PDA

View Full Version : Soldiers in Disguise


Fourthisto
16 Feb 2005, 10:04 PM
A freaky, longass read.

I blame Dr. Miles Bennett Dyson.

------

A New Model Army Soldier Rolls Closer to the Battlefield

By TIM WEINER, The New York Times

(Feb. 16) - The American military is working on a new generation of soldiers, far different from the army it has.

"They don't get hungry," said Gordon Johnson of the Joint Forces Command at the Pentagon. "They're not afraid. They don't forget their orders. They don't care if the guy next to them has just been shot. Will they do a better job than humans? Yes."

The robot soldier is coming.

The Pentagon predicts that robots will be a major fighting force in the American military in less than a decade, hunting and killing enemies in combat. Robots are a crucial part of the Army's effort to rebuild itself as a 21st-century fighting force, and a $127 billion project called Future Combat Systems is the biggest military contract in American history.

The military plans to invest tens of billions of dollars in automated armed forces. The costs of that transformation will help drive the Defense Department's budget up almost 20 percent, from a requested $419.3 billion for next year to $502.3 billion in 2010, excluding the costs of war. The annual costs of buying new weapons is scheduled to rise 52 percent, from $78 billion to $118.6 billion.

Military planners say robot soldiers will think, see and react increasingly like humans. In the beginning, they will be remote-controlled, looking and acting like lethal toy trucks. As the technology develops, they may take many shapes. And as their intelligence grows, so will their autonomy.

The robot soldier has been a dream at the Pentagon for 30 years. And some involved in the work say it may take at least 30 more years to realize in full. Well before then, they say, the military will have to answer tough questions if it intends to trust robots with the responsibility of distinguishing friend from foe, combatant from bystander.

Even the strongest advocates of automatons say war will always be a human endeavor, with death and disaster. And supporters like Robert Finkelstein, president of Robotic Technology in Potomac, Md., are telling the Pentagon it could take until 2035 to develop a robot that looks, thinks and fights like a soldier. The Pentagon's "goal is there," he said, "but the path is not totally clear."

Robots in battle, as envisioned by their builders, may look and move like humans or hummingbirds, tractors or tanks, cockroaches or crickets. With the development of nanotechnology - the science of very small structures - they may become swarms of "smart dust." The Pentagon intends for robots to haul munitions, gather intelligence, search buildings or blow them up.

All these are in the works, but not yet in battle. Already, however, several hundred robots are digging up roadside bombs in Iraq, scouring caves in Afghanistan and serving as armed sentries at weapons depots.

By April, an armed version of the bomb-disposal robot will be in Baghdad, capable of firing 1,000 rounds a minute. Though controlled by a soldier with a laptop, the robot will be the first thinking machine of its kind to take up a front-line infantry position, ready to kill enemies.

"The real world is not Hollywood," said Rodney A. Brooks, director of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at M.I.T. and a co-founder of the iRobot Corporation. "Right now we have the first few robots that are actually useful to the military."

Despite the obstacles, Congress ordered in 2000 that a third of the ground vehicles and a third of deep-strike aircraft in the military must become robotic within a decade. If that mandate is to be met, the United States will spend many billions of dollars on military robots by 2010.

Military Robots Being Developed

· Category 1: Performs hunting and killing tasks

· Category 2: Scouts buildings, tunnels and caves

· Category 3: Hauls weapons and gear, performs searches and reconnaissance

· Category 4: Flying drone

· Category 5: Launches drones to conduct surveillance, psychological warfare and more

As the first lethal robots head for Iraq, the role of the robot soldier as a killing machine has barely been debated. The history of warfare suggests that every new technological leap - the longbow, the tank, the atomic bomb - outraces the strategy and doctrine to control it.

"The lawyers tell me there are no prohibitions against robots making life-or-death decisions," said Mr. Johnson, who leads robotics efforts at the Joint Forces Command research center in Suffolk, Va. "I have been asked what happens if the robot destroys a school bus rather than a tank parked nearby. We will not entrust a robot with that decision until we are confident they can make it."

Trusting robots with potentially lethal decision-making may require a leap of faith in technology not everyone is ready to make. Bill Joy, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems, has worried aloud that 21st-century robotics and nanotechnology may become "so powerful that they can spawn whole new classes of accidents and abuses."

"As machines become more intelligent, people will let machines make more of their decisions for them," Mr. Joy wrote recently in Wired magazine. "Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage, the machines will be in effective control."

Pentagon officials and military contractors say the ultimate ideal of unmanned warfare is combat without casualties. Failing that, their goal is to give as many difficult, dull or dangerous missions as possible to the robots, conserving American minds and protecting American bodies in battle.

Quotes on Robot Soldiers

"They're not afraid. They don't forget their orders. They don't care if the guy next to them has just been shot. Will they do a better job than humans? Yes."
-- Gordon Johnson, Joint Forces Command at the Pentagon

"This is the first time [soldiers have] said, 'I want a robot,' because they're going to get killed without it."
-- Bart Everett, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, on the demand for armed bomb-disposal robots in Iraq

"I have been asked what happens if the robot destroys a school bus rather than a tank parked nearby. We will not entrust a robot with that decision until we are confident they can make it."
-- Gordon Johnson

"Anyone who's a decision maker doesn't want American lives at risk," Mr. Brooks said. "It's the same question as, Should soldiers be given body armor? It's a moral issue. And cost comes in."

Money, in fact, may matter more than morals. The Pentagon today owes its soldiers $653 billion in future retirement benefits that it cannot presently pay. Robots, unlike old soldiers, do not fade away. The median lifetime cost of a soldier is about $4 million today and growing, according to a Pentagon study. Robot soldiers could cost a tenth of that or less.

"It's more than just a dream now," Mr. Johnson said. "Today we have an infantry soldier" as the prototype of a military robot, he added. "We give him a set of instructions: if you find the enemy, this is what you do. We give the infantry soldier enough information to recognize the enemy when he's fired upon. He is autonomous, but he has to operate under certain controls. It's supervised autonomy. By 2015, we think we can do many infantry missions.

"The American military will have these kinds of robots. It's not a question of if, it's a question of when."

Meanwhile, the demand for armed bomb-disposal robots is growing daily among soldiers in Iraq. "This is the first time they've said, 'I want a robot,' because they're going to get killed without it," said Bart Everett, technical director for robotics at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego.

Mr. Everett and his colleagues are inventing military robots for future battles. The hardest thing of all, robot designers say, is to build a soldier that looks and acts human, like the "I, Robot" model imagined by Isaac Asimov and featured in the recent movie of the same name. Still, Mr. Everett's personal goal is to create "an android-like robot that can go out with a solider to do a lot of human-like tasks that soldiers are doing now."

A prototype, about four feet high, with a Cyclops eye and a gun for a right arm, stood in a workshop at the center recently. It readied, aimed and fired at a Pepsi can, performing the basic tasks of hunting and killing. "It's the first robot that I know of that can find targets and shoot them," Mr. Everett said.

His colleague, Jeff Grossman, spoke of the evolving intelligence of robot soldiers. "Now, maybe, we're a mammal," he says. "We're trying to get to the level of a primate, where we are making sensible decisions."

The hunter-killer at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center is one of five broad categories of military robots under development. Another scouts buildings, tunnels and caves. A third hauls tons of weapons and gear and performs searches and reconnaissance. A fourth is a drone in flight; last April, an unmanned aircraft made military history by hitting a ground target with a small smart bomb in a test from 35,000 feet. A fifth, originally designed as a security guard, will soon be able to launch drones to conduct surveillance, psychological warfare and other missions.

For all five, the ability to perceive is paramount. "We've seen pretty dramatic progress in the area of robot perception," said Charles M. Shoemaker, chief of the Army Research Laboratory's robotics program office at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland. That progress may soon allow the Army to eliminate the driver of many military vehicles in favor of a robot.

Fourthisto
16 Feb 2005, 10:05 PM
"There's been almost a universal clamor for the automation of the driving task," he said. "We have developed the ability for the robot to see the world, to see a road map of the surrounding environment," and to drive from point to point without human intervention. Within 10 years, he said, convoys of robots should be able to wend their way through deep woods or dense cities.

But the results of a road test for robot vehicles last March were vexing: 15 prototypes took off across the Mojave Desert in a 142-mile race, competing for a $1 million prize in a Pentagon-sponsored contest to see if they could navigate the rough terrain. Four hours later, every vehicle had crashed or had failed.

All this raises questions about how realistic the Army's timetable is for the Future Combat Systems, currently in the first stages of development. These elaborate networks of weapons, robots, drone aircraft and computers are still evolving in fits and starts; a typical unit is intended to include, say, 2,245 soldiers and 151 military robots.

The technology still runs ahead of robot rules of engagement. "There is a lag between technology and doctrine," said Mr. Finkelstein of Robotic Technology, who has been in the military robotics field for 28 years. "If you could invade other countries bloodlessly, would this lead to a greater temptation to invade?"

Colin M. Angle, 37, is the chief executive and another co-founder of iRobot, a private company he helped start in his living room 14 years ago. Last year, it had sales of more than $70 million, with Roomba, a robot vacuum cleaner, one of its leading products. He says the calculus of money, morals and military logic will result in battalions of robots in combat. "The cost of the soldier in the field is so high, both in cash and in a political sense," Mr. Angle said, that "robots will be doing wildly dangerous tasks" in battle in the very near future.

Decades ago, Isaac Asimov posited three rules for robots: Do not hurt humans; obey humans unless that violates Rule 1; defend yourself unless that violates Rules 1 and 2.

Mr. Angle was asked whether the Asimov rules still apply in the dawning age of robot soldiers. "We are a long ways," he said, "from creating a robot that knows what that means."

rocketman70
16 Feb 2005, 11:09 PM
Um, yeah, this is some pretty freaky shit. I missed your little opening remark there 4. Heh, all I could picture reading this for some reason was Sarah Conner.

classicgrrl
16 Feb 2005, 11:24 PM
that is pretty freaky. pretty soon, no soldiers will have to die in war. only the civilians...

Duemellon
17 Feb 2005, 07:38 AM
that is pretty freaky. pretty soon, no soldiers will have to die in war. only the civilians...can u get that to rhyme? that was beautiful.

Actually, the sadder point will b, w/o the threat of loss of life for direct combat, the ease to war will b greater & the civ cost will b higher. How many of hesitant lower ranks (who send their soldiers to die in the streets) will cheerfully send in a joystick controller android to do the job?

Who will hav the decision makin in what to send in & where? The lower ranks still? Less & less ppl will b in control of the decision makin, centralizin powr, & limitin the chances for checks & balances (altho groupthink is currently prevailant). Pushin a button to kill 10,000 civs as collateral is easier than callin up someone on the phone & tellin them to do it by hand.

War will just get easier.

frenchstudent
17 Feb 2005, 09:24 AM
The government controls the media in a way that we are subjected to all of this through movies and television and video games so when it actually comes about it's not that big of a deal. If you'd have told someone in the 80's that the united states would have a robot army by the year 2010, they would have laughed at you.
This doesn't sit well with me.

back2vinyl
17 Feb 2005, 10:24 AM
Ever since I saw terminator one, I figured this day was coming.

BigSugar
17 Feb 2005, 10:29 AM
Skynet IS THE VIRUS!

but in all seriousness, if all terminators were as hot as that one in T3 (the blonde chicky), then sign me up for termination! :o

Handy Smurf
17 Feb 2005, 10:33 AM
Ever since I saw terminator one, I figured this day was coming.
Ever since I saw Terminator one, I knew Micheal Biehn was awesome.
Johhny Ringo, looks like someone just walked over your grave.

Wondertastic
17 Feb 2005, 10:34 AM
seeing as how we can't use human soldiers in a responsible manner, i hate to see what would happen with robot soldiers.

foolsgold
17 Feb 2005, 11:18 AM
can u get that to rhyme? that was beautiful.

no soldiers dying in the halls or pavillions/the only ones dying now are every day civillians/by the hundred, by the thousands/in some cases even by the bazillions

I trying to rhyme something with cotillion, but until there are robot debutantes, it just wouldn't work.

silvertone32
17 Feb 2005, 12:13 PM
Robots can never replace the real time evaluations that combat leaders have to make in the middle of a fight. They can and will be used for recon and maybe sniping but beyond that they lack the ability to be a force on the modern battlefield.

Buzzstein
17 Feb 2005, 12:21 PM
Robots can never replace the real time evaluations that combat leaders have to make in the middle of a fight. They can and will be used for recon and maybe sniping but beyond that they lack the ability to be a force on the modern battlefield.

Never say never.

Slar
17 Feb 2005, 12:23 PM
Robots can never replace the real time evaluations that combat leaders have to make in the middle of a fight. They can and will be used for recon and maybe sniping but beyond that they lack the ability to be a force on the modern battlefield.
OK, what about robot soldiers that are run by remote control? You have the robot in the battle zone and the soldier in a bunker 5 miles away basically working a kick-ass remote control. What happens if your robots gets wasted? Just link up to the next one.

Emperor Wog
17 Feb 2005, 12:56 PM
http://www.blackforestbridge.com/Images/smallwonder.gif

Handy Smurf
17 Feb 2005, 01:01 PM
http://www.blackforestbridge.com/Images/smallwonder.gif
Sooooooo Aawwwwesoooome! :D :D :D

BigSugar
17 Feb 2005, 01:13 PM
OK, what about robot soldiers that are run by remote control? You have the robot in the battle zone and the soldier in a bunker 5 miles away basically working a kick-ass remote control. What happens if your robots gets wasted? Just link up to the next one.

why not just make war and Xbox live event!?? bunch of stoners sitting in their beanbags with headsets on and whomping some enemy ass half a world away!! LOL!!

wait.......sounds like a book i read....."Enders Game" by Orson Scott Card.....only sans the stoner part.

Duemellon
17 Feb 2005, 01:24 PM
w/o the loss of real life (on either side), wars will perpetuate indefinitely, unless all wars bcome a production/economic battle of attrition


w/o real soldiers in the field the threat to innocents increases. The idea that a robot army will square off only against anothr robot army is as antiquated as the old Napoleonic battle phalanx concept.

Why would I send my robosoldiers into a field to meet urs head-on? Fuck that, I'm sendin them around the corner to ur capital city to hold ur ass down.


Once they prove successful in securin an area, they will b forced to patrol it, in effect, bcomin the peacekeepers & legal enforcement. These robots will hav to b equippd/w the ability to manage human beings!


Even tho humans rn't as physically durable as robosoldiers, they r easier to adapt to the environment & actually still more durable in the long run. Less consumption, able to push limits, can survive off of readily availabl resources (fishin/huntin v. an outlet, or solar chargin).


Wars r about the threat of death to humans, not robots. That will nevr change regardless who's doin it.

seafoamgreen
17 Feb 2005, 01:28 PM
whatever happened to the genetic supersoldiers? Have comic books been steering me wrong all these years?