Robot warriors
March 7, 2005 10:00 AM Subscribe
This disturbingly realistic video gives us a peek at the not-too-distant future when we will be able to send robots to fight our wars in third world countries. Remember, we already have unmanned aerial reconnaissance vehicles that patrol skies and can attack target targets with Hellfire missiles.
I'm sorry, I just can't take this seriously. It reads like an Onion article.
Unlike its human counterparts, the armed robot does not require food, clothing, training, motivation or a pension.
Heh.
posted by Specklet at 10:19 AM on March 7, 2005
Unlike its human counterparts, the armed robot does not require food, clothing, training, motivation or a pension.
Heh.
posted by Specklet at 10:19 AM on March 7, 2005
yeah, what HuronBob said. I was expecting the video to be better than what appeared in my head as I was reading...
posted by lazymonster at 10:22 AM on March 7, 2005
posted by lazymonster at 10:22 AM on March 7, 2005
Calling Commander Adama -- it's the Cylons again!
posted by ScaryShrink at 10:23 AM on March 7, 2005
posted by ScaryShrink at 10:23 AM on March 7, 2005
And, we're never going to replace easily expendable kids from poor neighborhoods with $200,000 robots....just doesn't make sense!
Actually, it makes quite a bit of sense. The training and equipment costs for infantry is, in fact, quite a bit more than $200,000 a piece.
posted by unreason at 10:24 AM on March 7, 2005
Actually, it makes quite a bit of sense. The training and equipment costs for infantry is, in fact, quite a bit more than $200,000 a piece.
posted by unreason at 10:24 AM on March 7, 2005
Did you check the second ("not-too-distant-future") link? It goes to a BBC article titled: US plans 'robot troops' for Iraq . The leading paragraph: "The US military is planning to deploy robots armed with machine-guns to wage war against insurgents in Iraq. "
Of course, the real robots aren't as sophisticated or anthropomorphic as the one depicted in the video. But it is happening.
posted by Davenhill at 10:25 AM on March 7, 2005
Of course, the real robots aren't as sophisticated or anthropomorphic as the one depicted in the video. But it is happening.
posted by Davenhill at 10:25 AM on March 7, 2005
Before people launch too far into the "robot wars" discussion, it may help to know this is a demo from The Embassy Visual Effects Inc.
posted by Loser at 10:31 AM on March 7, 2005
posted by Loser at 10:31 AM on March 7, 2005
Davenhill, yep, i checked it... I've seen the little robot tanks before... if they are deployed, they won't last a week.. If our ground troops already can't tell the difference between a combatant and an Italian reporter, how can we expect a little robotank do any better...
And,...unreason.... if we're spending over $200,000 to train and equip our troops, we sure are NOT getting our money's worth.... hell, we've got to send them scrap metal to plate the humvee's we're sending....and, based on the snafus over there, the training isn't that hot either....
posted by HuronBob at 10:33 AM on March 7, 2005
And,...unreason.... if we're spending over $200,000 to train and equip our troops, we sure are NOT getting our money's worth.... hell, we've got to send them scrap metal to plate the humvee's we're sending....and, based on the snafus over there, the training isn't that hot either....
posted by HuronBob at 10:33 AM on March 7, 2005
I've seen the little robot tanks before... if they are deployed, they won't last a week..If our ground troops already can't tell the difference between a combatant and an Italian reporter, how can we expect a little robotank do any better...
Well, the robots aren't truly robots. They're not autonomous, and require a remote operator. As such, they'll be able to distinguish targets about as well as their operator, only without peripheral vision or depth perception. They can, however, be augmented with things like thermal optics and FFID systems that would be prohibitive to deploy with a soldier.
They'd probably make great lightly-armed scouts for urban warfare -- low profile, fast, and manueverable. An armed vehicle can at least defend itself from enemy scouts and aid retreat. And I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that they're loaded up with enough explosives to make sure that a muj will think twice about sneaking up behind it and flipping it over.
That said, I agree that, in general, the DoD is spending too much on toys and not enough on our human capital. Better infantry equipment and urban warfare training would do a lot more to improve our casualty rates than a ground-based ROV.
posted by xthlc at 11:08 AM on March 7, 2005
Well, the robots aren't truly robots. They're not autonomous, and require a remote operator. As such, they'll be able to distinguish targets about as well as their operator, only without peripheral vision or depth perception. They can, however, be augmented with things like thermal optics and FFID systems that would be prohibitive to deploy with a soldier.
They'd probably make great lightly-armed scouts for urban warfare -- low profile, fast, and manueverable. An armed vehicle can at least defend itself from enemy scouts and aid retreat. And I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that they're loaded up with enough explosives to make sure that a muj will think twice about sneaking up behind it and flipping it over.
That said, I agree that, in general, the DoD is spending too much on toys and not enough on our human capital. Better infantry equipment and urban warfare training would do a lot more to improve our casualty rates than a ground-based ROV.
posted by xthlc at 11:08 AM on March 7, 2005
if we're spending over $200,000 to train and equip our troops, we sure are NOT getting our money's worth
Please elaborate.
posted by yerfatma at 11:18 AM on March 7, 2005
Please elaborate.
posted by yerfatma at 11:18 AM on March 7, 2005
Yerfatma.. " elaborate"..nope, can't, it is just an opinion, I sort of thought that was clear based on the lack of documentation attached to that sentence.
however, if you feel we ARE doing a good job of training and equipping our troops, and you feel that they have been trained and equipped to a level that will allow them to win this "war" we are in, I invite you to volunteer, go through the training, and go settle this little mess!
posted by HuronBob at 11:30 AM on March 7, 2005
however, if you feel we ARE doing a good job of training and equipping our troops, and you feel that they have been trained and equipped to a level that will allow them to win this "war" we are in, I invite you to volunteer, go through the training, and go settle this little mess!
posted by HuronBob at 11:30 AM on March 7, 2005
The Army is developing automated gun systems that can be placed on a tank, Humvee, or truck. These automated sytems will have detection equipment (cameras, radar, acoustic) that can automatically detect where any incoming fire is coming from and return fire. While not exactly robots, it is a step in that direction.
Having been in the Army a few lifetimes ago I can tell you that the guys in Iraq are very well trained. The problem is that they were trained for the wrong kind of war. They were trained for the big conventional war fought on the plains of Europe. The Army is now starting to emphasize urban warfare and insurgency in it's training a lot more.
[Berek buys stock in Teledyne, checks phonebook to make sure that there are no Sarah Conners in his neighborhood.]
posted by berek at 11:44 AM on March 7, 2005
Having been in the Army a few lifetimes ago I can tell you that the guys in Iraq are very well trained. The problem is that they were trained for the wrong kind of war. They were trained for the big conventional war fought on the plains of Europe. The Army is now starting to emphasize urban warfare and insurgency in it's training a lot more.
[Berek buys stock in Teledyne, checks phonebook to make sure that there are no Sarah Conners in his neighborhood.]
posted by berek at 11:44 AM on March 7, 2005
Well, the robots aren't truly robots. They're not autonomous, and require a remote operator.
& before you know it: pWn3rZ rul3 d4 w0rld
posted by borq at 12:37 PM on March 7, 2005
& before you know it: pWn3rZ rul3 d4 w0rld
posted by borq at 12:37 PM on March 7, 2005
Well, this one's been around the Internet for at least 2-3 years now IIRC. Still an oldie-but-goodie.
posted by vanadium at 2:20 PM on March 7, 2005
posted by vanadium at 2:20 PM on March 7, 2005
Apparently even robots need steenkin' bodges.
posted by gottabefunky at 2:22 PM on March 7, 2005
posted by gottabefunky at 2:22 PM on March 7, 2005
FWIW, The Embassy Visual Effects Inc created the video. They also did the popular dancing citreon ad. very cool.
posted by tomplus2 at 2:28 PM on March 7, 2005
posted by tomplus2 at 2:28 PM on March 7, 2005
I invite all the mujahideen to seek and heed HuronBob's advice Re: combat training.
posted by techgnollogic at 2:40 PM on March 7, 2005
posted by techgnollogic at 2:40 PM on March 7, 2005
however, if you feel we ARE doing a good job of training and equipping our troops, and you feel that they have been trained and equipped to a level that will allow them to win this "war" we are in, I invite you to volunteer, go through the training, and go settle this little mess!
If there aren't enough troops to control the ground, it really doesn't matter how well they're trained.
posted by me & my monkey at 2:47 PM on March 7, 2005
If there aren't enough troops to control the ground, it really doesn't matter how well they're trained.
posted by me & my monkey at 2:47 PM on March 7, 2005
I thought this was the scariest line:
there are plans to replace the computer screen, joysticks and keypad in the remote-control unit with a Gameboy-style controller and virtual-reality goggles.
because of course it should be as easy to kill someone as it is in the video games.
posted by hue at 3:12 PM on March 7, 2005
there are plans to replace the computer screen, joysticks and keypad in the remote-control unit with a Gameboy-style controller and virtual-reality goggles.
because of course it should be as easy to kill someone as it is in the video games.
posted by hue at 3:12 PM on March 7, 2005
I've seen the little robot tanks before... if they are deployed, they won't last a week.. If our ground troops already can't tell the difference between a combatant and an Italian reporter, how can we expect a little robotank do any better...
Presumably if you *did* have completely autonomous systems and wanted to absolutely avoid friendly fire, you'd only want to deploy them in which there are no friendlies. For instance, maybe parachuting a bunch of them in instead of dropping bombs.
if we're spending over $200,000 to train and equip our troops, we sure are NOT getting our money's worth
"Getting our money's worth" is completely independent of whether or not the soldiers are being sufficiently well equipped/trained to win a war. Even if you suppose that soldiers are trained and equipped to an extent so great that it is simply not possible for $200,000 (in which sense we would be getting *more* than our money's worth), the fact may remain that in order to win a given war, the soldier may need, say, twice as much training and equipment.
posted by juv3nal at 3:44 PM on March 7, 2005
Presumably if you *did* have completely autonomous systems and wanted to absolutely avoid friendly fire, you'd only want to deploy them in which there are no friendlies. For instance, maybe parachuting a bunch of them in instead of dropping bombs.
if we're spending over $200,000 to train and equip our troops, we sure are NOT getting our money's worth
"Getting our money's worth" is completely independent of whether or not the soldiers are being sufficiently well equipped/trained to win a war. Even if you suppose that soldiers are trained and equipped to an extent so great that it is simply not possible for $200,000 (in which sense we would be getting *more* than our money's worth), the fact may remain that in order to win a given war, the soldier may need, say, twice as much training and equipment.
posted by juv3nal at 3:44 PM on March 7, 2005
well equipped?? i'm just saying... (ny times, registration required)
posted by HuronBob at 4:32 PM on March 7, 2005
posted by HuronBob at 4:32 PM on March 7, 2005
linking to a news article and wimping out when someone challenges your snotty little remarks isn't "just saying" anything, douchebag.
posted by techgnollogic at 7:25 PM on March 7, 2005
posted by techgnollogic at 7:25 PM on March 7, 2005
If he wants to participate and act like a grownup then he's welcome to do so. If he wants to make little cynical, defeatist asshat comments that he's afraid to stand behind because he doesn't know one way or the other what the fuck he's talking about, then he's a douchebag and I'm happy to call him on it.
posted by techgnollogic at 2:24 AM on March 8, 2005
posted by techgnollogic at 2:24 AM on March 8, 2005
Just tell the teacher, spare us letting us know you told the teacher.
posted by yerfatma at 3:58 AM on March 8, 2005
posted by yerfatma at 3:58 AM on March 8, 2005
You're right. Sorry. Holdover from "Meta'd". Will not do it again.
posted by Bugbread at 4:10 AM on March 8, 2005
posted by Bugbread at 4:10 AM on March 8, 2005
Sadly it seems this video has been quite poorly resampled to WMV with quite a bit of drop outs and interference :(
Here is a mirror of the original Quicktime .mov with a good review in all its original glory...(it seems http://www.theembassyvfx.com/qt/tetra.mov is no longer there anymore)...
http://analogik.com/ and a direct link to the .mov.
posted by gren at 7:55 AM on March 9, 2005
Here is a mirror of the original Quicktime .mov with a good review in all its original glory...(it seems http://www.theembassyvfx.com/qt/tetra.mov is no longer there anymore)...
http://analogik.com/ and a direct link to the .mov.
posted by gren at 7:55 AM on March 9, 2005
Heh. In the future, killer robots run Windows, have 106Mb available on their C:\ drives, run Acrobat Reader 5.0 and Photoshop 7.0, have a list of "music tracks I dislike", and surf the internet a lot. The also carry Kalashnikovs in 5.56 NATO. Maybe they're Bulgarian.
posted by techgnollogic at 11:10 AM on March 9, 2005
posted by techgnollogic at 11:10 AM on March 9, 2005
« Older Even the Non Scientist and Curious! | Not Quite What It Sounds Like Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
And, we're never going to replace easily expendable kids from poor neighborhoods with $200,000 robots....just doesn't make sense!
posted by HuronBob at 10:15 AM on March 7, 2005