U.S. military turns to competition for robot "surge"

The US military has already upped the arsenal of its robots deployed in Iraq, and it now looks to be planning to expand its non-human forces even further, with it recently putting out word of a competition to find a company that can quickly deliver a slew of new bots. According to Wired's Danger Room, these new robots won't be armed, but will instead mainly be used for reconnaissance duty, and must include the ability to look inside car windows and peer underneath vehicles. Due to the urgent need for the bots, the Army's done away with the usual formal bid process and will effectively be awarding a contract on the spot to the winner of the competition, who will be required to deliver its first bots within ten days. The Army then hopes to have 1,000 new reconnaissance bots by the end of the year, with another 2,000 planned for the next five years. As Danger Room reports, iRobot seems to be the favorite to win the competition, especially considering the requirement get the bots off the assembly line as quickly as possible.

[LiQuiD_FuSioN @ Aug 14th 2007 3:57PM]

Glad to hear the troops will be getting some more help out there in Iraq. Technology ftw!

[Jman196 @ Aug 14th 2007 3:59PM]

Domo Alogato Mr. US supreme-military-killing machine Roboto.

[Yojimbo @ Aug 14th 2007 6:41PM]

So the robot is also stoned? (Assuming as much due to its pronunciation)

[apc @ Aug 14th 2007 4:18PM]

Let me tell you everything that scares me about having a robotic military, putting all terminator jokes aside. I'll break this down into international and domestic concerns. (Btw, I'm not trying to make any political statements here, I don't want this to turn into an Iraqi War debate)

International- Wars will become very careless. Take our military presence in Iraq for instance, one of the reasons that it has become so unpopular, is because the amount of American casualties has now exceeded 3000. This is one of the major reasons that the war has become so unpopular and people just want to leave the country. The idea of soldiers dying is a large deterrent against going into combat. As such, in most cases, only combat that is seen as absolutely necessary is allowed. If combat is not seen as absolutely necessary, then the American people aren't willing to sacrifice our people for the cause, and the politicians can't get away with sending our soldiers into battle.

If however, we have machines doing our fighting, then all of the sudden the government can get away with a lot more. Our government could invade countries, topple governments, change regimes, etc... And there might be very little resentment at home. If Americans aren't dying, the American people would probably care less. Because of this, the politicians would be much less reluctant to go into battle because they know the repercussions at home would not be as bad. Because of this, I feel like our country would more readily commit itself to combat, simply because the political consequences wouldn't be as bad. Imagine if right now, only 10 Americans had died in Iraq. Do you think the Anti Iraqi War cause would be as large? I don't. So internationally, that is what scares me about robotic warriors; our country would more readily result to violence. Even domestically however, I feel like there is also a cause for concern.

Domestic- I believe the second amendment is in place for two reasons. Firstly, in order to have a deterrent from foreign countries invading us. A country would be less likely to invade our country knowing most of the citizens are armed (again I don't want this to turn into a 2nd amendment debate). This might not seem very practical today, but back in the day it was, and maybe in the future it will be again. Secondly, the second amendment is there to protect us Americans against our own government. Go read the writings of Jefferson and Washington. They said it themselves, if in time our government was to become too oppressive, it would be the right and duty of the people to overthrow it, and if everyone is armed, this is a possibility. As such, the US government should always be afraid of becoming too oppressive, in fear that its own people might revolt and overthrow it. In my view that is another important reason for having the second amendment, to keep our own government in check.

But if all of the sudden our military consists of autonomous robots, a serious check & balance has been lost. Imagine this right now, our government was overly oppressive and we the people revolted to overthrow it. Of course there would be a state of emergency and the military would storm the streets in order to stop this. But if in reality the government was too oppressive, and the cause of the people was indeed very strong, it is very likely that the soldiers themselves would not follow the orders from their military commanders. They would see it as their duty as Americans to fight back against the oppressive government. This idea has been apart of our American traditions since our independence, to remove any entity which would endanger our liberties, our own government included. But if our military consisted almost entirely of robots who received orders from only a few commanders and high ranking politicians, our current system of checks and balances against the government by the people would cease to exist. The government could be tyrannical, and there would be little the people could do to stop them. That is also one of my major concerns about having a robotic military.

I doubt many of you took the time to read this, it was very long. I probably wouldn't read something so long myself (or for that matter write something this long), but it has been on my mind the last few days for some reason. I would love to hear all of your thoughts on this manner. I’m sure in a lot of ways, I am incorrect. But does anything think there is any merit to what I have said? Thanks

apc

[BigBirdUK @ Aug 14th 2007 4:32PM]

Well I, for one, welcome our bid process avoiding, window looking, underneath peering overlords.

[AttilaButurla @ Aug 14th 2007 4:56PM]

While I think you made a great post, the advancement of technology tends to be a one way street. Rather then fight any technological advancement, whatever it may be, I think we need to learn to embrace it and instead help influence the role that it plays in our lives.

[McGinley @ Aug 14th 2007 4:58PM]

In reply to your statement about there being less of an anti-war movement if we used robots:

Remember all the anti-war protests BEFORE any Americans died?

[Andrew Camacho @ Aug 14th 2007 5:08PM]

McGinley, there were a lot of anti-war protests, but to be fair, the majority of Americans were in full support of the war. That is no longer the case. What effect the loss of humans lives has played in that regard, I have no idea.

AttilaButurla, you are right. I'm not trying to preach against technological advancement. I'm just saying that new need to be careful as things nowadays are changing so rapidly.

[Ian @ Aug 14th 2007 5:37PM]

apc,

Perhaps I can help put todays and ttomorrows use of "robots" in perspective.

1) American casualities in Iraq already WELL exceed 3,000. That is unfortunately the number of US soldiers killed. The number of injured and maimed is much larger. More on this in a moment

2) You mention "autonomous robots" as if they exist TODAY or are a possibility in some near future. All the "robots" exisiting today and used in Iraq are DIRECTLY and ABSOLUTELY CONTROLLED real time 100% by soldiers on the spot. Today's robots do not think for themselves, or act independently! They are extremely useful eyes, ears and noses for troops and are put in harms way INSTEAD of a soldier risking his/her life.
There is no autonomous robot, that's the realm of SciFi movies for many many many years to come. Todays and tomorrows "robots" are inanimate machines responding ONLY to the wireless hand controller in a soldiers hands.

3) The whole idea of "robots" is that they can replace humans at risk. They can inspect cars for booby traps and explosive devices. They can be thrown into a house, or buillding and report back via video and audio sensors etc whether the structure is inhabited and whether humans would be at risk entering the structure. ALL this is done by a soldier remotely controlling every action of the robot and seeing real time what the robot sees via video cameras etc.. Going back to those 3,000 dead and many times that wounded American soldiers, the whole purpose of the military is to avoid such casualties by using current technology in the form of robotic vehicles when the risk to humans is high. IMHO this military program is to be highly commended.

[Frankenstein Black @ Aug 14th 2007 4:21PM]

4 years and 3,000+ to late, but hey better late than never (or the cost could be thousands more, right?). I suspect low recruiting numbers are the main drivers (not that they give a ratz Azz about the soldiers playing police at those oh, so dangerous checkpoints).

REMOTE CONTROLLED BOTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHECKING CARS in IRAQ 4 YEARS A GO! After all don't our SWAT teams use them, in buildings even? Yea - "you go to war with the Army you have not the one you wish for". True, if you don't give a SHITE about human life, American or Iraqi.

"We the People" wont forget! NeoCon Jirk-offs!!!

[Loban @ Aug 14th 2007 5:14PM]

Go iRobot!!! I love your Roombas!!!

[ug @ Aug 14th 2007 5:48PM]

As far as I'm concerned "honorable" warfare died centuries ago and it's a little late to grieve for it. Arrows, gunpowder, cannon, the gatling gun, machine gun, bombs, mustard gas... Guerilla warfare is now the new norm, which is the tactic used to provide a check against modern technology, since modern technology can not be precise enough for urban combat. So I think being able to perform close-combat with robots rather than troops is a good way to at least attempt to balance the score.

[mijj @ Aug 14th 2007 6:19PM]

we need devices like these so that our most precious asset (war supporters) need not go to the battlefield and test their principles in any realistic way. They need not be distracted from their valuable contribution of convincing us that war is entertainment.

[mastershake3 @ Aug 14th 2007 6:39PM]

first let me say 1 casualty is too many, and follow it with that is less than we lost at Pearl Harbor alone. My unit is apparently losing LESS people at war than they did stateside!!
As far the robots, well how do you put the genie back in the bottle?
APC, your comments are actually very observant and important, and it is a dangerous path, but we can't allow ourselves to fall behing the power curve either. Life sucks.
by the way IAN, Volunteers for our armed services have never been higher!! and american casualities in combat of the scal have never been this low! get your facts straight, and stop pissing your pants, there will be no draft any time soon.

[NickF @ Aug 14th 2007 7:07PM]

I drove one of those around at a robotics competition on an army base, they are super sweet. Little jerky when it turns, but still wicked.

[joe @ Aug 14th 2007 7:23PM]

I am generally in support of military robots but the thing that worries me about these it is that they could be captured and hacked to be used against us.

[cDub @ Aug 14th 2007 11:38PM]

Battlebots need in on this action. If assault rifles don't scare the enemy, Mauler 51-50 will.

[Spiza @ Aug 15th 2007 4:46AM]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiator_Tactical_Unmanned_Ground_Vehicle

[Murc @ Aug 19th 2007 11:18PM]

iRobot will likely win it...since all other competitors just dont have the man power to make that many, that fast.

FYI, the only reason the majority of Americans want the US out of Iraq is because our media puts their "spin" on everything that comes out of that country. Some parts have zero violence, and life there is better for the Iraqi's now then it was before Saddam ruled the country. The current "majority" of the US needs to grow a spine, thousands of people die every day around the world.....its life, you live...then you die. I dont mean to sound 'cold', but people are getting a little to 'protected' in the US, hell, some people that live here dont care about the news, whether it be local, national, or international.

hell, if the media reported on all the deaths in California every day...and had a little body counter on the top of your screen, say in and day out.....you people would be shocked how many people are killed......in America, everyday. Would you propose we "pull-out" of California?

All I'm sayin is. Man-up