs.. The technology is easily defeatable.. And if fighting a enemy who is getting their but handed to them, lobbing a nuke, over the area, even a small tactical nuke, say of the 10kton areana.. will render them pretty useless.. Even if they are hardened to wistand the EMP..the destruction alone, would render that point mute.
Dont forget how easily it is to destroy satellites.. Command and Control elements in a battle like this show up very easily. (Ie big dishes and antennas) Last but not least, POWER for those.. Its not like we would put Hydrogen cells in each one.. ANY captured\disabled mecha would be turned into mini tact weapons for the enemy... All it takes is 1 mishap..




By lcbrownz on 3/17/2010 9:29:50 AM , Rating: 2
When exploded, electromagnetic pulse weapons will kill all electronics in the field leaving military commanders blind leaving the human soldiers as their eyes and ears. Electromagnetic pulse acts like a stroke of lightning but is stronger, faster and briefer. EMP can seriously damage electronic devices connected to power sources or antennas. This include communication systems, computers, electrical appliances, and automobile or aircraft ignition systems. The damage could range from a minor interruption to actual burnout of components. Most electronic equipment within 1,000 miles of a high-altitude nuclear detonation could be affected. . Unless all electronic technology is properly shielded from EMP, it will be mostly useless after the 1st major attack.




"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki