Page 2 of 2
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 3:27 pm
by lizardkid
I think the media has hyped self-thinking computers a bit much, that and movies. I-Robot, Stealth, Terminator, etc. that would take another 50 years AT LEAST to create robots that could do all that.
i think these robots will primarily be scouts or light urban fighting units, i remember seeing a project on this for the British military about 2 months ago (project SWORD) and they noted that they hope bots will never pull the trigger. there will always be a human element deciding who and who not to kill.
Well, what if those orders are to run-away, defect, or betray? A robot doesn't have a conscience, or any emotional capacity to understand the implications of its actions. A robot would have no long-serving loyalty to any one side if it were being used in a war. If it were reprogrammed or stolen it would take commands just the same from an enemy as it would from an ally.
ALL robots fall under that description. The same can't be said of humans.
Do you really think they'd allow something like that? It'd be able to see 360 (judging from the camera posts all around it) and if anyone came within too close range or touched it without pressing a key combo or something, it'd probably self-destruct. They'll have measures against that sort of thing.
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 3:45 pm
by PKM
At0miC wrote:Actually I meant that robots don't have a real conscience or emotion yet. ....
tell that to Serv-O 12; he just found out martin lawrence will be taking wil smith's place in I, Robot II.
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 6:58 pm
by Axion
lizardkid wrote:Do you really think they'd allow something like that? It'd be able to see 360 (judging from the camera posts all around it) and if anyone came within too close range or touched it without pressing a key combo or something, it'd probably self-destruct. They'll have measures against that sort of thing.
I'm being realistic.
There's no doubt in my mind that preventive measures and safeguards would be built into military robots. But there's a balance in technology; If security technology improves, so do the methods to counteract it. Wireless hacking and other methods would most likely be employed.
Nothing is ever totally secure in this world.
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 7:04 pm
by Axion
Robots also have one huge potential weakness: EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) weapons/bombs. Although they don't exist yet, they are most likely being developed, and while I'm sure that technology is being developed to neutralize the threat, it's still a big roadblock.
In modern warfare, the various levels of attack could accomplish a number of important combat missions without racking up many casualties. For example, an e-bomb could effectively neutralize:
* vehicle control systems
* targeting systems, on the ground and on missiles and bombs
* communications systems
* navigation systems
* long and short-range sensor systems
EMP weapons could be especially useful in an invasion of Iraq, because a pulse might effectively neutralize underground bunkers. Most of Iraq's underground bunkers are hard to reach with conventional bombs and missiles. A nuclear blast could effectively demolish many of these bunkers, but this would take a devastating toll on surrounding areas. An electromagnetic pulse could pass through the ground, knocking out the bunker's lights, ventilation systems, communications -- even electric doors. The bunker would be completely uninhabitable.
U.S. forces are also highly vulnerable to EMP attack, however. In recent years, the U.S. military has added sophisticated electronics to the full range of its arsenal. This electronic technology is largely built around consumer-grade semiconductor devices, which are highly sensitive to any power surge. More rudimentary vacuum tube technology would actually stand a better chance of surviving an e-bomb attack.
A widespread EMP attack in any country would compromise a military's ability to organize itself. Ground troops might have perfectly functioning non-electric weapons (like machine guns), but they wouldn't have the equipment to plan an attack or locate the enemy. Effectively, an EMP attack could reduce any military unit into a guerilla-type army.
While EMP weapons are generally considered non-lethal, they could easily kill people if they were directed towards particular targets. If an EMP knocked out a hospital's electricity, for example, any patient on life support would die immediately. An EMP weapon could also neutralize vehicles, including aircraft, causing catastrophic accidents.
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 8:19 pm
by Rookie One.pl
jv_map wrote:Will their hdds contain geneve_conventions.dll?
What? Dlls? Windows-controlled combat robots??? They would keep crashing all the time, or worse, get hacked by the opposing force due to security bugs. Either way, they would be useless.
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 8:37 pm
by PKM
Axion wrote:Robots also have one huge potential weakness: EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) weapons/bombs. Although they don't exist yet, they are most likely being developed, and while I'm sure that technology is being developed to neutralize the threat, it's still a big roadblock.
uh hi, atmospheric detonated nuclear warhead here; i've existed for well over 60 years. i would just need to lose some wieght to become a more localized attack. maybe my brother tatical nuclear warhead could do it.
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:26 pm
by Axion
Uh hi, maybe having the option of using a non-nuclear weapon is a good thing.
"Hey, I've got a great idea! Let's use excessive force and blow the robots up instead of using a simpler weapon that would just render them useless and at a reduced cost of human life and radiation pollution!"
There's no need to be a smartass, chief.
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:01 pm
by PKM
Axion wrote:
There's no need to be a smartass, chief.
there's always a reason , boss.
we allready have small tatical nuclear warheads that in the future america would have no problem using at the drop of a dime. sure they'd use it rather than an emp type device because you could recondition a pulsed robot where it's a little harder to recondion a glob of metal fused to the earth.
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 9:55 am
by Splaetos
America has no long term benefit in using tacticals nukes. They create radiation hazards, we can use other weapons to similar ends, and most importantly, we already plan on occupying the whole world, so why muck it up?
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:15 pm
by PKM
friend, have you ever seen the town of love canal, ny ? america doesn't need a reason to 'muck things up' we just think it's cool sometimes.
oh oh oh, lemme make it clear........american goverment & corprate businesses.
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:49 pm
by Rookie One.pl
Splaetos wrote:we already plan on occupying the whole world
Over my (and many others') dead bodies.
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:05 pm
by Splaetos
re pkm: no, but i live in upstate NY... jsut a hort drive i believe. The local stream where i grew up was rendered toxic for the last coupel decades by pcb's from a paper mill about 1000 yeards from my childhood house.
re rookie: yea, were workin on that!
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:09 pm
by PKM
i feel ya die; schuykill river is our drinking source and for 100s of years it's been the textile waste dumping ground + a nuclear reactor power station drain. oh and a couple dallas stinkboy fans were seen bathing in it. they closed down the pumping stations later to clean them. speaking of robots, look what the water did to my parents..
