Slashdot Log In
Electronic Warfare Insects Coming Soon
Posted by
timothy
on Sunday May 04, @06:11PM
from the sure-makes-me-sleep-better dept.
from the sure-makes-me-sleep-better dept.
Mike writes "British defence giant BAE Systems is creating a series of tiny electronic spiders, insects and snakes that could become the eyes and ears of soldiers on the battlefield, helping to save thousands of lives, and they claim that prototypes could be on the front line by the end of the year. A fascinating development to be sure, but who thinks this won't be misused domestically for spying and evidence gathering?"
Included in the story is a link to a creepy little (scripted, rendered) demo video of these robots in action.
Related Stories
Firehose:Electronic Warfare Insects Coming Soon by Anonymous Coward
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.

the video (Score:4, Informative)
Reply to This
Re:the video (Score:5, Interesting)
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
not necessarily (Score:3, Informative)
Forget tiny spiders.... (Score:5, Funny)
Reply to This
Ha! That's funny. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, right!
Reply to This
Re:Ha! That's funny. (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Ha! That's funny. (Score:4, Insightful)
Reply to This
Parent
...And killing them? (Score:3, Funny)
Reply to This
battery life (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Re:battery life (Score:5, Interesting)
Since they're insects, you could have several of them on a site at any one time, just swapping them around for recharging when the batteries run low.
Hell, combine that with some of the fancy swarming communication techniques we've been seeing lately so they can work together to get the best results at maximum efficiency.
It's really starting to look as though the future war of mankind vs. machine will be less big tanks and robots and more big mechanical spiders and cockroaches. It'll be like Starship troopers meets terminator, except we'll probably lose.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:battery life (Score:4, Interesting)
Reply to This
Parent
save lives? (Score:3, Insightful)
Reply to This
Re:save lives? (Score:5, Insightful)
They have and do, but sometimes (when deterrence fails) at the cost of other lives.
WWII is an excellent example. It took killing millions of Germans, Japanese, Italians, and other Axis types to halt their enthusiastic killing of others. There not being a non-violent option for dealing with such folk (non-violence just meant surrender to extermination) it was perfectly logical and reasonable to save Allied lives by killing heaps of Axis humans. Those who snivel about it now are conveniently distant from having to actually deal with any similar problems.
It worked superbly, like it or not.
Reply to This
Parent
I'm starting to think Brin is right (Score:5, Interesting)
Link to the Wikipedia article on his ideas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society [wikipedia.org]
Reply to This
I can't believe nobody's said it yet (Score:3, Funny)
Reply to This
Pigs with bugs. (Score:4, Interesting)
Reply to This
Re:Pigs with bugs. (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Parent
Arming these guys is going to get ugly. (Score:5, Interesting)
The prospect that makes me nervous is what we'll do when we want to go beyond recon/search/surveillance type roles. Conventional weapons aren't going to scale down all that well. Chemical and biological weapons will. This will present an unseemly temptation. Being able to tailor lethally armed cybugs to hunt chemical traces and kill whatever turns up would be very useful. Trying to find that IED factory? Druggies blending into the crowd? Russian ambassador wearing a ghastly brand of aftershave? Actually doing any of this, though, is going really, really far into unpleasant territory. Very Unit 731 [wikipedia.org].
Reply to This
Only the battlefield? (Score:4, Interesting)
This (and the butterfly mentioned in TFA) is ultimate espionage. The idea is so cool that I am forced to momentarily disregard big brother threats from the Orwellian-minded.
Reply to This
Not exactly (Score:4, Interesting)
No. If a nuclear armed nation wanted to take as many lives as possible, none of their soldiers would be on the battle-field.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Saving thousands of lives on a battlefield... (Score:5, Insightful)
> they could...
They are usually there to take and hold territory by any means necessary. If the enemy resists somebody gets killed but if they run away or surrender that works too.
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:BAE Systems Motto (Score:4, Insightful)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Thousands of lives? (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullhockey.
Tell THIS girl [wikipedia.org] that she wasn't in a war zone.
Calling it "a police action", "counter-insurgency", or BY any other marginally more "pleasant" euphemism does NOT change the rules of the game.
It's war, plain and simple. Kill them before they have a chance to kill you. Period.
...unless you want to tell me the name really DID change to "Freedom Fries". :P
Reply to This
Parent