Coming Soon: Real-world Robot Soldiers

[AtomicSwirl]

The US Armed Forces are preparing to start using armed robots to supplement (and eventually replace) humans on the battlefield within the next 10-25 years. Here's an article describing some of the robots that are on the drawing board.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/1779709

[Southern Cross]

Dr. Isaac Asimov must be spinning in his grave....

[Tom]

There was a sci-fi book series that used that particular premise, iirc. Though, in it, the US found it needed live troops to deal with a terrrorist style threat...

It's probably been up to twenty years since I read those books, so my memory is a little hazy. The article you linked jogged my recollection only somewhat.

[Trebuchet]

Issac Asimov was an idealist. Humans have always used their technology to kill each other, so the famous "Three Laws of Robotics" were never anything but a pipe dream of his. We've used robots to kill each other for decades: In essence a guided missile is nothing but a single-purpose throw-away robot. ("That's right, R2, I said ram him and self destruct!")

In order for the 3 Laws to be plausible, humans would first have to build robots that were capable of not following those laws by the robot's own choice, i.e., self-aware robots. We're a long way from that level of technology. In the meantime robots will continue to do whatever their programmers tell them to do.

[MisterVimes]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
Issac Asimov was an idealist.

Really, the three laws were a writing tool for Asimov. He created the rules and then in every robot book he would figure a way to violate them.

Asimov knew pretty well (as you can tell from his non-fiction work) that man would always use his technology for destructive (as well as constructive) purposes. He was very much the realist.

[BasilDrag]

Originally posted by AtomicSwirl
The US Armed Forces are preparing to start using armed robots to supplement (and eventually replace) humans on the battlefield within the next 10-25 years. Here's an article describing some of the robots that are on the drawing board.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/1779709

The site says:
>The Searcher will be a small, portable reconnaissance robot designed to explore
>buildings, tunnels and caves for mines, bombs and hostile humans. It will be able to climb
>stairs, open doors and detonate booby traps. It should be operational in two to seven
>years.

Don't Bomb Disposal Units of major police forces have this already? Isn't this a boondoggle?

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by BasilDrag
Don't Bomb Disposal Units of major police forces have this already? Isn't this a boondoggle?

Not necessarily. I believe all bomb disposal robots are remote controlled. This sounds more like the Army is trying to design a robot that can perform these functions without direct human supervision.

Also, there is a tremendous difference between the needs of an urban police force having a balky robot in the city where it can be repaired quickly if it malfunctions, and the needs of the military to have a capable robot with high enough reliability that it can be used in battlefield conditions. After all, soldiers can break tanks.

[BasilDrag]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
Not necessarily. I believe all bomb disposal robots are remote controlled. This sounds more like the Army is trying to design a robot that can perform these functions without direct human supervision.

Ah, but the site says:
>"Ultimately, we want to have multiple robots under
>the control of a single soldier," said Chuck
>Shoemaker, unmanned ground vehicle project manager
>at the Aberdeen lab.
>
"The soldier will remain in a protected environment,
>while the robots maneuver out in the hazardous
>environment before the soldier gets involved. Robots
>are sacrificial [sic] -- people are not."

Also, there is a tremendous difference between the needs of an urban police force having a balky robot in the city where it can be repaired quickly if it malfunctions, and the needs of the military to have a capable robot with high enough reliability that it can be used in battlefield conditions. After all, soldiers can break tanks.

LOL. True.

--
Let's see: I just posted, so it's time to login again. Anybody gonna fix these bleedin' boards?

[Balok]

Once they're all networked, we could put them under the control of some sort of advanced computer system. Then all defensive functions could be completely automated. I hear there's a company called Cyberdyne Systems that's working on just the right sort of computer for this job...

[Supreme]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
Issac Asimov was an idealist. Humans have always used their technology to kill each other, so the famous "Three Laws of Robotics" were never anything but a pipe dream of his. We've used robots to kill each other for decades: In essence a guided missile is nothing but a single-purpose throw-away robot. ("That's right, R2, I said ram him and self destruct!")

In order for the 3 Laws to be plausible, humans would first have to build robots that were capable of not following those laws by the robot's own choice, i.e., self-aware robots. We're a long way from that level of technology. In the meantime robots will continue to do whatever their programmers tell them to do.

Well said, Trebuchet. However, I do believe there is something to be said for the concern that when we no longer risk lives on the battlefield we may become even more capricious in declaring war. Of course it also means that we'll not have to sacrifice ourselves for war either. Personally, I think that the more we use robots for things like war and space travel, the more dissatisfied with life all of us will become. We'll feel like there's no chance for personal glory anymore.

Don't take any of this to mean that I'm for or against robot soldiers (though I am against robot astronauts). It's just a Prediction Supreme about the consequences of such an advancement. Every advacement in technology brings with it a change in our society, our perceptions, and our values.