US military embraces robot 'revolution'

Aug 13, 2009 by Dan De Luce
A prototype of the X-47B Navy Unmannded Combat Air System (UCAS) sits on diplay at Naval Air Station Pax River Webster Field Annex in St. Inigoes, Maryland, on August 10. The X-47B, made by Northrop Grumman Corporation, is to demonstrate the first-ever carrier-based autonomous launches and recoveries.

Robots in the sky and on the ground are transforming warfare, and the US military is rushing to recruit the new warriors that never sleep and never bleed.

The latest robotics were on display at an industry show this week at a naval airfield in Maryland, with a pilotless helicopter buzzing overhead and a "Wall-E" look-alike robot on the ground craning its neck to peer into a window.

The chopper, the MQ-8B Fire Scout, is no tentative experiment and later this year will be operating from a naval frigate, the USS McInerney, to help track drug traffickers in the eastern Pacific Ocean, Navy officers said.

The rugged little robot searching an enemy building is called a Pakbot, which can climb over rocks with tank treads, pick up an explosive with its mechanical arm and dismantle it while a soldier directs the machine from a safe distance.

There are already 2,500 of them on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a lighter version weighing six kilograms (14 pounds) has arrived that can be carried in a backpack, according to iRobot, the same company that sells a vaccum to civilians, the Roomba.

Monday's demonstration of robotic wonders was organized by defense contractors and the US Navy, which says it wants to lead the American military into a new age where tedious or high-risk jobs are handed over to robots.

"I think we're at the beginning of an unmanned revolution," Gary Kessler, who oversees unmanned aviation programs for the US Navy and Marines, told AFP.

"We're spending billions of dollars on unmanned systems."

Kessler and other officials compare the robots to the introduction of the aircraft or the tank, a new technology that dramatically changes strategy and tactics.

Robots or "unmanned systems" are now deployed by the thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan, spying from the sky for hours on end, searching for booby-traps and firing lethal missiles without putting US soldiers at risk.

The use of robotics in the military has exploded in the past several years as technology has advanced while Washington faced a new kind of enemy that required patient, precise surveillance.

In 2003, the US military had almost no robots in its arsenal but now has 7,000 unmanned aircraft and at least 10,000 ground vehicles.

The US Air Force, which initially resisted the idea of pilotless planes, said it trains more operators for unmanned aircraft than pilots for its fighter jets and bombers.

Peter Singer, author of "Wired for War," writes that future wars may see tens of thousands of unmanned vehicles in action, possibly facing off against fleets of enemy robots.

Unlike expensive weapons from the Cold War-era, robotic vehicles are not off-limits to countries with modest defense budgets and dozens of governments are investing in unmanned programs.

At the trade show, military officers from the United States, Chile, Australia, Saudi Arabia and India listened to defense contractors promote their robotic vehicles, including a tiny helicopter about two-feet long and L3's Mobius -- a nimble medium-sized drone that reaches speeds of up to 215 knots.

The technology may sometimes resemble something out of "Star Wars" or a toy shop, but the robots determine matters of life and death on the battlefront.

In the fight against Al-Qaeda, drones are Washington's favored weapon.

Predator and Reaper aircraft, armed with precision-guided bombs and Hellfire missiles, regularly carry out strikes in Pakistan's northwest tribal area, causing an unknown number of civilian casualties.

Last week, a drone strike is believed to have have killed the Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud.

The unmanned aircraft in the US military's inventory range from small Ravens, that can be tossed into the air to see over the next hill, to the giant Global Hawk, a 44-foot-long spy plane that can fly at high altitude for up to 35 hours.

The drones and ground vehicles are often operated using joysticks or consoles familiar to a younger generation raised on video games.

"Soldiers these days have a lot of experience playing video games when they're growing up, and they're really familiar with these controls. So this really reduces the training time on these types of unmanned vehicles," said Charlie Vaida of iRobot, which makes a game console for the Pakbot.

Amid plans for unmanned bomber jets for aircraft carriers, the onslaught of drones could eventually render fighter aces a relic of history.

Military officers insist the robots are a complement and not a substitute for traditional aircraft, and pose no threat to the careers of their fellow pilots.

"I think they understand we're not going to replace them," said Captain Tim Dunnigan, a navy chopper pilot. "This is going to augment them."

(c) 2009 AFP

Explore further: Robots lending a helping hand to build planes

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Robotic technology lowers military risks

Jun 07, 2006

With suicide bombing and improvised explosive devices escalating violence in Iraq, engineers are working to advance robotic technology to counter these deadly military problems.

Military use of robots increases

Aug 04, 2008

War casualties are typically kept behind tightly closed doors, but one company keeps the mangled pieces of its first casualty on display. This is no ordinary soldier, though—it is Packbot from iRobot Corporation. ...

Unmanned planes look for Katrina survivors

Sep 15, 2005

Unmanned, small aircraft were being used this week to search for survivors of Hurricane Katrina in the first domestic use of such surveillance vehicles.

Next generation military drones researched

Aug 24, 2005

The military's next generation of airborne drones will be able to silently dive between buildings, zoom under overpasses and land on apartment balconies.

Recommended for you

Robots lending a helping hand to build planes

Aug 26, 2014

Trying to squeeze into small enclosed areas, carrying out highly repetitive tasks, retiring with back injuries even while your expertise is needed: these everyday realities of working in aviation construction ...

C2D2 fighting corrosion

Aug 22, 2014

Bridges become an infrastructure problem as they get older, as de-icing salt and carbon dioxide gradually destroy the reinforced concrete. A new robot can now check the condition of these structures, even ...

Meet the "swarmies"- robotics' answer to bugs

Aug 22, 2014

(Phys.org) —A small band of NASA engineers and interns is about to begin testing a group of robots and related software that will show whether it's possible for autonomous machines to scurry about an alien ...

Hitchhiking robot reaches journey's end in Canada

Aug 21, 2014

A chatty robot with an LED-lit smiley face sent hitchhiking across Canada this summer as part of a social experiment reached its final destination Thursday after several thousand kilometers on the road.

User comments : 46

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gmurphy
3.5 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2009
if it's controlled by a human being, it's still a piloted craft, not a robot
Arkaleus
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2009
This is part of the reason why technological innovation in the United States has stagnated - We have been locked into a late 20th century consumer mode and all work that might move us forward has been redirected into military battle systems.

Only fields that result in trivial advance or that reinforce the status quo are allowed to progress. All other potentials are herded into the military industrial complex.

So this means we get to spend trillions for new types of bombs, but face economic collapse at home because we are all out of ideas and have closed down all the factories.
3432682
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2009
Techno innovation has not stagnated. That's silly. Taking off on the military is misguided. There is no such thing as "allowed to progress". That's nuts.

We face economic collapse when our federal government writes half of all mortgages, and 40% of all subprime mortgages, and then requires lenders to write even more subprimes. And then housing prices soar, and then they collapse.

We face economic collapse when, in spite of 9.4% unemployment, our government imports 1.6 million legal workers per year. That's 60% of the 2.5 million who lost jobs in the last year.

We face collapse when the Fed keeps interest rates too low, too long. This subsidizes and encourages risky, foolish behavior.

We face economic collapse when, as today, government expenditures of $6.3 trillion of a $14 trillion economy are 45% of GDP.

We face economic collapse when we waste $787 billion on a phony stimulus package, when cap-and-trade plans to eliminate 80% of our fossil fuels, which are 80% of our energy supply. And carbon tax the economy trillions, and drive millions more jobs offshore. Then, the government tries to take over health care, another 17% of the economy. Brilliant.

Government has caused disasters in housing, energy, food prices, health prices, education, and retirement savings. So of course, we need much more government, right?

We face economic collapse because government (federal, state, local) is spending $55,000 per household per year, US average. That's more than the median family income. Are you getting your $55,000 worth of government? Me neither.
superhuman
5 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2009
Unfortunately it's a double edged sword, unlike aircrafts drones are within reach of many nations and once their mass production starts they will end up in the hands of terrorists. The next challenge will be developing efficient counter-drone measures.
otto1923
not rated yet Aug 13, 2009
THAT plane is a thing of beauty-

@Arkaleus
Consumerism drives innovation. Competition for consumer $$ improves design, production, and delivery. More consumption means less cost per unit. Usage improves design by exposing defects. We would not have all that we do without it.

The most important thing however is that the Process be controlled and guided to develop what can most benefit civilization and prepare for the future.
The use of robotics in the military has exploded in the past several years as technology has advanced while Washington faced a new kind of enemy that required patient, precise surveillance.
In 2003, the US military had almost no robots in its arsenal but now has 7,000 unmanned aircraft and at least 10,000 ground vehicles.
the military was PROVIDED with exactly the right enemy to enable the development and testing of these technologies at the proper time. This is not happenstance; this is brilliance.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Aug 13, 2009
@superhuman
Iran has already launched hundreds of UAVs into Iraq and is becoming an alternative supplier to third worlders. "The best enemies are the ones you create yourself." This dangerous technology was inevitable. In order to maintain superiority they therefore had to be developed quickly- and proved in combat.
otto1923
not rated yet Aug 13, 2009
@3432682
The economic collapse was engineered because it was inevitable. It was therefore configured to provide the most benefit while protecting those interests vital to Stability and Progress. These things were done because it was possible to do so; which made their doing essential, lest someone else do them first.
moebiex
2 / 5 (1) Aug 13, 2009
why don't we design these tools to destroy weapons and not necessarily to kill people- kind of the way humane police prefer. That way perhaps reconciliation can be more easily found and many more lives spared.
John_balls
2 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2009
Techno innovation has not stagnated. That's silly. Taking off on the military is misguided. There is no such thing as "allowed to progress". That's nuts.



We face economic collapse when our federal government writes half of all mortgages, and 40% of all subprime mortgages, and then requires lenders to write even more subprimes. And then housing prices soar, and then they collapse.



We face economic collapse when, in spite of 9.4% unemployment, our government imports 1.6 million legal workers per year. That's 60% of the 2.5 million who lost jobs in the last year.



We face collapse when the Fed keeps interest rates too low, too long. This subsidizes and encourages risky, foolish behavior.



We face economic collapse when, as today, government expenditures of $6.3 trillion of a $14 trillion economy are 45% of GDP.



We face economic collapse when we waste $787 billion on a phony stimulus package, when cap-and-trade plans to eliminate 80% of our fossil fuels, which are 80% of our energy supply. And carbon tax the economy trillions, and drive millions more jobs offshore. Then, the government tries to take over health care, another 17% of the economy. Brilliant.



Government has caused disasters in housing, energy, food prices, health prices, education, and retirement savings. So of course, we need much more government, right?



We face economic collapse because government (federal, state, local) is spending $55,000 per household per year, US average. That's more than the median family income. Are you getting your $55,000 worth of government? Me neither.

What an ignorant rant. Not once in your rant have you put any culpability on the corporations that have a fudiciary duty to the shareholder to not go out of business due to negligence. I think I just wasted my time trying to educate a birther.
Arkaleus
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2009
"No such thing as 'allowed'"

The commanding forces at the helm of our military industrial complex are actual, identifiable human beings with budget authority of $X.

Their decisions in which technologies to pursue have become the major breadwinner in American high energy physics applications.

This unfortunate consequence of allowing the "military-industrial complex" to reach such a size and level of power results in a need to reform both the technologies being developed and the powers that formerly governed them.

I propose an entirely new development model in America, one that is not controlled by the interests of power and war, but rather by the domestic need and the wisest and most farsighted minds.

I'd prefer each of you to comment what the greatest domestic need of the United States of America is.
Arkaleus
1 / 5 (1) Aug 13, 2009
If we were to calculate the most effective activity for our nation-state to be doing right now, what would it be?

Let's answer this by playing king of the hill. I'll stand at the top of this nearby star system with habitable worlds. Due to my early arrival to this particularly verdant and free land, I not only will have the best land stakes, but it's very likely my people will be better established than any other people attempting to settle later on.

Our people would then become majority share holders of an entire world, expanding to perfectly sustainable and happy habitations in her choicest and most civilized climates.

Depending on the ability of our fundholders and "directors" to understand this basic and fundamental reasoning, our expansion rate will be greater or lessor when faced with the rapid and envious developments of the other nations we outperformed in this endeavor.

Therefore, after considering the effect of being 2nd place in this particular battle for the hill, I resolved to make a more steady progress into interstellar spacecraft engines capable of >.3 G sustained acceleration.

Sustained and renewed by encountering this particulary Darwinian keyhole of human progress, I begin to more strenously loathe the recent decision to channel not only 1 entire year's worth of GDP to the banksters, but all next years' as well!
kasen
5 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2009
I really like this new doctrine adopted by the US Military and all its copycats. It's just so tastily flawed, it makes me want to obtain political power in an African state and raise an army to take them on.

I'm not sure, but I believe there isn't a single USAF plane capable of combat that can operate without electronics these days. Do they even teach new pilots how to navigate without GPS anymore? And it's not just the air force. I wonder if an M1A1 hit the broad side of a barn with its onboard computer offline. All that remains now is to switch to caseless, electronically fired ammo and maybe powered exoskeletons for the infantry and you get the Hazbro Electric Army Set(batteries not included).

Well, a third-world dictator would just need to get his hands on a former Soviet scientist and have him design a portable, easily mass produced version of this:
http://en.wikiped...enerator

Or he could let the US economy take care of everything.
Falcon
not rated yet Aug 14, 2009
Unfortunately it's a double edged sword, unlike aircrafts drones are within reach of many nations and once their mass production starts they will end up in the hands of terrorists. The next challenge will be developing efficient counter-drone measures.


Woulden't a missile work?

assuming that there is no radar canceling skin on it like a stealth bomber
otto1923
not rated yet Aug 14, 2009
EMP weapons allegedly were used in Iraq.
If we were to calculate the most effective activity for our nation-state to be doing right now, what would it be?
You used the proper term 'nation-state' which describes the US as a smaller part of a much greater Whole. There is no longer any competition in this world which is not arranged for and managed. One way to realize this is to look at past major events and ask what the world would be like if they had turned out differently. For instance, as 'enemies' the US and the USSR effectively controlled the entire world. Because they appeared to be threats to one another they could both produce the 1000s of tons of the most valuable material a species could own at this point in it's development: fissile plutonium and uranium. With it the oceans were secured and humanity became prepared for many contingincies.

Another example- ww2 enabled the destruction of all those religion-based subcultures which would have resisted the 1 BILLION abortions which began right afterward, arguably the most significant result of that war.

Doubt everything you've learned and you may begin to see how masterfully engineered the world of man has become.
otto1923
not rated yet Aug 14, 2009
Woulden't a missile work?
Laser defensive and offensive systems may work the best- Israeli citizens sued to allow one such US system to be deployed near Gaza. It was turned down. Without constant threat to it's citizens how could the IDF justify the magnitude of it's recent incursion? Without enemies like Hamas how could Israel justify the IDF? 2 sides- 1 coin. Always.
kasen
not rated yet Aug 15, 2009
I looked that up and it seems an EMP bomb was indeed used, to disable Iraqi TV, but I think the payoff was marginal at best. Now, if such a device were used in some big American city...

Laser systems are another example of technological overkill that ultimately fails against traditional pointy-stick&stones techniques. I once heard an account of a fighter jet that got shot down with an AK rifle. Surely a 100kg drone could be brought down easier, cheaper and more reliably by a conscript with a rifle, or say a Stinger missile than by a computer handling a several kW laser. Speaking of computers handling guns: http://en.wikiped...n_combat

As for missile defence, I imagine beam orientation and targeting would be done with precision optics and not servos. I'd like to see sensitive equipment like that work in desert/jungle conditions.

Another example- ww2 enabled the destruction of all those religion-based subcultures which would have resisted the 1 BILLION abortions which began right afterward, arguably the most significant result of that war.


Which religious subcultures are you speaking of? Since you mentioned Israel, one outcome of WW2 was the formation of that state. Then, sometime during(maybe before?) the Cold War the Israeli and the Americans became very good friends and as friends help each other out, the IDF now have the second largest F15 fleet in the world and probably have a fidelity discount on any purchase of arms from the US government. Of course, this is all in the interest of peace-keeping! Again, despite the vast technological superiority, Iraq and Gaza are still basically warzones.

Last but not least, on the topic of WW2, let's not forget that one Panzer driven by an elite SS crew could take out 4 allied tanks, but the Battle of the Kursk was won by T-34s driven by hungry peasants. I'm not even going to mention Vietnam...
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Aug 15, 2009

@kasen
EMP bomb was indeed used, to disable Iraqi TV, but I think the payoff was marginal at best
 The payoff in Baghdad was the test of this tech in actual combat.
Laser systems are another example of technological overkill that ultimately fails
 
Developing laser tech is well worth the added expense. It's inevitable, so the sooner we can do it the better. This includes tests under actual combat conditions. 

Fighter jets- you discount all  the tech has enabled. Airpower owned the skies over Iraq, Normandy, Afghanistan, Leyte gulf, etc.    

Eurasian subcultures- think of what eurasia and north Africa were like before ww2. Russ orthodox, orthodox shtetls and ghettos, serbo-Croat, euro Xian, traditional Chinese, Japanese; all mitigated. Cultures disappear when the 'carriers' die in gulags, firestorms, death camps.
sometime during(maybe before?) the Cold War the Israeli and the Americans became very good friends
 "The Balfour Declaration November 2, 1917. During the First World War, British policy became gradually committed to the idea of establishing a Jewish home in Palestine..." -The Israel 'garrison state' was long planned as a bridgehead. It was meant to secure a western presence in the middle of the Islamic world, to assist in dividing it and fomenting conflict. An old formula. The north African campaign was staged to prove the tech needed to secure secure Israel. Their 1st war began on the day they declared independence, 14 may 1948, which began the long process of proving it's borders and strengthening it's defenses.
SS crew could take out 4 allied tanks, but the Battle of the Kursk was won by T-34s driven by hungry peasants
German/Russian armored tech was the result of years of combat testing and improvement. They actually participated in joint maneuvers in the interwar period. Allied tanks were no match; to increase losses to "own in" to the war which was obviously a Germanic soviet/Nazi war (90% of Germans were killed by soviets)? Or to prove the need for an accelerated postwar military development? The T34 was possibly the best tank of the war. By normandy and certainly the Ardennes offensive, SS formations were mostly eastern conscripts and underage hitlerjugend. Few divisions were up to original strength. But soviets could see allies were defeating the dreaded SS and so gave 2nd thought to overrunning Europe.

Kursk- there is much discussion about the outcome of this battle. Germans did much more damage than Russians but could not replace their losses (old story) The sicily invasion gave Hitler the excuse to withdraw 3 SS divisions to Italy to bolster fascists, which may have swung battle... Fishy. As was the whole war.

Vietnam- we won that war hands down. We did exactly what we wanted to do and when we were done we got the hell out. Courtesy of the righteous indignation of the American people and hippies, thereby proving to the world that democracy WORKS! Ha. We left it to commies to finish destroying cultures in that part of the world. Victory!
http://www.johnst...dex.html
otto1923
not rated yet Aug 15, 2009
Lasers and UAVs- consider swarms crossing a 1500 mi border or launched offshore. Lasers can be retargeted optically multiple times a second and instantly hit targets miles away. We (the west- the world?) will need another conflict to prove this emerging tech. A great danger is that alternate energy research will enable powerful lasers in very small packages. Commercial aircraft, LNG facilities, govt buildings at risk from apartments, vans, chevy Volts-
kasen
not rated yet Aug 15, 2009
The payoff in Baghdad was the test of this tech in actual combat.


Yeah, weapons' testing seems to have become a major stimulant for starting wars these days. Which is why I'm expecting the next big thing to come from SE Asia.

I'm not saying war isn't beneficial to scientific advance, or demographics for that matter. I'm just discussing efficiency, perhaps more on a tactical level.

Air supremacy is a definite necessity in a roughly symmetric conflict, but it becomes grossly cost ineffective in asymmetric warfare. Of course airpower owned Iraq and Afghanistan, there wasn't too much of an opposition, was there, but consider the media&PR costs of those mistargeted bombings along with the operating costs of a single carrier-borne fighter/bomber. Compare with the costs of Cold War era AA guns. I think you can buy a dozen or so, plus ammo, with the money spent on one "smart" air-to-ground missile, and crewing necessities are about the same as for a jet.

Kursk, and the whole of WW2 really, demonstrated that numerical superiority beats technology. On the other hand, cracking the Enigma and radar development proved that Sun Tzu's principles are still valid. Armies are worthless without proper intelligence gathering and communication systems. Still, you can't compare crypto and radio with lasers and nuclear subs. There's techs that need a 10th of the planet's resources to be developed, and there's techs you can develop in a small university lab.

With Vietnam I was thinking about the M16 vs. AK-47 argument, again pure tactical considerations. I'm guessing you're familiar with it. If democracy really worked, the damn war wouldn't have started to begin with, or at least would've ended sooner, don't you think? Frankly, I think democracy is just a fancy word for mob rule...

About the abortions thing, I kinda doubt the suppression of certain cultures greatly influenced those statistics. As I recall, there was a massive baby boom just after the war. It seems logical for the number of abortions to rise along with the number of total pregnancies. Also, with economies barely out of war and focused on reconstruction, I don't think people would've been too keen on having unwanted babies regardless of what the clergy said. Double also, the cultures you mentioned would've been quite poor to begin with, so even if they would've refused abortion, infantile mortality would've evened the demographic balance.

kasen
not rated yet Aug 15, 2009
Lasers and UAVs- consider swarms crossing a 1500 mi border or launched offshore. Lasers can be retargeted optically multiple times a second and instantly hit targets miles away. We (the west- the world?) will need another conflict to prove this emerging tech. A great danger is that alternate energy research will enable powerful lasers in very small packages. Commercial aircraft, LNG facilities, govt buildings at risk from apartments, vans, chevy Volts-


Those swarms would need either a centralised command base, or intercommunication. Both imply electronic warfare, which, as I stated earlier is accessible to smaller countries as well. Consider a few hundred drones simultaneously dropping like flies, or going kamikaze on their home base. I imagine a skilled hacker with a powerful transmitter could do something like that. Remember EMP weapons, also.

If we ever get alternative energy sources that enable hand carried beam weaponry, I'd really like to think there won't be any reason left for human conflict. Or at the very least, let it be religious in nature and require wars to be fought with more elegant weapons, like swords(lightsabers included), or Go.

otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Aug 15, 2009

Overall Stability and the Progress it enables are most important to the maturation of civilization. 
 
Air supremacy in those theatres ensured supremacy over ground operations. Enemies couldn't fly; they were therefore blind and exposed. Allied planes decimated German armored formations when God cleared the skies for Patton. Read about what Pakistani gunships are doing to Taliban in wakisterium or whatever. As far as cost comparison, the lesson to US admirals that day when an old battleship was sunk by a biplane. Or when F16s destroyed saddams reactor.  Now we can build planes without pilots. They can get smaller and more numerous- and more autonomous. Think swarms of INTELLIGENT UAVs. Terrorists don't need them only drones with biopayloads.

Intelligence networks are the securist, most reliable venues for sharing info and coordinating ops among 'enemies'. If you read about all the unexplained nonsense that went on during ww2 and the cold war, this becomes pretty obvious.

Abortion- Picture trying to get Mormons to accept abortion. That was prewar eurasia where in some places the attempt was a capital offence. I'm afraid your head is stuffed with tv and classroom related disinformation. Baby booms occured on western countries to meet preplanned demographic goals; US abortions not legalized til 1973; after the cultures which forbid them were mitigated. Think 'Father Knows Best' to 'Archie Bunker' to 'Al Bundy'. Yeah I know- Peg had another baby- but that was after the good writers had left. Western cultures are now configured to change without all that bloodshed. If pops need to grow again you will see the Nelsons and the Cleavers return.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Aug 15, 2009
M16 vs monkeygun AK- AKs can be manufactured almost anywhere whereas hi-tech cast aluminum M16s can only be made in hi-tech western countries. Captured weapons are hard to repair and replace parts, make ammo. AK may be better weapon although both it and ammo are heavier, but better is not always better. Little bullets are better than no bullets at all, soldiers can hump more of them into the bush. .223 has flatter trajectory. there is .22 cal AK74- haven't read up on it, don't know who uses it. The Galil was perhaps the best AK variant. IDF rules.
kasen
not rated yet Aug 16, 2009
Intelligent or not, they still need sensors and comm systems. The latter is especially necessary if swarm tactics are to be used effectively on a large battlefield. As for the former, a pilot can still keep the plane flying w/o GPS, radar, IR imaging or cameras, provided he has one or two working analog sensors on board and good vision. A drone needs all that tech for both navigation and combat, since they're basically reusable missiles. So, a pretty cheap way to deal with them would be plain old chaff and flares or, if they use cameras for target discrimination, camouflage and decoys. Inflatable tanks worked against humans, they'll sure as hell work on AI.


Now, let me get this straight. Are you actually saying sitcoms have been used as a demographic engineering tool in the US?




otto1923
not rated yet Aug 16, 2009
Rulers have always endeavored to find ways of telling the people what to do, what to think, how to act, etc. The media can do this nowadays very efficiently, very thoroughly. The media are our only source of info about the world around us. Of course sitcoms influence our behavior. Dialogue between Archie and meathead persuaded millions? to look again at their feelings about race, sex, drugs, hair styles. Add on Hefner, Hollywood, Life mag, the beatles, and our opinionsawede slowly, completely, redirected. Give women an alternative to the dangerous and onerous task of reproduction and they will grab it. Sitcoms were perhaps the most insidious form of propaganda. The media are fundamentally a lie: actors pretending to be something theyre not, authors writing about slices of things they never experienced, newscasters reporting news they didn't witness. We are not ever offered reality but only interpretations of it. This leaves media producers and those they work for free to influence us however they want. We are convinced that cigarettes are harmless because smoking actors only hack and cough off screen. We are convinced to vote republican because we are shown others like us who tell us to. Their songs persist in our heads long after they're over. Etc Etc Etc over and over and over again. It is done because it can be done, which makes it essential that it be done right.
otto1923
not rated yet Aug 16, 2009
AI and UAVs- imagine a squadron of intelligent planes which are given mission parameters to locate certain individuals. They set off on their own, avoid countermeasures, travel via GPS, loiter on station until they each identify a probable target. At that point they radio back to their human commander and ask for verification and permission to fire. He is perhaps sitting in front of many monitors monitoring only a few of the many telemetry feeds. If he has questions the UAV can playback, give 'opinions', ask nearby UAVs for better camera angles.the human gives permission, the kill is made, the bird finds it's own way home. Brave new world.
Snake
not rated yet Aug 16, 2009
I shoot down your defenseless satellites. What now?
otto1923
not rated yet Aug 16, 2009
With your dozens of multistage air-launched kinetic energy missiles to hit dozens of redundant satellites traveling at Mach 24? You sure you know where they are? You sure your missiles won't be knocked out first (by lasers) and you shortly thereafter? Why don't you just wait until they become obsolete in a few years with no systems budgeted to replace them? By the time you have the ability to shoot them down they will be protected against you.

What else ya got?
kasen
not rated yet Aug 16, 2009
otto1923: I know the media greatly influences society, but what I'm questioning is the idea that there's someone with a master plan, that there's a well defined purpose towards which people are manipulated by an individual or a group/government. Sure, you have interest groups and cartels, but there's a big leap from corporate strategists and Leto II Atreides.

People who can truly think up decades-spanning strategies are rare at best and few of them end up in the positions of power required for implementing their plans. Those positions are reserved for egomaniacs, over-achievers and generally stupid, ambitious people. It'll be some time till hereditary power dynasties die out, too.

Snake(guess what my name's an anagram for): That's a bit drastic, don't you think? If you had that capacity to begin with, it'd best be kept as contingency. Get some high altitude weather balloons and jam the satellite's transmission over the battlefield. Furthermore, you could probably replicate the signal from the ground and lead them wherever you want, capture them and reprogram their IFF protocol. Team-killing bots. And since they're technically weapons, you're not violating any war regulation.
otto1923
not rated yet Aug 16, 2009
@kasen
People who can truly think up decades-spanning strategies are rare at best and few of them end up in the positions of power required for implementing their plans.
You are absolutely correct.
Those positions are reserved for egomaniacs, over-achievers and generally stupid, ambitious people.
the People at the Top enlist only the best, most ambitious and ruthless. Those are the people we see. People like Cecil Rhodes or the Roosevelts.
It'll be some time till hereditary power dynasties die out, too.
It doesn't concern me personally who might be running things. That's where I differ from conspiracy theorists. Everybody wants to track down the culprets and pin them against the wall. "How could you do this!??!" Like Mussolini. I think they are good and absolutely indispensable, and we don't need to waste time finding them to understand what they are doing and why.   

If you're curious you could start with Plato's Republic for an idea of the structure. For some lighthearted insight I could recommend Jim Marrs 'Rule by Secrecy' for an idea how a very few could possibly conspire to wield great power; or the very entertaining kook David Icke who does excellent research and compilation. And of course there is the bible where it is all described in exacting detail, for posterity. 
otto1923
not rated yet Aug 16, 2009
Snake(guess what my name's an anagram for):
Um, Magnus, Robot Fighter? :-)
kasen
not rated yet Aug 17, 2009
I prefer the valueless, relativistic approach. No amount of bureaucracy, planning and organisation will ever suppress our animal instincts so it's useless to come up with grand utopian schemes for the entire race. People are stupid and they like to suffer, so just let them I say. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, after all.

I gave up on world domination several years ago but I'm still human, unfortunately, and therefore prone to stupidity. So every now and then I get the urge to conquer stuff or start a religion. Thankfully I have the Internet to show me the error of my ways. And booze.

Arkaleus
not rated yet Aug 17, 2009
Kasen:

It would be unreasonable to assume that there WASN'T coordinated agendas on behalf of the controlling interests of the world's resources.

To deny the existence of secret plans, groups, etc, is to deny human behavior and verges on delusional.

Even small time power brokers scheme and plot, and we all accept this. But when we trace the powers to their pinnacles, we suddenly become paralyzed and our reasoning ability seems to vanish.

It's not a matter of "conspiracy theory" but rather an honest observation of the conditions of reality. You can't expect people to gain the immense amounts of wealth and power available from modern life, and then somehow expect them to operate in a total vaccuum with complete fidelity to Socratic virtue and the US constitution. It's not reasonable to expect this.

But somehow, there are those out there who INSIST that the unreasonable is indeed the truth, and that there is no private agenda, no priveleged ideology and of couse, no corruption in power.

Responsible, adult people should all have the same tact when regarding powerful and wealthy groups and persons - They are guilty until proven innocent and we must constantly enforce the laws that were designed to keep persons and groups from abusing the rest of us.
otto1923
not rated yet Aug 17, 2009
@Arkaleus
But when we trace the powers to their pinnacles, we suddenly become paralyzed and our reasoning ability seems to vanish
Dont stop there! That insidious dead end is there to deter. Weiter gehen. Tiefer suchen. Isn't it curious that, when we gain sufficient perspective on past events, we cannot imagine how they could have turned out any better for the course of civilization? Always. That's fishy.
otto1923
not rated yet Aug 17, 2009
@Arkaleus
They are guilty until proven innocent and we must constantly enforce the laws that were designed to keep persons and groups from abusing the rest of us.
Of course they are! They are designed as such, by the People who sit in quiet repose, who know that the only truly effective and benevolent govt for all the people is one that is not subject to their scrutiny! In this world of humanity monumental decisions must be made which will inevitably cause thousands and millions to suffer and die. You really think we would ever be party to that Process?
otto1923
not rated yet Aug 17, 2009
laws that were designed to keep persons and groups from abusing the rest of us
Good or bad, right or wrong, is whatever they say it is for a given period, for a given people, in a given location. There is a time to embrace and a time to refrain; a time to love and a time to hate; a time for peace and a time for war. They decide the proper time for these inevitabilities to occur. Because they can and they must.
kasen
not rated yet Aug 18, 2009
I wasn't denying or confirming anything. Lacking proof, it'd be completely unscientific. You can make a parallel with religious issues here. It practically boils down to intelligent design vs. natural selection. The beauty of the thing is, you can explain it in both ways, since it's unlikely you'll ever get definitive proof and confirmation for one or the other.

You can say the current global or local state of affairs is the result of one master plan concocted by a few people, or, I quote:
"This may be hard for you to understand, but there is no conspiracy. Nobody is in charge. It's a headless blunder operating under the illusion of a master plan. Can you grasp that? Big Brother is not watching you."(from 'The Cube'; fantastic film)

Either variant is perfectly valid, much like Schroedinger's cat is both dead and alive. Unlike the aforementioned feline, however, you can't open the box of global power distribution, since there is no box to speak of. Thermodynamically speaking, it's an open system and one with at least 6 billion particles with practically an infinity of degrees of freedom each. Political masterminds are like seed crystals, instilling structure in their vicinity(time and space).

No structure lasts forever, though, being subjected to the chaos of the particles it doesn't encompass. That's why, from a purely theoretical/statistical point of view, mankind has always lived in anarchy.

Laws are nothing but catalysts to change. Those who obey them are those with servant mentality, docile and gentle, those who don't, egotistic sociopaths. With or without laws, you still end up with aggressive, disobedient people 'hunting' peaceful, obedient people, it's just that laws accentuate the differences between people and therefore make the process of natural selection a lot faster and more accessible to scrutiny by our short-lived selves.

Which of course could be just part of Hammurabi's master plan for achieving transcendence by transforming the human race into a huge computation machine with his consciousness embedded in it. Of course, the final step will be taken on 12.12.2012, when the simultaneous concentration of billions of minds on the same meme will kick-start the holistic systems and a global consciousness will awake. Mark my words!
otto1923
not rated yet Aug 18, 2009
@kasen
You're saying those things without looking at any of the evidence, of which there is tons. Like I say, If you're curious you can start with Plato, marrs, icke (ignore the reptilian stuff- that's just his vehicle) to get an idea of how it could occur. Watch 'the godfather' and imagine how it could happen on a global scale. You can read the bible with the understanding that it's not about saving souls but using that promise to save humanity from itself. It IS Intelligent Design- the intelligence of Men, applied in desperation.    
otto1923
not rated yet Aug 18, 2009
That is, you know, Men as in men and women, and maybe even some concerned reptiles, who knows? It's the presence of pragmatic Reason in the face of chaos and inevitable ruin without Action. It's the only way to explaiin the world as it is without invoking God or pure happenstance, both equally fantastical.
otto1923
not rated yet Aug 18, 2009
  @kasen
Let me address this here:
Laws are nothing but catalysts to change. Those who obey them are those with servant mentality, docile and gentle, those who don't, egotistic sociopaths. With or without laws, you still end up with aggressive, disobedient people 'hunting' peaceful, obedient people, it's just that laws accentuate the differences between people and therefore make the process of natural selection a lot faster and more accessible to scrutiny by our short-lived selves
Predation is inevitable but without design it inevitably causes ruin. What good is power and money if the world is collapsing around you? Ask Solomon. The most wise and powerful king in the world could see no way to save his kingdom from those who would inherit. "All is Meaningless" he laments. Rulers DO care about their families and their people. They can look at the past and see what shortsightedness did to extinct civilizations. At some point I think they decided to DO something about it. 

Imagine a Philosophy which would not resist the tendencies of some to obey and some to disobey. You serve whether you conform or not. This is a convenient way of dividing the people and setting them against one another in a controlled and predictable fashion. The Mafia and the FBI- 2 sides, 1 coin.
Arkaleus
not rated yet Aug 18, 2009
Wow what a tangent. Don't know what to say about Hammurabi coming back to rule us from a digital consciousness. Is that the most sane expectation for the future?

When I look at the center of development and activity in America, I see the war-machine makers and their partners in power taking the lion's share of money and attention.

We can't expect an investment in destruction and death to pay us anything useful back. Unless of course it's chaos and destruction of human life you are after to begin with.

These technologies don't improve our lives or make us free, if anything they increase the powers of the rulers and diminish our liberty. The most just use of these technologies would be to destroy tyrants and despots at home and abroad, rather than the lives of petty rebels and innocents.
Arkaleus
not rated yet Aug 18, 2009
Wow what a tangent. Don't know what to say about Hammurabi coming back to rule us from a digital consciousness. Is that the most sane expectation for the future?

When I look at the center of development and activity in America, I see the war-machine makers and their partners in power taking the lion's share of money and attention.

We can't expect an investment in destruction and death to pay us anything useful back. Unless of course it's chaos and destruction of human life you are after to begin with.

These technologies don't improve our lives or make us free, if anything they increase the powers of the rulers and diminish our liberty. The most just use of these technologies would be to destroy tyrants and despots at home and abroad, rather than the lives of petty rebels and innocents.
otto1923
not rated yet Aug 18, 2009
@Arkaleus
We can't expect an investment in destruction and death to pay us anything useful back. Unless of course it's chaos and destruction of human life you are after to begin with
Chaos and destruction are absolutely inevitable no matter what Solomon would do. The trick is to manage them so as to preserve what is Vital.
 When I look at the center of development and activity in America, I see the war-machine makers and their partners in power taking the lion's share of money and attention
The sad fact is that what they develop is also inevitable and if they weren't doing it someone else would, and chaos would again rule.
otto1923
not rated yet Aug 18, 2009
Innocents are not innocent- without other things to occupy them, they reproduce, correct? Those rebels you mention are that gen above the threshold of instability whose siblings are starving. And they have nothing better to do than fight. This has been addressed in some of the 'family planning', religion, and overpopulation threads on this site. Some agree, some don't as you can imagine.
kasen
not rated yet Aug 18, 2009
Wow what a tangent. Don't know what to say about Hammurabi coming back to rule us from a digital consciousness. Is that the most sane expectation for the future?


I'm not the sanest person to be making predictions, of that you can be certain. Oh, and I forgot to mention Hammurabi's arch-nemesis, Stephen Wolfram. He's going for the same thing, but he's using the Internet instead.

Regarding any form of evidence, whether proving or disproving any theory, there's the Law of Fives.

Whether humans(or reptilians, if you wish) actually came up with the Structure, or it just emerged out of chaos, it doesn't really matter, does it? It's there, it's active, self-sustained and no matter what you do, you're part of it. Best thing you can do is have fun while you're at it. You know, use your illusion.


otto1923
not rated yet Aug 18, 2009
"Discordianism is a modern religion centered on the idea that chaos is all that there is," -What- that Law of Fives? Embrace the Dark or the Light- either way, we serve. Meanwhile Theyre arranging to build beautiful little planes like the one above; and Theyre getting ready to hatch this species into the Void. We should be grateful.
Arkaleus
not rated yet Aug 18, 2009
I'm not really sure where you guys are taking this thread. I hope you have fun on the way though!