March 6th, 2009, 04:00 PM
How practical would it be if robot technology got to the point where you could build androids and send them into situations where they're virtually guaranteed to get "killed" or blown to bits?
Would that have enough of a tactical application to justify the cost?
uh, well, an "android" implies that it is able to think on it's own. that were AI's come in and not robotics.
currently there are already uses of RC type robotics used on the battle field. with simple machine gun attachments an other things.
but like i said for a robot to be abel to get it's self into situations and be able to handle it it's self, such as finishing a fire fight, it would either need an AI, or it would need algorithems and proceedures out the ass. i mena in multiple hundreds of terebytes worth of information. (1 terebyte = 1K megabytes)
That's true. I hadn't really thought that part through. It might take a lot of AI. I'm not sure how different it would be from designing "bots" to play counter-strike against you. It's mostly just that you've got to write code for every single little movement and terrain interaction.
The bots have to be able to ascertain what their 3-D environment is before they can respond to it. Sonar might work for that, but then the enemy might just start using ultrasonic disruptors to "blind" your robots. If they had to use visual processing, then we're talking some really serious computers. (Probably not practical)
Just moving around, running, holding a weapon, etc.. probably takes a lot of AI.
I wonder if you could just have a truck full of computers nearby, and have the robots just stay in constant contact with it.
yeah you could ahve a wifi going to the other computers. but that could be hackable...
it would have to be somethig really complicated.
Yeah, I sometimes forget that, in some ways, electronics is an area where the terrorists are pretty close to being able to keep up with us, by adapting consumer electronic devices to do military purposes. (Like using a cell phone to set off a roadside bomb, etc)
The amount of encryption it would take to make the transmissions un-hackable (to a terrorist) would probably mean you had to put a pretty advanced computer in that robot.
Of course, if you go through these guys: http://www.gumstix.com/
You might find it's not as unaffordable as it seems to put decent amounts of computing power into a robot.
Nuke'em and get it over with!
Nuke'em and get it over with!
I like your idea and have often thought about it myself.
To reply to some of the critics:
There is a way to make it so that the wifi signal wouldnt be hackable. Have it so that the platoon using the robot would use a remote control with a small LCD on it to see what the robot sees. Then they could just press a button to blow it up. If this still didnt work, then they could just make a button on the robot that causes it to move foward a set time then just blows up. This switch would be on the hardware of the robot, therefore it could not be hacked.
I think human oversight would be the key to automated robots. You could program the bot to think for itself about a lot of things perhaps, but you'd want a human operator to approve each and every target it kills, just to make sure it isn't busy shooting the wrong people.
As far as hack-ability, the robot should probably be programmed not to do anything destructive without a valid kill code, and as long as you only ever broadcast each kill code once, it would be hard for a hacker to do much damage , even if they did intercept it.
You all know "The Terminator" wasn't real, right?
I'm not talking about psycho AI's. I'm talking about the practical limits of what a normal is even capable of. A normal AI might be able to determine whether there's a humanoid shaped figure in front of its target sight, but something as complicated as determining whether it's a "friendly" or an "enemy" is still the exclusive domain of human insight.
There's no AI algorithm you're going to write out that would safely allow the computer to know the difference between one target and another, beyond knowing its basic shape and size.
The point in requiring valid kill codes is to prevent an enemy hacker from telling the robot to shoot at the wrong targets. They can't hack your codes unless they get them straight out of the Military's own databases, or actually capture a robot and open up its computer box. Because.... each code is only sent once, ever.
Whats wrong with the drones?
I think I'm kind of hoping for the "shock and awe" effect of having android robots attack you.
I'm not sure the word 'suicide' can be applied to a robot, if so why not a missile?
I think we should train cats to be suicide bombers since they are abnoxious little critters second only to man in the detruction they cause, if not suicide bombers they ought to pass a law forcing people to use them for target practice. THey can start with this one (it belongs to the wife...)- actually I have nothing against a nice little pussy - (and haven't had for many many years)
lol, yeah i was asking that myself, i already know they have RC robots in the field, if someone would want to make a robot suicide bomber i'd jsut use one of them, no point in blowing up a couple billion dollars just to kill somepeople, there's much cheaper alternatives.
Moslems use retarded kids as bombers, now there is a real social concept.
Actually suicide bombers tend to be extremely give-for-the-greater-good minded. We do the same thing as those extremist groups when we venerate soldiers who give their life in battle. We just don't agree with their tactics or targets, and we are[ enemies, so we have a hard time really understanding and recognizing the selflessness involved.
I don't think the English were all that sentimental about Joan of Arc either. It mostly depends on your perspective.
Many suicide bombers are promised monetary compensations for their families after their death, or have their families threatened. Drugs are often involved as well.
yes i've heard of that before. comming from a nation that has little luxury to live for, being promised that your family will live wealthy and prosperous lives after you suicide bomb your self, can be quite tempting.
It's funny how willing people are to fool themselves that an act of pure destruction can be for the "greater good".
It seems a lot of the third world think they're poor because the first world decided for the to be poor, rather than because their own corrupt leaders keep embezzling all the country's wealth for themselves, and then blaming the west for it.
Sort of akin to American Christian NCOs and Officers throwing retarded infantry boys into machine gun fire through WWI, WWII, Korean war etc.Originally Posted by fizzlooney
Most of the extremist we are fighting which use suicide tactics and others we don't like are more protective of their larger culture then specifically their Islamic religion--though if you asked them it would put in the framework of Islam and tribe etc.
--
Friend or foe Id is technically quite possible but hampered like many other things by power sources easy enough to carry and maintain. Many US soldiers already carry IR stroke and other devices with them which serve much the same purpose if your using a air weapons team (usually a pair of Apaches) trying to ID your position before they unleash their ordinance.
I think you are talking about a missile. Most are robotic up to some point. Obviously when you want to target your enemy with a weapon you would want to do it at the cheapest cost possible - so maybe a more expensive platform like UAV which could then fire less expensive missiles which use GPS , infrared , Radar etc to home in on the target
The advantage of roadside bombs is the feeling of helplessness they create. You can conceivably see a UAV coming and take measures to defend against it, which makes the bombing run still feel like a battle in some sense. The best way to win a war (the best overall outcome) is for one side to give up. That only happens if they think their efforts are futile. Any benefit at all might be enough to motivate someone to give their life, if they think what they're doing is making some small difference. But if there's no difference between them staying home and living vs. coming to war and dying, then probably most people would stay home. Genocidally wiping out the entire adult male population of a territory is another option, but it should be kind of a last resort (and in the case of insurgency, the male children will just grow up and replace them anyway.)
The enemy has realized that they can accomplish more by focusing their effort on killing ~5,000 US soldiers in a demoralizing way than the USA does when it wipes out untold hordes of their operatives in a way that keeps the morale flowing. Look at the last 30 seconds of this clip: Inside the Green Berets Part 3 - YouTube
If that is a good example of how Special Forces see IED's, then you can see how IED's accomplish their real objective.
Last edited by kojax; September 10th, 2011 at 03:52 PM.
How does a robot kill itself???
PETMAN - YouTube
They just need to be smart, and cheap and there combat ready!
USA have ideas for a new swarm drone system.
multiple man sized UAVs will fly in to the battlefield, some will ram them selfs in to tanks and some will release hundreds of baseball sized drones, the tiny drones will find a human target and blow up when they reach the target
To make a humanoid robot, hold a weapon and shoot at a target accurately is easy to make the robot walk, easy. its the brain that is hard. It will have to be aware of everything around it it would have to communicated. ect ect. that takes year. it needs to recognize enemy, and that means it has to learn like a child before it can do anything.
From face to expressions, to information inside the expressions, to understanding the information inside the expression, to computing possible scenarios inside the information inside the expression, to knowing every single possible scenario based on previous knowledge stored in the robots memory to compute every possible scenario inside the information inside the expression, to finding a likely scenario to every single possible scenario based on previous knowledge stored in the robots memory to compute every possible scenario inside the information inside the expression, to identify the expression on the mans face and identifying the mans face as a smile and will result in a certain scenario, and classify the man with the smile as no threat from finding a likely scenario to every single possible scenario based on previous knowledge stored in the robots memory to compute every possible scenario inside the information inside the expression.
and that is just off the surface, behind every process there are 10 more processes, and behind each of the 10 more processes there are 20 more processes inside each one out of the 10 processes and so on.
its very complicated
Why build robots when Guantanamo special operatives are so skilled in post hypnotic suggestion? Or how about a dead person mounted on a radio controlled motorcycle?
Right- my car commited suicide last week just to PISS ME OFF.
Makes about as much sense as your suicidal robots.you are nuts
December 30th, 2011, 03:01 AM
hi.
i seen Ur question.. I have no perfectly ans about this.
...................
if u want to download Ares, here u can find a lot of thing
Download Ares Free - Download Music, Movies and Software Free
this discussion is absurd
All the AI functions would be to costly (at first atleast), what would be more practical would be small UAV type vehicles that carry explosives, or weapon attachments. this reduces programming significantly, but still reaches your desired effect (unless i have misunderstood)
| « Hiring South Americans as Shock Troops | What is the sense to use a troops in Afghanistan? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
