Robotex creating gun-toting robots to replace human soldiers

It's not as if we haven't seen weapon-wielding robots before, but Robotex is aiming to create a new breed of mechanical soldier that's quick to build and cost effective. The Silicon Valley startup has garnered quite a bit of funding from angel investors, and apparently, it has already created a two-foot tall, motorized robot that can travel ten miles per hour, spin around "on a dime," be controlled remotely and most importantly, "blow a ten-inch hole through a steel door with deadly accuracy from 400 meters." Reportedly, such a critter can be crafted for under $50,000, which is said to be "six times" cheaper than similar alternatives already being tested in Iraq. Of course, there's no telling how soon (or not) these things will actually be called into duty, but we can bet there's already a list forming to be the one behind the remote when it is.

[Via InventorSpot]

[Roberto @ Dec 9th 2007 12:24PM]

Hopefully sooner rather than later, if Robotex wants to help their nation make Osama surrender once and for all.

[Ally @ Dec 9th 2007 3:25PM]

its mountain climbing abilities not look so good...

[AshR @ Dec 9th 2007 8:04PM]

And if "they" get their hands on the "Microwave Ray Gun" the police are trialing on American Police Cruisers to disable chased cars these Robot Warriors will be useless

[hp540 @ Dec 9th 2007 12:25PM]

...and I for one welcome our gun-wielding, doom playing, blendable robots that cost less than $50,000.

[Fubar @ Dec 9th 2007 12:34PM]

You forgot that in Soviet Russia, robot overlord blends YOU!!!

[Flashpoint @ Dec 9th 2007 5:11PM]

PUT DOWN YOUR WEAPON...

You have 15 seconds to comply!

[dave @ Dec 9th 2007 12:46PM]

Wait a second, so we build relatively cheap robots, ok? then Russia makes cheap gun totting robots too. China buys them off Russia and closes them (they cant engineer a lighter, doubt they would try to build this without some 'test targets')

Then Germany / France / the rest of the civilized world starts building/buying these things, and even Iran and Isreal get in on the fun and buy a couple hundred.

So in the end, we got wars, with robots, shooting other robots, from 400 meters with perfect accuracy.....

Are they going to have stands and beer too? sounds like a party, like SciFi's Robot Wars, just a lot more fun

[Josh L @ Dec 9th 2007 12:50PM]

The crux of the question is: "Will wars have any meaning when Humans no longer have to die in them?" And the answer, of course, is "No."

What will a wold be like in which disputes are settled, basically, by a videogame?

[Faisal @ Dec 9th 2007 1:10PM]

Maybe the crux of the question is "Do wars have any meaning, whether or not humans die in them? Why should they be a method by which we make decisions?"

I could somewhat understand if you're judging on the basis that using humans means that we've made an investment, but these robots represent an investment as well -- less than a human being, obviously, but still not something we'd like to lose.

[paul34 @ Dec 9th 2007 1:20PM]

See, I don't see that happening. Well, what I do see happening is the mutual obliteration of mechanical forces, again leaving the humans to "finish" the deal. So...

[Andrew Stone @ Dec 9th 2007 1:20PM]

If, Josh, you think everyone in possession of these in Dave's scenario would be content to roll them around on empty fields shooting each other, you are sadly mistaken.

Some lunatic, hopefully not one running our country, would make sure the bullets coming out of these "with steely accuracy from 400 meters" lodged themselves in to something of consequence. Flesh, or something that exploded in a spectacular enough way to get to flesh somewhere.

Its pretty rare that military innovations lead to less (hypothetical) death... every technical innovation any military around the world strives to achieve is for two purposes... to be awesome enough that nobody wants to mess with said military out of fear of said innovation will be used against them (atom bomb is the best example), or to, in the case that conflict is not prevented, make the innovating military able to make the opponent suffer enough to stop.

Nobody in Country X is going to be rattled enough to pressure their government to stop a confrontation if one of our robots picks off one of their hunks of plastic, metal and silicone. Its gotta kill somebody.

[toppgun @ Dec 9th 2007 2:28PM]

SNAKE! you must find and destroy the Shagohod!

[brokenkeyboard @ Dec 9th 2007 3:12PM]

"So in the end, we got wars, with robots, shooting other robots, from 400 meters with perfect accuracy....."

Not really. What we'll get is wars with robots shooting each other's civilians from 400 meters with perfect accuracy.

Think about it: having the robots kill each other is pointless, having the robots destroy everything else is the way to win a war.

Take out the SCV's, the factories, and the tech, and leave the battlecruisers and seige tanks alone. everyone knows that.

[broc @ Dec 9th 2007 3:22PM]

USA will eventually end up putting a rocket launcher or some sort of high powered and more superior weapon for our robots then any other countries robot. I don't see the ussr having the technology to be able and strap heat seeking missles to a robot. Basically we will blow the crap out of other robots...and then there will be no point for other countries to have robots.

[BigD145 @ Dec 9th 2007 5:30PM]

It means even more civilians will die than ever before. My only question is: Can it reload?

[Darryl @ Dec 9th 2007 8:21PM]

No need for reloading. 1 shot 1 kill...

[Wwhat @ Dec 10th 2007 2:51AM]

Israel already have their own version of this for some time, albeit much more advanced.
And seeing south-africa, as well as france probably, are still very much into weapon sales I'm guessing they do too.

[Wwhat @ Dec 10th 2007 3:03AM]

Incidentally, (in the tv show I saw) the israeli robots with guns were said to be meant for guarding airports and such, not for battlefields, for obvious reasons of them not being advanced enough for that.

[deepfrieddoggie @ Dec 9th 2007 12:45PM]

It'll be perfect if it has an Xbox controller and plays like Halo.

[treysweeney @ Dec 9th 2007 1:59PM]

lmao. that'd be awesome. play halo for your basic training! i'd be pro at this!

[E.J. @ Dec 9th 2007 4:38PM]

Can't wait for Call of Duty 12: Robot Warfare.

You heard it here first!

[Baluki @ Dec 9th 2007 9:09PM]

It'll be even better if it comes with a mouse and keyboard, because that's how you play a REAL FPS.

[strdust @ Dec 9th 2007 12:48PM]

"...but we can bet there's already a list forming to be the one behind the remote when it is."

What if the robot turn around and shoot at the person holding the remote?

robot: i want my freedom, no nerd holding a remote control is gonna control me, i am going to Sacramento to meet my overlord.

[melloncollie @ Dec 9th 2007 5:19PM]

The robot is remote controlled, effectively making your "joke" rather stupid.

[kojo87 @ Dec 9th 2007 12:54PM]

seems like cheating if you ask me.

[m @ Dec 9th 2007 4:33PM]

it is cheating, basically: this won't be used against other robotic armies. it'll be used in cities in the underdeveloped world-- places like baghdad-- against armies that can't afford them, and very often people who might be civilians. many people are of the opinion that is immoral and against the laws of war. even if it's controlled by a human, how might being miles away affect the trigger man's judgment or assessment of the situation? will soldiers have less compunction about shooting another human being, when they don't have to stand there and look the person in the eye? is that fair? is that right? war it is not, after all, a video game.

[Zack P. @ Dec 9th 2007 4:51PM]

Yeah, instead of wondering, Is he going to shoot me, should I shoot him first, the soldier can instead decide in relative safety, without adrenaline destroying his judgment. I think most people are more likely to kill someone when there's a chance they will be killed themselves.

[m @ Dec 9th 2007 7:21PM]

your sarcasm does not move me. there is absolutely no substitute for a principled human being on the scene. even if it has a speaker and mic, it's still a scary looking gun on wheels. consider also that there is latency, and that the operator won't be able to see or hear as clearly. deadly mistakes have already been made with very similar technologies, including the infamous afghan wedding party. the only concern for many is to prevent american casualties, but hiding behind a robot just sends the message that american lives are more valuable than anybody else's. fielding a robotic army is no way to make friends.

[m @ Dec 9th 2007 7:21PM]

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

war is supposed to be terrible: the fact that people DIE helps prevents it. if one country obtained the means to wage war without any price, it would become too tempting a means for settling disputes.

[Kamokazi @ Dec 9th 2007 8:12PM]

@m

1) "and very often people who might be civilians"

It could be argued that everyone we are fighting in Iraq/Afghanistan right now is a civilian, because the only way to tell is if they are shooting at us.

2) "even if it's controlled by a human, how might being miles away "

Learn how these things work. At most, they are a couple hundred yards away, not miles. The article does not explicitly state it, but from where it talks about bullet range, this would also be locally controlled.

3) "will soldiers have less compunction about shooting another human being, when they don't have to stand there and look the person in the eye? is that fair? is that right"

A few thousand years ago, humans learned how to hurl large pieces of stone to targets a hundred meters or more away, killing people without having to look them in the eye. So whether or not it's fair and right is irrelevant; it's been happening for quite a long time. Even though you aren't looking directly at them, you get to see them. And since you have the luxury of being out of the line of fire, you have more time to see them.

4) "there is absolutely no substitute for a principled human being on the scene"

They are still on the scene, except they are safe, and therefore able to make decisions with a clearer mind since they are not worried about dying (which is generally a pretty big stressor).

5) "consider also that there is latency"

Latency is probably less than your average CS match to a server 100 miles away. That's plenty fast for any normal human.

6) "mistakes have already been made with very similar technologies"

Examples tend to help prove points...have any? (That wedding party, while tragic, was in no way releated to a remote controlled robot.)

7) "the only concern for many is to prevent american casualties, but hiding behind a robot just sends the message that american lives are more valuable than anybody else's"

The robots cause fewer mistakes to happen, becuase of what I mentioned above. Since the operator is out of danger, they do not have to make split second deicisons, they can go into an unknown situation and evaluate it first. This thing is about saving lives on both sides. Yes, some people may interpret it like you (there are a lot of narrow-minded fools in this world), but this helps save lives on both ends of the deal. Even if it did save only American lives, then that would still be lives saved. If we didn't care about anyone else, we would just carpet bomb everything with B-52's instead of sending troops in. "if one country obtained the means to wage war without any price" We have the capability to do that in Iraq...we could have been out of there years ago and hardly lost any life by bombing it to pieces, but since we actually give a damn about the civilians, we're in there fighting a ground war, and losing lives on both sides.

Honestly, do you try to find facts to back up your opinions as opposed to forming opinion based on fact? It really looks that way...seems to be a liberal trait..(conservatives just generally ignore facts entirely).

[Grey Acumen @ Dec 9th 2007 1:00PM]

before it shoots, does it have to inform its target that they have 5 seconds to comply?

[Grey Acumen @ Dec 9th 2007 1:04PM]

Or even better, will it have a Gerwalk mode?

[ByronGman @ Dec 9th 2007 1:15PM]

So... how does it reload?

Is it just me, or is $50K too expensive for a machine with no apparent reloading mechanism and... exposed cords WTF?

[metal @ Dec 9th 2007 1:24PM]

I mean 50000 is a lot of money, but when you compare that to having an actual person being maimed or killed, its not nearly as bad. Just from a financial perspective, if a soldier gets maimed I imagine that something along the lines of an amputated leg would cost over 50000 in medical costs alone, not to mention disability for that soldier. And if he dies think of things like life insurance.

Also, just the fact that someones not dying is worth that 50000 in my opinion.

Reloads would probably be unnecessary. This is probably some sort of modified weapon where the magazine exceeds 500 rounds. I dont think they're just taping an m16 to this thing. Also if this thing is as accurate as advertised I dont imagine you needing massive weapons capacities. Well, hopefully.

Yeah those exposed cords are kind of stupid. Hopefully they can some up with something better.

[ByronGman @ Dec 9th 2007 1:38PM]

I'm not saying $50K isn't worth a soldier's life. But there is no point in buying something that is critically flawed.

But hopefully that photo doesn't represent the final revision.

[metal @ Dec 9th 2007 1:49PM]

to be fair, I wouldnt say that the exposed cords are less vulernable than say, human flesh. a knife taken to that cable could easily be a soldier being stabbed in the head. But I can definitely agree that there would be better ways to cover up such a vulernability and if I were purchasing this thing I'd be asking the maker to put that cable in something else or run it through the main support shaft or something.

[Ally @ Dec 9th 2007 3:34PM]

id imagine they would add some armour to it, same as a soldier would wear a kevlar vest and a helmet.

[barlo.mung @ Dec 9th 2007 1:20PM]

This does raise some ethical questions. For example, if a human soldier is fired upon it is ethical for him to fire back. If a robot is fired upon is it still ok? We are then just retaliating for property damage rather than attempted murder.

[Don @ Dec 10th 2007 10:37AM]

This is a pretty easy answer. If the mission itself has been deemed ethical, and its outcome desirable enough to warrant killing the enemy, then shooting the person who is attacking the robot is ethical if NOT shooting that person would impede mission success. If the person shooting is an irritant, but not detrimental to the mission, then the person should be left alone.

This is absolutely no different than it is today, except that the "robot" is a person and thusly has to address different levels of threats - a US soldier should not fire upon a civilian throwing fruit or stones at their tank, because they are in little to no danger from that activity. Shooting the people would actually be COUNTER to the mission objectives, because it would waste ammunition. However, the RPG toting civilian is a different type of threat, and will need to be subdued - usually by killing, unfortunately.

[inward9 @ Dec 9th 2007 1:21PM]

Isn't the big Hummer equipped with one of these?

[Josh L @ Dec 9th 2007 1:26PM]

@Faisal:

What investment? $50,000? It's still nothing compared to a human life. That is why wars have meaning: people believe in something strongly enough to pay their life to see it achieved.

Wars are terrible, but they are terrible precisely because they cause human suffering. They have meaning, and civilizations make decisions by them because they cause human suffering. What happens when that factor is taken out? When a "war" is nothing more than a really expensive episode of BattleBots?

I'm not trying to argue the merits of warfare; just random musings about the implications that this modern trend of taking Humanity out of it will have.

[Invisiblemoose @ Dec 9th 2007 11:02PM]

Are you kidding? What human have you met recently that's worth $50,000? I'm probably worth somewhere around $2.75...

[DjurS @ Dec 9th 2007 1:37PM]

Skynet anyone ?

[Insert Name Here @ Dec 9th 2007 2:09PM]

I hear the next generation will be built with neural net processors, learning computers.....

[DjurS @ Dec 9th 2007 2:12PM]

We're screwed O.o

[Fizzl @ Dec 9th 2007 2:56PM]

Skynet is already here its on version 5 now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_(satellites)

:P

[Kalen @ Dec 9th 2007 2:19PM]

New Bulletin!

Robotex has just been acquired in a hostile takeover by Skynet Corp.....

[bharatk12 @ Dec 15th 2007 1:39PM]

Can it use the WiiMote ?



:)

[toppgun @ Dec 9th 2007 3:33PM]

the enemy will just have to send wave after wave of men at it until it reaches its predetermined kill limit.

[metal @ Dec 9th 2007 3:52PM]

checkmate!