War By Remote Control, With Military Robots Set To Self Destruct 144
New submitter RougeFive writes "A new wave of Kamikaze unmanned military aircraft, ground robots and water vessels are being built to deliberately destroy themselves as they hit their targets. Since it now makes more economic sense to have them crash into enemy targets rather than engage them, and since direct impact needs only manned or automated navigation rather than the highly-trained skills of multiple operators, these UAVs could well become the de-facto method of engagement of the future."
I think I've heard of this kind of warfare before (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe they're called 'missiles'
bombs with non-traditional locomotion... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like they're simply missiles/bombs with non-traditional methods of locomotion.
In the scheme of things it's an easy sell, because they'll say "hey, we either send in the smart bomb and use lower yields and more accurate target detection, or we level the place".
Like any weapon the trick will be using them to only injure those that you specifically want to injure. Getting lazy, sloppy or inhuman with these things will be the same as with any other type of weapon.
My biggest fear with these UAV's is that we take the human factor out. I'm not talking about a human's ability to not kill innocent people--we know that is subjective--I'm talking about the military's decisions to carry out certain types of strikes when we literally have no "skin" in the game. It's already an issue with super accurate missiles and current generation of UAV's, these roomba-bombs may only make it worse.
What's old is new? (Score:5, Insightful)
I do believe that you're right. 'Guided Missiles' specifically.
I guess the difference here is that the UAV can do more than just head to a target for destruction, and CAN be recovered intact for reuse if the operator doesn't chose to detonate it. A cruise missile was launched at a specific target. This you could launch for recon then use destructively if a target of opportunity pops up.
A Missile+, perhaps.
Pros and Cons (Score:4, Insightful)
They rely on a very developed infrastructure. This is true of all drones, of course, but I think it's a problem being widely overlooked. It's okay so long as you're fighting insurgents in Pakistan and Afghanistan; once you're fighting someone with the ability to disrupt your communications infrastructure then half your weapons become useless. And once you're fighting someone with a weapon that can target radio emissions they become downright dangerous...
It seems to me that the main development that has enabled these is battery technology. The idea of drones is not new. The idea of Kamikaze aircraft is not new. What is new is a small, quiet kamikaze drone that doesn't have a significant heat signature because suddenly batteries are good enough to keep one flying long enough to be useful.
Re:bombs with non-traditional locomotion... (Score:4, Insightful)
...and of course we don't want to ever forget the lessons learned from the Terminator franchise or to a lesser degree RoboCop... which is that total automation of these devices can just as easy be turned back on you or your populations.
Re:What's old is new? (Score:5, Insightful)
Planned obsolescence. The optimal design for an defense company is one that must constantly be replaced.
Re:bombs with non-traditional locomotion... (Score:2, Insightful)
agree with jpmorgan... the only lessons learned from the Terminator/Robocop franchise is they've all had one or two sequels too many!
good point regarding the usual motive behind the lessons learned from works of fiction. Heck, certain media channels twist actual events into reports that they agree with before broadcasting it
Re:Legitimate question (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed, it always bothers me greatly to hear Americans saying things like, "We're not at all like them! They're bad people! They kill innocents in the pursuit of their objectives!"
As if the US hasn't likewise declared objectives and knows damned well that they're going to be killing innocent people in the pursuit of their objectives, and has ruled them to be "acceptable losses" to achieve their objectives.
I mean, *Really*? You don't see the glaring moral hole there?