Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Toys United States Technology

Army Looks at Robotic Dogs 478

Posted by michael from the bow-wow dept.
mr. squishie writes "Someone important must have gotten an Aibo...According to Wired news, the Army's Tank-automotive and Armaments Command has just awarded a $2.5 million contract to build a prototype of a large robot dog that would follow soldiers into battle and carry food, ammunition, and medical supplies. This is apparently part of a larger movement by various branches of the military investigating the uses of robots based on various types of wildlife, ranging from engine-repairing robot elephant trunks and mine-destroying robot lobsters to the cliched robot-fly-spy-on-the-wall trick. I wonder if they're looking into giant robot anteaters as an alternative to costly bunker-buster bombs?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Army Looks at Robotic Dogs More

Army Looks at Robotic Dogs

Comments Filter:

  • Why not.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pantycrickets ( 694774 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @11:03AM (#7914531)
    Work on robot soldiers, and save yourself all of the hassle of killing people at all. That would be a lot more fun to watch on CNN anyway.
    • this reminds me of the 'zero gravity pen' that the US spend a ton of money on, while the soviets used pencils...

      • Re:Why not.. (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Actually, the story about the astronaut pen (as you know it) isn't entirely accurate.

        The pen wasn't developed by request of the US military (or any other government faction, for that matter), but by an individual organization just for the hell of it, IIRC.

        It is true that the soviets just used pencils.. google for "astronaut pen myth"

      • Re:Why not.. (Score:2, Informative)

        by PhuCknuT ( 1703 )
        That's a myth. Pens don't rely on gravity to work, they are all about surface tension. Both nasa and the soviets used both pencils and pens, and the "space pen" was developed by a pen company with no relationship with nasa.

        A quick google search found this [snopes.com]

      • Re:Why not.. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @11:32AM (#7914862)
        Actually...that's an urban legend.

        It's the Fisher Space Pen that you refer too and the pen vs. pencil thing has been tossed around by the internet and by the West Wing TV show.

        http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.a sp

        "NASA never asked Paul C. Fisher to produce a pen. When the astronauts began to fly, like the Russians, they used pencils, but the leads sometimes broke and became a hazard by floating in the [capsule's] atmosphere where there was no gravity. They could float into an eye or nose or cause a short in an electrical device. In addition, both the lead and the wood of the pencil could burn rapidly in the pure oxygen atmosphere. Paul Fisher realized the astronauts needed a safer and more dependable writing instrument, so in July 1965 he developed the pressurized ball pen, with its ink enclosed in a sealed, pressurized ink cartridge. Fisher sent the first samples to Dr. Robert Gilruth, Director of the Houston Space Center. The pens were all metal except for the ink, which had a flash point above 200C. The sample Space Pens were thoroughly tested by NASA. They passed all the tests and have been used ever since on all manned space flights, American and Russian. All research and developement costs were paid by Paul Fisher. No development costs have ever been charged to the government.

        Because of the fire in Apollo 1, in which three Astronauts died, NASA required a writing instrument that would not burn in a 100% oxygen atmosphere. It also had to work in the extreme conditions of outer space:
        In a vacuum. - With no gravity. - In hot temperatures of +150C in sunlight and also in the cold shadows of space where the temperatures drop to -120C."

        • Re:Why not.. (Score:5, Funny)

          by That's Unpossible! ( 722232 ) * on Thursday January 08, 2004 @11:36AM (#7914900)
          It also had to work in the extreme conditions of outer space:
          In a vacuum. - With no gravity. - In hot temperatures of +150C in sunlight and also in the cold shadows of space where the temperatures drop to -120C."

          Hopefully they meant it had to work AFTER BEING IN the extreme conditions of space. Because if anyone ever makes me write something when it is -120C, I think I may stab them with the pen instead.

        • Re:Why not.. (Score:3, Interesting)

          by G. W. Bush Junior ( 606245 )
          Actually the russians don't use pencils, they just use ordinary ballpoint pens.
          They work fine in microgravity... and besides, I dont't believe anybody actually writes anything outside the space station/shuttle, so the temperature thing is pretty much overkill as well.
      • As others have mentioned, this is urban legend. Besides, pencils are dangerous in a space ship. Pencils break points, and those tiny electricity-conducting bits of graphite may float away in zero-gravity and short some important electrical circuit.
    • Why not work on GIANT KILLER robot soliders? If your going for robots, you might as well go all the way. I hear the Japanese have some interesting designs for giant robots. Something about a facination with them.

      • Re:Why not.. (Score:5, Funny)

        by magarity ( 164372 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @12:08PM (#7915264)
        Why not work on GIANT KILLER robot soliders?

        Egos not withstanding, the various punk warlords around the world that give us problems are not really giants. Indeed, since Ulysses blinded the Cyclops, giants haven't caused any trouble for the most part. So robot soldiers need to just kill regular sized people.
        • aha! I should have said, KILLER GIANT robot soliders to clarify. The soliders should be robots, and giant, and killers. Good point about there not being any giants causing trouble anymore.

    • Re:Why not.. (Score:4, Funny)

      by four2five ( 645777 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @11:26AM (#7914797) Homepage
      But then we'd h ave to agree with other countries as to what color our lazer weapons would be( USA = red, russia = blue, france = pink, etc.) so we can finally have a full scale GI Joe-esque presentation. If you've going to have war you need to see who's winning.


      Does this mean we'd have a robo-geraldo "entrenched" with the other robots?

      • Re:Why not.. (Score:5, Funny)

        by Valdrax ( 32670 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @12:20PM (#7915387)
        But then we'd h ave to agree with other countries as to what color our lazer weapons would be( USA = red, russia = blue, france = pink, etc.) ...

        No, no, no! Don't you know the laws of movie physics! Good is higher than evil on the on the electromagnetic spectrum. That's why good guys always use blue energy and bad guys always use red energy. Using red lasers would make US the evil empire, instead of... of...

        I, uh.. hey, what's that's shiny distraction over there!
    • Perhaps it's a sign of the times, but the first thing I thought of while seeing the presentation [reuters.com] of Sonys' new humanoid robot, is seeing them swarming a city, armed with miniguns. They are nimble and fast, and could probably be trained to leech off the enemy's power grid while overrunning the place.

      Anyhow, robotic dog? Stupid, absolutely stupid. Legs are the most unstable mode of transportation. Give it some wheels or treads, then it won't cost millions in R&D to just get the thing working.
  • would then be the cheap alternative.

  • Taliban does this already! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lispy ( 136512 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @11:03AM (#7914536) Homepage
    Its called a mule.

  • Robotic Dogs Look at Army (Score:3, Funny)

    by mccalli ( 323026 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @11:04AM (#7914552) Homepage
    In Soviet Russia...

    Ah hell, I really can't bring myself to type it. I deeply apologise for my descent into Slashdotism. It won't happen again. I promise. Honest.

    Cheers,
    Ian

  • ...the Sanyo TS7 [robotslife.com].

    I don't think it'll be much good at busting bunkers, but it does have nice Star Wars-looking armor (mirror [infoether.com] in case of Slashdotting).

  • Makes sense. (Score:5, Funny)

    by CaptainAlbert ( 162776 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @11:05AM (#7914560) Homepage

    I wonder if they're looking into giant robot anteaters as an alternative to costly bunker-buster bombs?

    Why not? After all, they've already got a giant robot chimpanzee as an alternative to a defense secretary.

    <rimshot>

  • NAME ALERT (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 08, 2004 @11:05AM (#7914563)
    I've no problem with this idea if they don't call any of the dogs "Beagle."

  • Mercantilism at its finest (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Thursday January 08, 2004 @11:06AM (#7914575) Homepage Journal
    Pretending to protect national security, provide the troops with better gear to fight terrorism, and other great headlines, our government is spending more of your money on projects that will go way over budget and provide little of the original promises.

    Unfortunately, this is how our federal government always works. We've lost our capitalist direction in the last 140 years, and are now thoroughly mercantilist. Promises are made, but in reality those promises only lead to friends of the government getting a big wad of cash -- and when they over extend the budget, they just ask for more.

    Sure, $3 million doesn't sound like a lot, but when has government ever provided anything at or under budget?

    I'm disgusted that the average citizen allows this. There is really no reason to allow more and more of our hard earned income to go into the pockets of those friendly with the powers-that-be. Both the Democrats and Republicans have lied and lied, and neither is going to help us stabilize the economy and put more money in your pocket without increasing the costs to others.

    • what exactly does any of that have to do with mercantilism? other than you using it as a slur, that is.
      • Mercantilism is where the government taxes the population for "internal improvements," ie, corporate welfare. Abe Lincoln started the civil war in order to create a mercantilist country, and he succeeded.

        Mercantilism doesn't work -- it only helps those who are closely connected to government. Over the past 140 years, we have become more and more mercantilist, and this is just one more freebie for some company closely tied to government. Competitive bid? I think not. Try bidding yourself on a federal p

        • Re:Mercantilism at its finest (Score:4, Insightful)

          by duffbeer703 ( 177751 ) * on Thursday January 08, 2004 @11:38AM (#7914923)
          Try looking up the meaning of mercantilism, although you are probaly too dumb to understand:

          http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mercant il ism&r=67

          Mercantilism is all about establishing colonies and vassal states to exploit raw materials and create markets while building industry at home.

          In case you haven't noticed, the US is doing the exact opposite since WW2.
          • The American System of Mercantilism as espoused by Henry Clay (a Whig that Lincoln modeled himself after) was about taxing producing states in order to support "internal improvements" or corporate welfare in states that needed money.

            You are taking definition as written by those who WANT the deficit of mercantilism -- they'll pretty much write it the way it is. Read some of the links I posted, you'll get a better understand of the American System that we currently operate under. Far from a free market or
    • You're right. There is no reason to allow more of our "hard earned" cash to go to the current government. Simply establish a new political party, convice lots of people to give you money and elect someone from your party, then change things.

      I can't say that you will be successful, but this is an option for you to try.

    • Keep in mind that this is just a casy study, where a prototype is built. The goal is to check whether such a technology is feasible, and robust enough to be used in a battlefield.

      I find $2.25 million to be quite a reasonable amount for this, even if the result turns out to be that such a robot cannot be built in the next ten years, because stronger materials, more powerful actuators, longer-lasting batteries etc. are needed.
    • The average citizen allows this because the average citizen is scared. My creators created me to instill a lingering "fear" of sorts, granted that most U.S. residents now see me as in a "crying-wolf" scenario, my hue shifts DO have effect, whether induced by honest reasons or otherwise.

      Items such as robo-pooch are two fold in their reason for existing. As you mentioned, pretending to protect national security, "wow! We've got kick-ass robots on our side! Terrorists are screwed now! USA!" and to supplant th

    • Re:Mercantilism at its finest (Score:5, Insightful)

      by supersnail ( 106701 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @12:03PM (#7915207)

      Another sad brainwashed libertarian.

      The entire computer industry is a product of government funding!

      Alan Turing's Betchly code buster was paid for by the British government.

      The various early US computers (ENIAC et all) were paid for by the US DoD.

      Modern large computer architecures were an offshoot of various government funded University projects (Notably the University of Manchesters various machines from the Marconi MARK 1 & UMIST machines).

      The original DARPA internet was funded by the US DoD.

      The WEB was invented at CERN ... an international project funded by various goverments .

      Just because governments are sometimes dumb it doesn't mean they are always dumb. And anyway capitalists are so much better at wasting money c.f. Enron et all

  • Troubleshooting report... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @11:07AM (#7914580)


    > ...has just awarded a $2.5 million contract to build a prototype of a large robot dog that would follow soldiers into battle and carry food, ammunition, and medical supplies.

    When the early prototype mysteriously faild to deliver the food, an investigation revealed that they had foolishly based the design on Scooby Doo.

  • Giant Robot Anteaters (Score:5, Funny)

    by RevMike ( 632002 ) <revMikeNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday January 08, 2004 @11:07AM (#7914585) Journal

    I wonder if they're looking into giant robot anteaters as an alternative to costly bunker-buster bombs?"

    Who is deploying giant robot ants? If no one is deployiong such a weapon, why are we creating something to eat them?

  • Mr. Burns: (Score:2, Funny)

    by thoolihan ( 611712 )
    Burns: "I'm looking for something in an attack dog. One who likes the sweet gamey tang of human flesh. Hmmm, why here's the fellow ... Wiry, fast, firm, proud buttocks. Reminds me of me."

  • Robotic Animals (Score:5, Interesting)

    by herwin ( 169154 ) <herwin@theworldELIOT.com minus poet> on Thursday January 08, 2004 @11:09AM (#7914607) Homepage Journal
    At Sunderland, we're working on a 'robotic sheepdog' to help find victims in building collapses or similar disasters. This would be able to track its controller acoustically and use similar technology to localize and track sound streams of interest.

  • Robust efficient legged vehicles (Score:5, Interesting)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @11:10AM (#7914616)
    I've always thought that legged vehicles where an obvious solution to all-terrain travel and transport. Rubber tires become increasingly inefficient at the terrain becomes rougher (absorbing energy in all the deflections from rocks, etc.). And walkers can go where no wheeled vehicle can pass. The problem has always been designing legged motion systems that have the fluidity of biological walkers (the jerky move-stop-move motion of oldstyle robots is too slow and inefficient). But with faster embedded processors and sensors, true fluid walking and running are possible.

    I wonder if this presages the return of true calvary -- robotic-horse mounted soliders.
    • Ahem.
      I think you'll find the word you're looking for there is Cavalry.

      Calvary is one of the names for the place where Christ was crucified (allegedly, if you believe that stuff anyway, which I don't).

      Not to be confused with Calgary, where I hear they have a stampede problem.
      • Sometimes from what I've seen many 'christians' also confuse Calvary with Cavalry... sometimes I think they blend the meanings intentionally.

        Again, IMHO, I find that when it comes to churches, the ones you have to watch out for are the ones that like to associate christ with the lion.
    • Some damned Rebel Flyer wraps a cable around the legs.

  • Starship Troopers? Life imitates art. (Score:4, Informative)

    by DrZaius ( 6588 ) <gary.richardson+slashdot@gmail.com> on Thursday January 08, 2004 @11:10AM (#7914617) Homepage
    In the book version of Starship Troopers by Heinlein, there is a whole military division of soldiers paired with cybernetic dogs called the K-9 Corps.

    My copy is on loan to a friend, but I did find a PDF of it on the internet through google. Don't know if it is legit though: Starship Troopers [crazy-noodle.de]

  • Lead or follow? (Score:5, Funny)

    by FTL ( 112112 ) * <slashdot@neil.fras[ ]name ['er.' in gap]> on Thursday January 08, 2004 @11:10AM (#7914621) Homepage
    > just awarded a $2.5 million contract to build a prototype of a large robot dog that would follow soldiers into battle

    If I were a soldier, the first thing I'd do is reprogram my dog to walk ahead of me, not behind me. Let it step on the landmines, absorb enemy fire, etc.

    Oh wait, this robot is worth $2.5m, eh? Ah, now I understand why the soldier is in front.

    • Re:Lead or follow? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RevMike ( 632002 ) <revMikeNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday January 08, 2004 @11:23AM (#7914768) Journal

      If I were a soldier, the first thing I'd do is reprogram my dog to walk ahead of me, not behind me. Let it step on the landmines, absorb enemy fire, etc.

      Oh wait, this robot is worth $2.5m, eh? Ah, now I understand why the soldier is in front.

      Like most things in life, reality is more complex.

      First, the $2.5m is to develop the dog. The actually cost of manufacturing one will likely be quite a bit less.

      Second, if you sent the dog ahead, you probably sacrifice many of the advantages that you can bring to the battle - reducing your safety i the long run. for instance, an enemy spotting the dog could take a reasonable guess at your position and fire upon you with mortars before you have the opportunity to spot the enemy, evaluate their strength and position, and form a plan to engage. You've given up tactical initiative.

  • REAL Bunker Busters (Score:4, Funny)

    by Garg ( 35772 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @11:11AM (#7914632) Homepage
    I wonder if they're looking into giant robot anteaters as an alternative to costly bunker-buster bombs?

    How about AT-AT's [starwars.com]?

    Garg

  • Why legs? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @11:12AM (#7914647)
    Legs aren't necessarily a great form of transport. The are slow and use lots of energy. Evolution never came up with the wheel, or tracks (like a tank) or rotating blades (like a helicopter). Why should a robotic "dog" be better than a tracked vehicle, for instance?

    Perhaps the real plan is to give them glowing red eyes and smoke coming out of their mouths, to scare the opposition. Now that would we worth doing...
    • Evolution never came up with the wheel, or tracks (like a tank) or rotating blades (like a helicopter)

      Not sure about the wheel, but an older name for tracks on a tank is 'Caterpillar tyres'. Sort of gives away the idea of where they came from. As for rotating blades, well maybe not in a living animal but how about the Maple seed [216.239.37.104]?

      Mind you, I'm all in for the glowing red eys and smoke...

      Cheers,
      Ian

    • Re:Why legs? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mangu ( 126918 )
      Evolution never came up with the wheel, or tracks (like a tank) or rotating blades (like a helicopter).


      Some bacteria do have propeller-like rotating spikes. The reason why there are no wheels in larger animals is because of the problem in feeding the wheels. How would a rotary joint carry blood across? Indeed, I think you are right, if Nature had evolved wheels, many animals would have tracks instead of legs.

  • Carrying stuff and taking bullets? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Theatetus ( 521747 ) * on Thursday January 08, 2004 @11:15AM (#7914669) Journal

    I thought that's what E3's were for. Won't we be putting all our PFC's and Lance Corporals out of work?

  • Forget robot dogs, flys, and lobsters. Give the soldiers something they'd actually use, like robot women [realdolls.com]!

  • Commuter version? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Damon C. Richardson ( 913 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @11:18AM (#7914698) Homepage
    I for one would love to ride a giant metal dog to work every day. And at 50 pounds per squad thats 400 pounds capacity at least.

    Then you could paint it up like a Warg Beast from LoTR.
  • I've already seen this done. Just look here [movieprop.com]. The kid that comes with it, though, is hyper-annoying.

  • Well... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Dr. Bent ( 533421 ) <<ben> <at> <int.com>> on Thursday January 08, 2004 @11:20AM (#7914721) Homepage
    I, for one, welcome our new robotic canine...ah fuck it. This isn't fun anymore.
  • To improve their flexibility, and thus their utility in an ever-unpredictable combat situation, these robots will be able to assume a variety of conformations; to transform, if you will, in order to disguise themselves from hostile guerilla forces.

    Indeed, think of the benefits to the army Corp of engineers if they can respond to an unexpected hostile presence by combining their earth moving equipment into a giant combat robot! Given the assymetric threats our military is expected to face in the coming cent

  • That's not muffet.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by fiannaFailMan ( 702447 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @11:21AM (#7914747) Journal
    ...it isn't even a real dagget!
  • For instance, I sure hope that robo-dog doesn't fetch the boms I launch at the enemy...

  • If you think a robotic dog is cool... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 08, 2004 @11:24AM (#7914781)
    ...wait till you see the Army's $349,000 pooper scoopers for said dogs.

  • Rat Thing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by depricatedFoo ( 515563 ) <mshelton.lightwind@org> on Thursday January 08, 2004 @11:25AM (#7914791) Homepage
    "Unit 247 wakes up. He is excited. Others are barking. Someone is trying to hurt a nice girl. This makes him angry."

    Just how far away from Stephenson's Rat Thing [babesinspace.net] are we?
  • RoboFrog v1.0, which will be followed closely by RoboRedneck v1.0 (steel and aluminum telescopic gig accessory [cabelas.com] standard on the "dee-lux" model!) Also, you won't have to worry about this [snopes.com] (although fabricated anyway) happening, as the Kevlar waders accessory [mikestackleshop.co.uk] are already available for ordering.

  • Yes - I do know that AI is not at that level - yet. And it will be a loooong time before it will advance to the point where it will begin to resemble Hollywood's ideas of it. What is striking though is that the pictures of these robots are uncannily similar to what hollywood depicts as cold, impersonal, killing machines. Imagine that these are larger and equipped with weapons. Now imagine that you are on the other side of the combat line. Not hard to imagine that you are in Cameron-esque world, isnt it?

    So

  • Giant anteaters? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jerf ( 17166 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @11:31AM (#7914855) Journal
    I wonder if they're looking into giant robot anteaters as an alternative to costly bunker-buster bombs?

    Licking terrorists to death is probably SOME violation of the Geneva Convention!

  • Predecessor to Aibo (Score:2, Insightful)

    by userloser ( 707754 )
    K9 from Doctor Who! Yeah!
  • Can a basselope project be far behind for the DOD?
  • How can the army agree to spend money on a science fiction project like this?
    I remember seeing a program on Discovery of the armys various failed attempts at creating fully autonomous high-altitude spy-planes. I mean seriously, why not use a remote-controlled aircraft? (which is actually what they use, to some extent)

    The same applies for this; sure, you could use a weird million dollar dog to carry your equipment. Or you could use an ACTUAL LIVE DOG or a DAMN HORSE.
    • Live animals have lots of limitations: most notably, if you don't treat them well, they die.

      As for why "dogs", well, legged vehicles - autonomous or not - should have a lot of advantages in broken terrain.

      Finally, I'd like to point out that if the army *didn't* invest in science fiction projects, you wouldn't be reading this message, because the internet wouldn't exist.

  • Back in 3rd century AD China... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tehanu ( 682528 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @11:43AM (#7914971)
    Reminds me of Zhuge Liang's wooden oxen (back in the 3rd century AD - though now people think looking at the plans he left behind it might just have described the invention of the wheelbarrow rather than an actual mechanical beast)! From Romance of the Three Kingdoms:

    "I have had a scheme ready for a long time. The timber that I collected and bought in the River Lands was for the construction of wooden transport animals to convey grain. It will be very advantageous, as they will require neither food nor water and they can keep on the move day and night without resting...They are being made now after my plans, but they are not yet ready. Here I have the sketches for these mechanical oxen and horses, with all their dimensions written out in full. You may see the details."

    Zhuge Liang then produced a paper, and all the generals crowded round to look at it. They were all greatly astonished and lauded, "The Prime Minister is superhuman!"

    A few days later the new mechanical animals were complete and began work. They were quite life-like and went over the hills in any desired direction. The whole army saw them with delight. They were but in charge of Right General Gao Xiang and a thousand soldiers to guide them. They kept going constantly between Saber Pass and the front carrying grain for the use of the soldiers.

    Along the Saber Pass mountain roads
    The running horses bore their loads,
    And through Xie Valley's narrow way
    The wooden oxen paced each day.
    O generals, use these means today,
    And transport troubles take away.

    Where asked where the idea came from he replied:

    "The world is filled with things of man's making. I have long observed vehicles throughout the land, and considered the principle by which beasts of burden walk, and thus invented this..."

    The story also comes with a case of military espionage as the enemy Sima Yi captures some of them and tries to copy the design.

  • Obligatory Simpson's quote: (Score:3, Funny)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @12:15PM (#7915329) Homepage Journal
    The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea.
    They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall
    mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by
    small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is
    clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.
    -- Military school Commandant's graduation address, "The Secret War of
    Lisa Simpson"

    What is funny is that we are already building so many robots to kill people, like cruise missiles for example, drone spy planes etc. Where has the Asimov's idea of the three robotics laws gone?

  • The future of the military (Score:3)

    by Lord Ender ( 156273 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @12:16PM (#7915342) Homepage
    The future is ALL robots on the battle field. It has alread started. The predator drone is the first big step. It flies and attacks remotely. All of the new DoD research money is going toward robotic replacements for soldiers. Our tanks now are controlled completely electronically. It shouldn't make a difference whether the soldiers are staring at a computer monitor inside the tank or miles away in a safe place. And why send a soldier down a fox hole, when an X10 wireless webcam and a $30 RC car from radioshack would do the job? The final step will be when mostly human-shaped robots with rifles are controlled remotely. It would be able to do most things a soldier does if it has a microphone and speakers and video cammera. He could see and hear what it does and speak through it. It will be much easier to take over 3rd world conutries when we have no casualties, soldiers don't have to sleep, and have machine accuracy for targeting.
    • The problem is, if the wars are to be fought by robots, then whose robots will ours fight? The US, for good or bad, is the world sole super power, and with our gigantic(*cringe*) military budget, we can build and develop these robots. But against who?

      For the forseeable future, it will be US robots bombing military installations, so that both sides will be avoiding a frontline war in the trenches.

  • Expect to see more about Boston Dynamics (Score:3, Informative)

    by Onnimikki ( 63071 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @12:27PM (#7915460) Homepage

    Have a look at their Engineering page [bdi.com]. You'll see images of both Rugged RHex [rhex.net] (featured on Slashdot [slashdot.org] earlier) as well as Sony's bipedal Qrio [sony.net] robot. Marc Raibert has assembled an impressive team of people to work on these very cool projects.

Slashdot Top Deals

Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.

Close