Grenade-Style Wireless Camera For Combat 333
nk497 writes "A new wireless camera called the I-Ball is being developed to be shot into locations using a grenade launcher so troops can see what lies ahead. The I-Ball sends real-time, 360-degree video back to soldiers while it's flying through the air and when it lands."
"Being developed" = "Hey, I got an idea" (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA:
âoeWe have overcome some significant technological challenges in developing the I-Ball technology,â said Paul Thompson of Dreampact. âoeAlthough it is in its early stages, we are very excited about the technology's potential to help our troops to be better prepared for battle.â
In other words, "We had an idea, and we've got no idea how to actually implement it, but if the MoD gives us a bunch of money we'll happily spend it."
Maybe the UK MoD is better than the US DoD about not funding projects just because some legislator is owed a favor, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Wish there was a photo (Score:2, Insightful)
Now they really know you're coming... (Score:3, Insightful)
If the "bad guys" didn't already hear you coming in, they really know when that ball comes flying in the room! Seriously, it's going to take a minute to analyze the feed and on the ground we don't have that time luxury. While there might be a few isolated cases where it could be useful, I'm not sure what they are.
Re:overkill (Score:2, Insightful)
Not necessarily, the hostiles might be some distance away from the opening you throw the thing through, just throwing a grenade tells them where you are and if you go in you'll have all rifles in the vincinity pointed at you already.
Re:A no-deposit/no-return drone? (Score:3, Insightful)
War and conflict will become obsolete when humans become obsolete.
screw warfare - how about BASEBALL (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Lemme get this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
The US government already has flying drones with millimeter radar capable of seeing inside a hardened bunker -- as in, it can see bodies and outlines some several feet through concrete and steel. Why not just use those? If you're close enough to throw a grenade toward the target, they're likely close enough to blow you away too, and if I'm taking a bullet in the butt risk, wouldn't it make sense to throw something that could kill them before they kill me?
"Holy Allah, they're throwing webcams at us! We must flee!"
Puh-leze.
Hostages, explosives on site... (Score:5, Insightful)
...sensitive equipment on site, element of surprise, recon mission...
The list is long.
Are you one of those guys that, when playing Counterstrike, chucks grenades inside killing all the hostages and then runs into the room spraying it with bullets, only to be knifed in the head once you run out of ammo?
Re:overkill (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Lemme get this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:overkill (Score:2, Insightful)
Honestly, it doesn't even have to be American-centric. If you were Australian you wouldn't want Australians dying, if you were Russian you wouldn't want Russians dying, and so forth and so on. There are few countries which take as many precautions as we do. The problem is you only hear about the .0001% of times when something goes wrong.
Re:Lemme get this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like someone talking out of their ass to me.
Tell you what, why don't you start up your own company and start selling these cheap UAV's you can make to the military. Get back to us when you become rich and famous, OK?
People make RF controlled planes all the time. People don't make UAV drones capable of being flown from the other side of the world for up to 24 hours at a stretch all the time.
When they can, call me. Better yet, call the Air Force.
WTF is a bad guy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lemme get this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not the ones with mm radar.
Re:A no-deposit/no-return drone? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd rather see research and development dollars spent making war and conflict obsolete.
Seeing an end to war is less likely than seeing an end to sex.
The beta had significant bugs (Score:2, Insightful)
This idea isn't new [wikipedia.org]. It has been tried before [wikipedia.org], but didn't work as expected [wikipedia.org].
Re:A no-deposit/no-return drone? (Score:5, Insightful)
While the press shakes a finger at the US the actual governments just shake their head in public and behind closed doors are probably glad that it is happening.
Yea you will get some venting on Slashdot about how evil the US is but those people are not in political power.
So as long as we've got US-friendly governments in place, there's no need to worry about popular opinion? Well, I suppose that strategy's never backfired horribly on us before...
Re:WTF is a bad guy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Easily countered (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A no-deposit/no-return drone? (Score:1, Insightful)
Why do we care about "defending Israel"? There are a lot of humanitarian causes far more dire and we leave those tragedies alone with a clear conscience. Can someone tell me why we spend SO much money and so many human lives on "expanding democracy" and "defending Israel"?
Congratulations! By merely questioning our steadfast defense of Israel you are now branded an Atin-Semite for life!
Re:overkill (Score:2, Insightful)
A lot of that is because those other countries, excepting Russia, aren't actually lobbing large quantities of bombs into populated areas, which is the most reliable way of avoiding collateral damage, so don't write em off so fast. I am also going to bet that you pulled that figure out of a dark orifice. You do realize that every decimal point is a factor of ten, right? I don't think anyone seriously believes that only one out of every million attacks results in civilian causalities. One in a hundred would be more realistic. I don't have the time to poke around the pentagon site to find the real figure to refute this ill considered post.
Someone played too much ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A no-deposit/no-return drone? (Score:2, Insightful)
Iraq wasn't using the money it got from oil to make a better life for it's people.
And the US gov't is doing a good job of using its money to make a better life for its people?
Give me a break. Iraq was no threat to the world. Saddam was content, after being spanked during Kuwait, to sit back and chill.
Re:overkill (Score:3, Insightful)
There are few countries which take as many precautions as we do.
Could that be because the countries which have the technology required to take the same precautions don't go to war as much?
Re:overkill (Score:5, Insightful)
The number of decimal points is extremely important in determining the validity of your point. The reality is that civilian deaths are far more common than you would have us believe.
Re:overkill (Score:3, Insightful)
I didn't want the conversation to get into one about what country is better than another. War is obviously a bad thing and life would be great if no one went to war. That being said... The things I'm talking about take no technology at all. I'm talking about the risk guys on the ground take every day to make sure they don't kill the wrong people. Meaning, strict rules of engagement, escalation of force milder than many police departments, clearing individual houses when we could drop bombs, using non-lethal means when possible, etc,. I wish the US wasn't at war, and I am not trying to justify civilian casualties. The point is most people in most countries don't want to see their own people getting killed under most any circumstances.
Predator Drones have cameras (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:overkill (Score:3, Insightful)
You're missing the point as well. 5000 dead or 50000 dead or 5 dead. It doesn't change the argument. If you read, I was saying that most countries do not want their own people to die. Some countries take more precautions than others. You can argue about a decimal all you want if it makes you happy. Thanks for the comment.
Re:WTF is a bad guy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't tell me you don't understand what a "bad guy" is. I'm not going to sit here and argue about what the target actually is. To the fighter on the ground, the target is a bad guy. Why sit here and worry about terminology?
This is one reason, among many, why the American Military does NOT want a return to the draft. They do not want lefty intellectual types who are going to sit there in the middle of fire fight and agonize over whether or not to pull the trigger or, even worse, argue with their officers. In combat soldiers follow orders or they get themselves and their fellow soldiers killed, plain and simple. If someone can't or won't pull the trigger when ordered then they should do themselves and our soldiers a favor and not enlist in the military.
Re:WTF is a bad guy? (Score:4, Insightful)
And we have another word for soldiers who sit around over-analyzing such situations:
"Casualty."
Debate the appropriateness of this word, in light of the "bad guy" discussion above. ;)
Re:WTF is a bad guy? (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually, "Bad Guy" is often just a term used by someone pushing a propaganda to demonize an opposing faction. Which is probably what the GP's gripe is about.
This could be a good thing in the field though. Because it makes your soldiers feel better fighting evil for great justice instead of just taking the lives of people with different ideologies and conflicting objectives. Besides, those enemy combatants... excuse me... "Bad Guys" were probably told the same thing, and are out to kill you evil bastard infidels. The last thing you want out on the field is your troops having a mental break down over morality issues.
However, it maybe beneficial for those of us who are not in combat to steer clear of such mindless generalization.
Re:overkill (Score:3, Insightful)
Last time I checked, insurgents were extremely lacking in their air force, and did not have millions of dollars to spend destroying a dozen cameras (assuming the HARM could target a single wireless camera - which it couldn't). Additionally, since these cameras are being shot into the areas where the enemy forces are, I suspect that their desire to use an explosive device to rid themselves of these cameras might not be so great.
Please provide some links to these "similar weapons", though, and I will be happy to investigate...