Poll: Armed Military Robotics

[Xifel]

1) Ehmm, people do realise that even in war the point isn't to "kill" the enemy but to "defeat" them. And this usually that means capture the enemy, and more importantly (more me; former medic) treat their wounded.

By far the most effective way to defeat an enemy is to wound the enemy soldiers sufficiently that they cannot walk (at least temporarily) unaided. This ties up enemy manpower, as not only is that soldier down, but at least 1 or 2 are needed to transport that soldier away. Horrific looking injuries and those that allow the enemy to still scream also have a bonus of being bad for moral. (Top battlefield/disaster triage tip in many cases the screaming patients injuries aren't immediately life threatening, check the quiet ones 1st).

That is correct. As I said in other posts, I was a medic once. You aim for the enemy's right hip (that is to left when you look at him). Recoil will make you do non-fatal injuries to the hip, stomach and maybe chest.

It make me really really sad that I know that

And the second one is correct too: Screaming = Breathing. You have triage training?
Top battlefield/disaster triage tip #2: If the patient lives 4 hours after the wound, he is probably going to survive.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Machines have been picking off and killing humans ever since the first heat seeking missile. Its no big deal.

"By Heracles! A man's valor is dead." Archidamus (a King of Sparta) when he saw a catapult fire for the first time.

 

[Petromir]

1) Ehmm, people do realise that even in war the point isn't to "kill" the enemy but to "defeat" them. And this usually that means capture the enemy, and more importantly (more me; former medic) treat their wounded.

By far the most effective way to defeat an enemy is to wound the enemy soldiers sufficiently that they cannot walk (at least temporarily) unaided. This ties up enemy manpower, as not only is that soldier down, but at least 1 or 2 are needed to transport that soldier away. Horrific looking injuries and those that allow the enemy to still scream also have a bonus of being bad for moral. (Top battlefield/disaster triage tip in many cases the screaming patients injuries aren't immediately life threatening, check the quiet ones 1st).

That is correct. As I said in other posts, I was a medic once. You aim for the enemy's right hip (that is to left when you look at him). Recoil will make you do non-fatal injuries to the hip, stomach and maybe chest.

It make me really really sad that I know that

And the second one is correct too: Screaming = Breathing. You have triage training?
Top battlefield/disaster triage tip #2: If the patient lives 4 hours after the wound, he is probably going to survive.

Basic First aid training I got as a reservist, Test was better than normal classroom bollocks that civi ones do, even the ones that attempt location role-play. Scenario was basically your section has come across a friendly recon patrol thats been under mortar fire, medivac due in x time.

 

[Thaluikhain]

That is correct. As I said in other posts, I was a medic once. You aim for the enemy's right hip (that is to left when you look at him). Recoil will make you do non-fatal injuries to the hip, stomach and maybe chest.

Erm, what? Under what circumstances?

I'm not military, but I've read various training manuals, and they tend to emphasise firing at centre of mass because you can't really place shots that accurately.

The exception seems to be when the enemy is close by, then it's 2 at the chest, 1 at the head for everyone, repeat on anyone still standing because it's not enough to kill the enemy, you need to kill them right now. Some mention of firing at the legs and hoping to hit the artery there instead of the head under certain circumstances.

 

[Dejawesp]

1) Ehmm, people do realise that even in war the point isn't to "kill" the enemy but to "defeat" them. And this usually that means capture the enemy, and more importantly (more me; former medic) treat their wounded.

By far the most effective way to defeat an enemy is to wound the enemy soldiers sufficiently that they cannot walk (at least temporarily) unaided. This ties up enemy manpower, as not only is that soldier down, but at least 1 or 2 are needed to transport that soldier away. Horrific looking injuries and those that allow the enemy to still scream also have a bonus of being bad for moral. (Top battlefield/disaster triage tip in many cases the screaming patients injuries aren't immediately life threatening, check the quiet ones 1st).

That's only partially true and very limited, mostly just to guerilla warfare. When advancing on an enemy then injuring one soldier will not take 3 out of the fight because you still have to take the position they are currently defending and the other 2 will only administer triage when its safe to do so. Which is not when you're firing on them.

 

[Dejawesp]

That is correct. As I said in other posts, I was a medic once. You aim for the enemy's right hip (that is to left when you look at him). Recoil will make you do non-fatal injuries to the hip, stomach and maybe chest.

That is complete rubbish. I was in the service and you aim centre mass every single time. We where reprimanded if we aimed for the head on the target dummies. In battle you do not waste time trying to pull off trick shots. You just incapacitate the enemy as soon as possible before he has the time to shot you

We where given a few hours of sniper training as well and nothing got you chewed out as badly as fancy trick shots to the head, eyes and forehead of the target. It was the chest that was the target.

 

[Xifel]

That is correct. As I said in other posts, I was a medic once. You aim for the enemy's right hip (that is to left when you look at him). Recoil will make you do non-fatal injuries to the hip, stomach and maybe chest.

That is complete rubbish. I was in the service and you aim centre mass every single time. We where reprimanded if we aimed for the head on the target dummies. In battle you do not waste time trying to pull off trick shots. You just incapacitate the enemy as soon as possible before he has the time to shot you

We where given a few hours of sniper training as well and nothing got you chewed out as badly as fancy trick shots to the head, eyes and forehead of the target. It was the chest that was the target.

That is correct. As I said in other posts, I was a medic once. You aim for the enemy's right hip (that is to left when you look at him). Recoil will make you do non-fatal injuries to the hip, stomach and maybe chest.

Erm, what? Under what circumstances?

I'm not military, but I've read various training manuals, and they tend to emphasise firing at centre of mass because you can't really place shots that accurately.

The exception seems to be when the enemy is close by, then it's 2 at the chest, 1 at the head for everyone, repeat on anyone still standing because it's not enough to kill the enemy, you need to kill them right now. Some mention of firing at the legs and hoping to hit the artery there instead of the head under certain circumstances.

Of course it is rubbish. No one in the world would ever have time or guts to try of those kind of shots in a firefight, unless you are undetected and the target is stationary, MAYBE.

However that something we learned on the shooting range. It is actually central mass, if you are a right-handed shooter, the recoil will force the weapon up to you right (because your spine, elbow and shoulder). Three shots shortly after eachother would go into the target. If you aim for the middle of the mass, you have to readjust between shots.

But this is just in theory. From experience I know that if the enemy come from the west, you fire in that general direction, that about the aiming I did. Suppression is usually more important (and more easily achieved) than actual hits. For me the most important part is that my rifle makes a load noise.

 

[Petromir]

1) Ehmm, people do realise that even in war the point isn't to "kill" the enemy but to "defeat" them. And this usually that means capture the enemy, and more importantly (more me; former medic) treat their wounded.

By far the most effective way to defeat an enemy is to wound the enemy soldiers sufficiently that they cannot walk (at least temporarily) unaided. This ties up enemy manpower, as not only is that soldier down, but at least 1 or 2 are needed to transport that soldier away. Horrific looking injuries and those that allow the enemy to still scream also have a bonus of being bad for moral. (Top battlefield/disaster triage tip in many cases the screaming patients injuries aren't immediately life threatening, check the quiet ones 1st).

That's only partially true and very limited, mostly just to guerilla warfare. When advancing on an enemy then injuring one soldier will not take 3 out of the fight because you still have to take the position they are currently defending and the other 2 will only administer triage when its safe to do so. Which is not when you're firing on them.

Your thinking far to short term. THis is more than an instantaneous theory, its longer term tying up of resources.

That is correct. As I said in other posts, I was a medic once. You aim for the enemy's right hip (that is to left when you look at him). Recoil will make you do non-fatal injuries to the hip, stomach and maybe chest.

That is complete rubbish. I was in the service and you aim centre mass every single time. We where reprimanded if we aimed for the head on the target dummies. In battle you do not waste time trying to pull off trick shots. You just incapacitate the enemy as soon as possible before he has the time to shot you

We where given a few hours of sniper training as well and nothing got you chewed out as badly as fancy trick shots to the head, eyes and forehead of the target. It was the chest that was the target.

Did you actually read his post. His method was basically shooting at one corner of the center of mass and using the recoil to cary him across to the other. Not the best tactic (as it implies full auto) but not complete rubbish. Its certainly not a fancy trick shot.

The always centre of mass things not strictly true either, more accurately it's largest body of mass you can see, this may well be the head in an entrenched soldier. Yes if the chest or rest of the Torso is there then thats where you should be aiming.

From my officer training days, most of the rounds your troops will be laying down are suppression or area denial anyway, killing with them is a bonus.

 

[Russirishican]

There seems to be a misconception that these things can be "hacked". These things are literally impossible to hack. First off, these things run on their own private channels, you can't just type in the IP of the robot and away you go, the only possible way to know how to even get the right wavelength, address, channel, ect. is if you were the one actually running the thing, in which case its a hell of a lot easier to simple turn it on its own troops. Second, they're using U.S. government level security, which is almost adaptive in the way it can fend off attackers, but lets say that you are the world greatest hacking master and get through that, then you have to get through the numerous checks and balances that in the case of a successful attack, will either boot the attacker or shut down the robot as a fail safe specifically to prevent this case. Even if all of that goes awry and you do gain control of the drone, then what? You'll need authentication codes and electronic clearance to any damage. My guess is that some of the commands can't even be issued wirelessly, such as a command to turn on friendly fire, you probably won't be able to make it do that unless you're right next to it. After all of that though, you've hacked one. As I said earlier these things all run separately, even if one of these things did turn, boom, its blown up before it can even do damage, and the hacker is back at square one.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

Working autonmous =/ Super AI

Just because that thing has a targeting system, a GPS and the ability to calculate it's way, it doesnt mean it conscious of itself etc. etc.
A complex program or network of program is still just a program.

You definitly watched to many movies and played to much MassEffect. We wont have Geth's walkin around tomorrow.

 

[Slycne]

2) A drone can be hacked: No matter how many firewalls you put around it, a drone is still a computer. That means ANYONE with enough skill can hack it...and then use it against us.

I'm sorry but this seems appropriate if you really believe that.

 

[Hennofletch]

Robots like this are only autonomous in their movement, path-finding, navigation and resupply needs. Any actual 'fighting' would be 100% human controlled, just like drones we use today. There is a risk of the unit being hacked and turned on its own, but I would hope we have the best firewalls on a unit like the crusher.

P.s When will it be available in the shops?

 

[Antari]

While its nice to think of nightmare scenarios no military robots can use lethal force without direct authorization. No matter how autonomous they are. The only real problem with this is, it makes the robots so slow to engage to be the equivalant of a sitting duck.

 

[Gorreci]

I just want to point out that though they may be capable of being autonomous, they will most likely never be sent out alone, or even alone with others like itself. That's not how the US Army operates. If these were ever deployed in a tactical environment, they would most likely be used as fire support platforms, under the escort of at least a platoon-sized element. It would be interesting to see how infantry tactics would change with one of these per company, perhaps even per platoon.

I'm not sure how they're going to handle the whole IFF thing. I was thinking something like the infrared markers soldiers wear on their uniforms to signal to friendly aircraft not to shoot them, but that doesn't account for civilians.

Regardless, I think it's an excellent idea, if they can get it to work out. ATM, I'm worried that it may be too slow to react to certain conditions, but that's what the boots on the ground are for. let the soldiers do the thinking and maneuvering, let the robot lay down the serious firepower. That's how I see it, anyway.

 

[PoweD]

Funny, i just stopped playing Crysis Demo.

If they do the software decently, i support it.
Loss of a human is thousands times worse than just a machine.

 

[Slycne]

There are other forms of hacking, such as simply plugging in an infected USB for example. Not to mention that literally every military will start putting money into this once it becomes viable. There are already many programs for cyberwarfare and the like.

True enough. Heck the Reaper drone program got infected with a keylogging virus a few months ago most likely introduced by the use of a portable hard drive.

The problem becomes that people view hacking almost in the same light as magic. This isn't Mass Effect or James Bond where you can point your gizmo at the enemy and take control of their systems. There are redundancies, programs that cross check, fail safes, encryption, closed systems, etc. For example, a 128 bit encryption key takes years to brute force.

 

[spartan231490]

Autonomous robots should not be employed by the military for two very good reasons. The first, is that you should never ever create a weapon that can think, I don't care what programming you put in it. I don't fear a terminator type thing, but it can't be that hard to hack an automaton, look at the Geth in ME.

Reason 2, war should never ever ever become a game. War needs to be brutal and horrible to keep us from constantly being in a state of war. Any time when you make an automated military machine you are getting closer to the day when war is just the political version of chess, and I personally think that any attempt to make such an automaton should be punishable by death.

 

[Sam Warrior]

I dont have issues with robots in battles but i do have issues with autonomous robots firing weapons at living people with little to no human input, because no matter how good your operation protocols are there will always be holes and there will always be bugs. at least if the robot is remote control the human still has to make the decision to pull the trigger not a program. the only way this would work would be using AI but that has its own issues, a self aware AI probably wouldn't want to go kill people and if it did would you really want it in control of weapons?