DUmmies discuss next generation drones

[Vagabond]

DUmmies discuss new generation Drones

kpete  (1000+ posts)        Wed Mar-25-09 04:26 PM
Original message
Pentagon exploring robot killers that can fire on their own 
 Source: McClatchy

* Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Pentagon exploring robot killers that can fire on their own

By Robert S. Boyd | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The unmanned bombers that frequently cause unintended civilian casualties in Pakistan are a step toward an even more lethal generation of robotic hunters-killers that operate with limited, if any, human control.

The Defense Department is financing studies of autonomous, or self-governing, armed robots that could find and destroy targets on their own. On-board computer programs, not flesh-and-blood people, would decide whether to fire their weapons.

"The trend is clear: Warfare will continue and autonomous robots will ultimately be deployed in its conduct," Ronald Arkin, a robotics expert at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, wrote in a study commissioned by the Army.

"The pressure of an increasing battlefield tempo is forcing autonomy further and further toward the point of robots making that final, lethal decision," he predicted. "The time available to make the decision to shoot or not to shoot is becoming too short for remote humans to make intelligent informed decisions."

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/64779.html

Now the terrorists will have something that doesn't eat or sleep and absolutely will not ever stop until the terrorists fall over dead.  Of course, this gives the DUmp monkeys indigestion.

Yunomi (8 posts)      Wed Mar-25-09 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. DUDE!!
 I saw that movie!!

You saw Bicentennial Man, I'm sorry that one was just way too long.

gratuitous  (1000+ posts)      Wed Mar-25-09 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
3. I can always tell who's going to win a fight
 If one guy is standing off, jabbing and tentatively probing his opponent's defenses, and the other guy is willing to take a hit or two to get in close and really jackhammer his opponent, it's no contest. The U.S. military is getting more and more stand-offish, less willing to risk injuries or losses in attaining an objective. It's a pretty good recipe for failure, and if our finest military minds are no longer risking troops, why don't we cut out this whole charade and disband the military? Let's get going on diplomacy and negotiation, because if your military is too valuable to get messed up in combat, you're going to lose an armed confrontation.

Bring the troops home now. The only thing worse than all the meaningless death and destruction is to dick around for another six months or a year or longer and have even more meaningless death and destruction.

So lemme see.  We get up in the bad guy's faces and fight and some of our troops die, unnecessarily since we have the ability to take out the bad guys without them being able to fire a shot, in which case you bitch and moan about the casualties.  Option two is to take out the bad guys when they can't even shoot back at us, in which case you bitch and moan that we aren't giving the bad guys a chance.  Since you're going to do the same thing regardless, I'll keep the troops alive.  Thanks for playing.

Tim01 (213 posts)      Wed Mar-25-09 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
23. The robot troops make war more palatable to the American public.
 There are plenty of warriors ready to mix it up,but if the body count goes up, Americans complain. They are working on waging war without getting ourselves dirty.

Just like there is plenty of pinko scum to panic about anybody anywhere getting a tiny scratch from American defense activity.

madeline_con  (1000+ posts)        Thu Mar-26-09 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #3
36. I'm looking at it from another angle.
 As our "overseas adventures" wane in popularity with the public, it will be increasingly more difficult to find humans willing to do the Pentagon's dirty work. They have to find something to do the job without sympathy or remorse, and the resultant depression and suicide after they get back.

Wait, I thought you said Afghanistan was a popular war.  Get your story straight, pinko.

Webster Green  (1000+ posts)      Wed Mar-25-09 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
4. What could possibly go wrong with this brilliant idea?
 Another huge waste of taxpayer dollars on death and destruction.

I don't know.  Is that the question your parents asked before concieving you?

Occulus  (1000+ posts)        Wed Mar-25-09 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. And you thought "Galactica" was just a good TV show
 It's interesting and not-so-amusing that we may have to seriously consider the events that take place on that series in the coming decades.

The idea of malevolent, self-aware, completely autonomous machines is a none-too-farfetched concept.

You know nothing of complex programming.  These machines are far from self-aware or autonomous.

The Stranger (1000+ posts)       Wed Mar-25-09 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
6. Skynet.
 Life imitates art.

Yep, just like how people kept comng up with the extremely stupid idea.  Kinda like you and socialism, eh?

Jeff In Milwaukee  (1000+ posts)        Wed Mar-25-09 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #13
26. Where does the robot sex come in...
 Half a trillion in R&D? Somebody better get laid!

So long as the robot looks likeTricia Helfer or Grace Park, who's complainin'?

ElboRuum (1000+ posts)      Wed Mar-25-09 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
14. ZOMG! We're considering HKs!!!!
 Edited on Wed Mar-25-09 05:05 PM by ElboRuum
Haven't three Terminator movies really sunk into any one that you should really think about it before you create Skynet?

A robot is not skynet, chill out.

JDPriestly  (1000+ posts)        Wed Mar-25-09 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
15. So that's why they need to reform Social Security -- so they can afford these nasty toys.
 Boys Gone Wild, that is what it is. Stop them before they get completely out of control.

No we need to reform social security because folks just don't have the courtesy to drop dead at 65 like they used to do, and save the government's stolen loot.

sofa king  (1000+ posts)        Wed Mar-25-09 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
17. What could possibly go wrong?
 In other news, DoD biologists report limited success in increasing the size of lab rats a thousand-fold, while others are experimenting with replacing soldiers' skeletons with rare alloys.

All of these venues of inquiry are expected to produce elevated comic book sales.

Just wait until you the cool claws that come with the soldiers skeletons. 

LynnTheDem  (1000+ posts)        Wed Mar-25-09 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
24. All I can do anymore is just shake my head.
 What the rest of the WORLD will do/needs to do...well, were I the rest of the world, I know what the answer would be.

And it's not the answer I'd want, being part of this country, rather than part of the rest of the world.

Sigh.

Most of the really important parts of the world are being protected by that same gear, moron.

Blackhatjack (1000+ posts)     Wed Mar-25-09 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
31. TERMINATORS!!! Here sooner than anyone throught ...
 Look at any electronic device in your home, and especially your computer, and ask the question "Has it ever malfunctioned and done something it was not intended to do?"

Apply that question to any robot hunter-killer that the Pentagon can create.

Add to it the question "What if we just allow the robot hunter-killer to decide when and who it will fire upon without first getting authorization from a human?"

Now... do you feel safer?

How much more often does a malfunction result in a unit simply not working at all?  The robot won't react until a certain set of conditions is met.

ForrestGump  (1000+ posts)        Wed Mar-25-09 11:23 PM
Response to Original message
33. Will they have Austrian accents?
 
Will they want everyone's jackets, boots, and motorcyles?

And if both sides have such robots at some point, how can you tell when the war is won? I mean, I'd rather have robots getting totaled than human GIs, but it does kinda highlight the pointlessness of much human conflict (well, I guess it'd be only semi-human conflict).

You really would think that the movies and stories written as cautionary tales relative to just such an outcome might sink in enough that robot armies are not really favored as a great innovation. I sure hope they don't run on Windows Vista...

  Window's Vista. Robot shuts down in combat and won't do anything until it is restarted for some reason while standing in front of the enemy.

Hugabear (1000+ posts)      Thu Mar-26-09 01:16 AM
Response to Original message
37. Ban this NOW
 We should take immediate steps to HALT development on this and similar autonomous projects, and ban their use. What the ****? We're talking about giving real life-and-death decisions to a ****ing COMPUTER. A device that does not have human emotion, that could kill a 12-yr old child just as easily as a terrorist armed with a machine gun. 

It's like colonizing and weaponizing space.  It will be done, it's just a matter of time and who does it first.





 

[Sam Adams]

I would think that such programs would cut down on collateral damage and civilian deaths, but I am no expert. If so, the DU folks would be in favor, I would think. But maybe they see these programs as an unfair advantage. Sort of like Obama's teleprompter. (Oh, sorry, bad example.)

[Carl]

gratuitous  (1000+ posts)      Wed Mar-25-09 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
3. I can always tell who's going to win a fight
 If one guy is standing off, jabbing and tentatively probing his opponent's defenses, and the other guy is willing to take a hit or two to get in close and really jackhammer his opponent, it's no contest. The U.S. military is getting more and more stand-offish, less willing to risk injuries or losses in attaining an objective. It's a pretty good recipe for failure, and if our finest military minds are no longer risking troops, why don't we cut out this whole charade and disband the military? Let's get going on diplomacy and negotiation, because if your military is too valuable to get messed up in combat, you're going to lose an armed confrontation.

Bring the troops home now. The only thing worse than all the meaningless death and destruction is to dick around for another six months or a year or longer and have even more meaningless death and destruction.

I will give this the nod for the stupidest,most contradictory,convoluted piece of gibberish I have seen so far today.

No doubt some other DUmpmonkey will outdo it but for now.

[DumbAss Tanker]

I would think that such programs would cut down on collateral damage and civilian deaths, but I am no expert. If so, the DU folks would be in favor, I would think. But maybe they see these programs as an unfair advantage. Sort of like Obama's teleprompter. (Oh, sorry, bad example.)

Yes and no.  It's defense contractor heaven, anyway, so it's real popular with Congresscritters with contractors in their districts and it involves gear that can be put on a shelf instead of having to be paid, fed, and cared for when not actually out vanquishing our foes.

The tech-reliant mentality tends to lead to stupidity like Clinton's use of 70 million worth of Tomahawks to kill some al-Q'aeda night watchmen and a couple dozen goats, or Rumsfeld's 1920s-era 'We don't need troops, we dominate the air!' thinking that gave us "Shock and awe" and "Mission accomplished."  Not that the approach doesn't have a significant constituency in the uniformed services as well as among the politicians, there is a seductive 'Gee-whiz' factor to it that tends to override sound thinking about how to integrate it into flexible and useful force packages.   

[The Village Idiot]

I want that time back I spent reading that drivel

[Karin]

Me too, FGL.  I thought this was a thread about them rearing their children. 

[Vagabond]

Me too, FGL.  I thought this was a thread about them rearing their children. 

Don't be surprised to see such a thread with the same name now that you've planted the idea....

[USA4ME]

BHO lied, robots died.

.

[jukin]

It almost as hilarious to read what the DUchebags believe about the military as economics.

[dutch508]

gratuitous  (1000+ posts)      Wed Mar-25-09 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
3. I can always tell who's going to win a fight
 If one guy is standing off, jabbing and tentatively probing his opponent's defenses, and the other guy is willing to take a hit or two to get in close and really jackhammer his opponent, it's no contest. The U.S. military is getting more and more stand-offish, less willing to risk injuries or losses in attaining an objective. It's a pretty good recipe for failure, and if our finest military minds are no longer risking troops, why don't we cut out this whole charade and disband the military? Let's get going on diplomacy and negotiation, because if your military is too valuable to get messed up in combat, you're going to lose an armed confrontation.

Bring the troops home now. The only thing worse than all the meaningless death and destruction is to dick around for another six months or a year or longer and have even more meaningless death and destruction.

What I find intresting this this: (*well...more than one thing, but that is another story...)

With this logic, then the military should just do away with weapons further advanced than the gladius, since the one that wins is the one who closes with and destroys the enemy in hand to hand combat. However, we know that this is not the case, hisotrically, as militaries have always sought the next and newest technology on the battlefield to defeat the enemy.

For example, the Pilum. This weapon system was lightweight, hand delevered at a distance, and was used primarily to break-up an enemies' charge toward your lines. The spearheads  wounded warriors, or stock in shields making the warriors more vulnerable to the Roman soldiers. Before the pilum, the Romans used javilins, less effective, more expensive, and needed more training to use.

However, the Pilum went out of favor because the enemies of Roma, more and more likely to be other Romans, developed better body armor. That and the reduction in fighting ability of the Legions was the reason of the fall of the Roman military system from it's hay-day in the second century AD.

Another example; The first crude firearms came with a bayonet to stick on the end- in the muzzle- because int he end, you were still a freeking spearman. Up to the American Civil War, armies still thought of the desiding factor on the battlefield as the bayonet- Cold Steel. However, the ACW showed than a steady force in the defense, could always beat an attacker through firepower, rather than guts and 18 inches of steel. It still took until the 1900s until the Militaries cause up with the reality. Tanks were the solution to the machinegun death of no-mans-land. You still get a bayonet in the infantry. It's handy to open MREs with.

One last example; Iraq 1991. The American Army attacked across open desert into Defending Iraqi strongpoints. Most of the Iraqi military was destroyed by air and artillery before we crossed the berm. The remainder were blasted out of existance at 3 kms...before they could even see us. With rare exceptions the war was fought at long range. No need to close with and stab the enemy if he's already destroyed. Now, we fight at even longer ranges using unmanned vehicles, satt. coverage, better comms. Why loss troops if you don't have too.

However- When the needs arise, we still have the best trained, best equipped troops on the planet. We are taking the fight into the Afghan mountians to the point where the enemy lives in Pakistan. He only crosses the border to die. We took the fight to the streets in Iraq, beating the enemy every single time he stuck his head out. Without a doubt, we'll follow them into the hallways of hell and kill them there- because that's what we do.

DUmpmonkies don't know shit about the military- just as they don't know shit about anything else.

[DumbAss Tanker]

What I find intresting this this: (*well...more than one thing, but that is another story...)

With this logic, then the military should just do away with weapons further advanced than the gladius, since the one that wins is the one who closes with and destroys the enemy in hand to hand combat.

Well, it would certainly separate the "committed" form the "Somewhat interested," but your point about them not knowing shit about the military rigns true.  The problem the DUmmie is attempting to express, and failing so badly at, did certainly exist during the Clinton Presidency, but it was definitely a creation of the civilian political culture, not the professional military one.  The military was totally exasperated by Billy-Jeff's unwillingness to put boots on the ground anywhere for fear one of our Soldiers or Marines might actually get shot...a policy for which bin-Laden and his boys had a precisely correct intelligence estimate, much better than ours of him.