US Army To Train Rats To Save Soldiers' Lives 110
Hugh Pickens writes "The Department of Defense currently relies on dogs as the animal of choice for explosives detection but training dogs is expensive and takes a long time. Now the U.S. Army is sponsoring a project to develop and test a rugged, automated and low-cost system for training rats to detect improvised explosive devices and mines. 'The automated system we're developing is designed to inexpensively train rats to detect buried explosives to solve an immediate Army need for safer and lower-cost mine removal,' says senior research engineer William Gressick. Trained rats would also create new opportunities to detect anything from mines to humans buried in earthquake rubble because rats can search smaller spaces than a dog can, and are easier to transport. Rats have already been trained by the National Police in Colombia to detect seven different kinds of explosives including ammonium nitrate and fuel oil, gunpowder and TNT but the Rugged Automated Training System (Rats) research sponsored by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory, plans to produce systems for worldwide use since mines are widespread throughout much of Africa, Asia, and Central America and demining operations are expected to continue for decades to restore mined land to civilian use. 'Beyond this application, the system will facilitate the use of rats in other search tasks such as homeland security and search-and-rescue operations" adds Gressick. "In the long-term, the system is likely to benefit both official and humanitarian organizations.'"
A rodent-vs-mine matchup has apparently been in the works for some time.
Can this replace the TSA? (Score:5, Funny)
Plus, many fewer people would mind if a rodent saw them naked.
Re: (Score:1)
Wait, I'm confused: I already thought the US military had trained rats. They called them all "general" for some reason.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Instructional courses for US politicians about not sending out US soldiers to fight for profit corporate wars. Lesson being made available to both the US Senate and Congress, additional courses for other countries caught up in the military industrial complex homicidal destruction derby.
Re:Can this replace the TSA? (Score:5, Funny)
Proceed to room 101 for the rat inspection, Citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What, the inspected rat will be forced to confess under the threat of being bitten to death by a pack of Winston Smiths?
I think that's the "in Soviet Union" version.
Err, Eurasia, rather.
Re:Can this replace the TSA? (Score:5, Funny)
I thought they were supposed to use lawyers for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Rats, lawyers, what's the difference?
FTFY. And the answer is, one's a flea-bitten disease carrying pest that bites where it's not wanted, the other is a rodent.
Re:Can this replace the TSA? (Score:5, Funny)
Can we replace the rats who currently infest our airports with actual four legged rats?
And then, conversely, we can use the TSA officers to detect explosives in the army.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we replace the rats who currently infest our airports with actual four legged rats? It would be an obvious improvement that would be welcomed by the general public.
Given the comparative lack of differences between the two, do you think the general public will even notice?
Are you thinking what I'm thinking? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
both official and humanitarian organizations (Score:1)
and never the twain shall meet
Re: (Score:2)
Man! It stinks in here
Maybe it's because some idiot keeps shooting farts out of his "very own asshole."
Ya know, what we might wanna do is hammer a pipe up said idiot's 'very own asshole' and hook it up to the gas mains. At least methane is a renewable resource, and as much as that idiot farts, I'm willing to bet we'd solve the energy crisis in about 45 minutes.
Yeah... BORING! (Score:5, Funny)
Psychological Operations value, as well (Score:4, Funny)
When battling superstitious folks, who believe in black magic, a soldier commanding a squad of rats could really scare the living bejesus out of insurgent types:
"Do not dare to think about attacking us, or our hordes of rats will destroy your crops and rape your virgins!"
On the other hand, having rats as your henchmen might also convince them that you really are the Great Satan. I guess we'll need some field trials to see how that works.
Are rats Halal?
Re: (Score:2)
Are rats Halal?
No. And rats are not kosher either.
Re: (Score:2)
Are rats Halal?
No. And rats are not kosher either.
Yeah, but the domesticated ones are cheap friendly pets for your kids. Better than the other pet-grade rodents IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
And they inspire touching songs [youtu.be].
Re: (Score:2)
You could also use them to spread plague. Although, using infected trained rats as a vector for an ancient disease probably counts as biological warfare.
Re: (Score:2)
"...or steal your children."
I guess we'll need some field trials to see how that works.
I think it was already tried in Hameiln in the middle ages. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know how hard it is to find a piper with that level of skill these days?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know how hard it is to find a piper with that level of skill these days?
About like finding an honest politician.
Awesome (Score:5, Funny)
Putting polititians in the front lines?
Re: (Score:2)
Putting polititians in the front lines?
Works for me. Hell, it's money better spent, in my opinion.
Another cheesy attempt... (Score:2, Funny)
to exploit animals.
Re: (Score:3)
Other countries have been doing it for years... [ted.com]
The Story of Minsc and Boo (Score:5, Interesting)
I wish the Army great successes in this small animal trap detecting program!
Proper training (Score:3)
Let's hope they remember to teach the rats not to start snacking on the face of any trapped victims they find.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, if only it were possible to train America to keep its troops onshore unless they are attacked. But apparently the rat thing is easier...
We're talking real rats. Not the Rat Thing [wikipedia.org].
Now that would be awesome. A C17 full of Rat Things.......
Re: (Score:2)
It would be nice to bring home the humans and leave some rats with cameras and a transmitter over there instead. It would certainly be cheaper and less cost to human lives. Is it so bad if we just know what's going on over there without shooting at things we disagree with? Do we really need so many humans killing and dying over...what exactly?
The government still doesn't seem to know what the condition of the 'war' is. The president (Bush) just clicked 'agree' without reading the terms and therefore doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
we have always been at war with eastasia
Re: (Score:2)
It would appear that the global unpopularity of our country's 'wars' on 'terror' is a flamebait subject to the mods. Now where are these naysayers when there's some shill adspam blog article?
I'm half trolling... (Score:2, Interesting)
... but that means the other half is serious...
How about not-starting a new war every other decade? Only start one every 5 decades, one that really matters and there won't be the need for constant bomb-detection in rebellion-like war settings.
It's just a random, naive thought and of course makes much less billions for those who have an interest in keeping the army in constant action.
Re:I'm half trolling... (Score:5, Insightful)
Want to just sit back and NOT respond to the loss of 2 large buildings and almost 3000 lives?
When the enemy is something as vague as terrorism, yes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
also, the US worked hard to earn 9/11, look into the history of our 'involvement' in the middle east. particularly our constant propping up of brutal regimes and deposing of legitimate governments who won't kiss our ass.
Re: (Score:1)
Half a million Iraqis? According to Madeline Albright, the sanctions, absolutely necessary to keep Saddam from starting ANOTHER war in the middle east, was killing 50,000 Iraqi kids per year. That's greater than half a million Iraqis, and the war put a stop to the sanctions. And if we just walked away and allowed Saddam to start another war, he'd probably have lost 500,000 Iraqis fighting it. IOW, those Iraqis were not savable in the 1st place.
And as far as starting "wars", Iraq is the only one we started.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the sanctions, absolutely necessary to keep Saddam from starting ANOTHER war in the middle east, was killing 50,000 Iraqi kids per year.
Sure about that? Iraq could have fed those kids, if indeed that wasn't a minor matter blown out of proportion or an entirely invented problem for purposes of propaganda. Saddam instead found it more convenient to starve the children of his enemies, and blame it on sanctions. It's a triple win for him, if it works. Eliminate internal enemies, whip up popular hatred for the US, and make the sanctions look inhumane. Tricky though, as the people may not believe his nonsense, and blame him instead of the US
Re: (Score:2)
"According to Madeline Albright, the sanctions, absolutely necessary to keep Saddam from starting ANOTHER war in the middle east, was killing 50,000 Iraqi kids per year. "
Poppycock.
Saddams first war against Iran was done with help and towards interests of the US.
For the Kuweit affair he first got approval from the US.
Madelaine Albright born as Marie Jana Korbelová was on her very own and personal Jihad.
Especially for US citizens it is naive to believe in the exhalations of their politici
Re: (Score:2)
But Saddam Hussein was a counterweight to Iran. Did we topple him to make Iran more powerful so that we could use it as a bogeyman?
Re:I'm half trolling... (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess turning a whole country to chaos and with that causing endless misery for 100s of thousands (including lots of american families who have dead, scarred (body as well as psyche) loved ones who trusted in the politicians) was a *sarcasm* truly sane response. Especially as that country *had nothing to do* with the terrorist attack in the first place. Furthermore, the war in that other country did neither find nor exterminate the terrorists but caused more misery, death, and financial cost.
Oh, and the reasons for the invasion in the first countries were lies. Btw, terrorists are civilians with guns. Countries can start wars, civilians (you, me, Bin Laden) cannot. The US Goverment under George, Dick and Donald got trolled by some lame camel herders into doing something very, very stupid.
Wake up, man (or should I rather say "Wake up, troll"). You have been lied to!
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, or starting military offences in other countries nearly every year and having ongoing campaigns in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Philippines and Somalia currently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
I did demining for a while actually (Score:5, Informative)
As far as machines and how stuff is done now, check out minewolf [minewolf.com]. They're the de-facto producer of mine-clearing equipment. Basically, you have three sorts of methods for clearning an area. Machine, manual with detectors or dogs. As often as you can, you use a machine to do it quicly, and then use dogs/manual for verification. Dogs are not considering good enough for primary search, only verification.. and some organisations have trouble pulling that off even. Dogs are difficult, but a lot cheaper and faster than humans.
As far as using mice goes, they need to be very good. The UN does accredition for most humanitarion demining, so the mice will need to find all the mines in a training field before they're allowed to do real work. I really don't see that happening anytime soon.
As a low-cost solution for the army, or if you need something quick-n-dirty in a disaster zone I'm sure they have their uses though.. but with humanitarion demining, you kinda need to be able to tell people that they will not blow up if they start farming the land you just cleared.. which makes it a very slow process which takes a lot of effort, a whole different beast than military demining.
Also, on that note: fuck the US for dropping shitloads of cluster munitions on Laos, when you weren't even at war (Laos is the country next to Vietnam) and then having the fucking balls to not even attempt to help clean it up afterwards. FYI Canada and Europe are there now cleaning your mess.. some people consider less innocent children being blown up in pieces a good thing. Some people are, as a collective, not fucking assholes.
If you had any sort of decency you'd sign the Ottawa Treaty.
Give me a rat and I'll make you an army. (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as using mice goes, they need to be very good. The UN does accredition for most humanitarion demining, so the mice will need to find all the mines in a training field before they're allowed to do real work. I really don't see that happening anytime soon.
The rest all sounds quite reasonable and true, so you do deserve to know that it makes a difference the article is talking about rats not mice. While their outright combat effectiveness may be about equal, there is in fact an order of magnitude of intelligence difference between rats and mice. It is not a commonly known fact but rats are actually in the caliber of the intelligence of some of the smarter dog breeds and are very industrious in nature making them natural problem solvers and eager trainees.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I thought they were pretty expensive. Campaign contributions tend to run in the 6 figures for a Congressman or Senator.
Re: (Score:2)
The minewolf machines all seem to have a common defect. They have an operator cab. Big bomb, and the op gets a TBI? That's not acceptable. The machines should all have little antennas that communicate with a remote operator console.
Rats for demining may not be practical, but better than we have for counter-IED. Still, I'm not sure how you're going to get 'em to clear 28 miles of road in any sort of reasonable time frame.
Re: (Score:3)
Minewolf machines do support remote control operation, which is clearly stated on the Minewolf website. The operator cabs are also armored and physically removed from the tiller where mines will generally explode and they are specified up to a particular blast size.
In related news... (Score:2)
concept is from before 1997 (Score:4, Informative)
and has been used heavily since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APOPO [wikipedia.org]
known original work:
http://www.apopo.org/cms.php?cmsid=16&lang=en [apopo.org]
Why do they need trained animals? (Score:3)
Couldn't they just send a herd of sheep through the area?
Inevitable (Score:2)
This money would be better spent bribing congressm (Score:2)
This money would be better spent bribing Congresscritters. They have a much greater impact on not putting soldiers in the harm's way in the first place, and they're relatively cheap to buy. In fact, tens of thousands of soldiers (and hundreds of thousands of civilians) could have been saved by simply not invading Iraq or Afghanistan.
Re: (Score:1)
NIMH anyone? (Score:2)
Thattel do rattie,thattel do. :) (Score:2)
pigeons used to guide missiles (Score:1)
or at least were trained to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pigeon [wikipedia.org]
so why not?
We already have this... (Score:1)
"... facilitate the use of rats in other search tasks such as homeland security..."
Isn't that the TSA, as-is?
Movie? (Score:2)
If Romney wins the election, we'll have commander-in-chief Willard running an army of rats. Wasn't there a movie about this?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067991/ [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Put some rats and turtles in TSA equipment for a cycle or two. Dump all into a sewer and wait a few years for our superpowered creations to save us all.
Except the Teenaged Mutant Ninja turtles are a force for good. And making sure we're not buried in pizza.
Can't say that about the TSA, except you'll still find empty pizza boxes around...
Other news (Score:2)
On related news, Al Jazeera reported that, upon hearing the new project, the taliban are working on trained cats to chase what they described as "infidel rats". A US Army spokeperson said that additionally they might include a japanese variant of the rat project, that would make the animal reach its target without regard of its own safety.
Are we Men or Mice?! And why does it mater? (Score:2)
What's really interesting is that brain chemistry isn't all that different among different species. Now, we're not allowed (yet) to grow full human brains enmeshed with cybernetic systems. Rat brains on the other hand? Sure, we can use rat brain cells with robots. [youtube.com]
Here's an earlier version [youtube.com] that includes a pic of the BoC (Brain on a Chip?).
Of course, you don't need to remove the brain from the creature if you just want to train it to do things like find bombs, but it boils down to the same thing. One
Re: (Score:2)
What's really interesting is that brain chemistry isn't all that different among different species. Now, we're not allowed (yet) to grow full human brains enmeshed with cybernetic systems. Rat brains on the other hand? Sure, we can use rat brain cells with robots. [youtube.com]
Here's an earlier version [youtube.com] that includes a pic of the BoC (Brain on a Chip?).
Of course, you don't need to remove the brain from the creature if you just want to train it to do things like find bombs, but it boils down to the same thing. One approach conditions the brain externally, the others hooks up electrodes and conditions the neural network internally. It's all just neural networks though. I can simulate more self assembling neurons in my machine learning experiments than the above rat brain on a chip. Some of my digital minds are far more intelligent (and useful, and reliable) than current organic artificial intelligent cyborgs... Which is more "alive"? It's really humbling, IMO: Any sufficiently complex interaction is indistinguishable from sentience. Are my machines any less alive than a similarly minded cyborg or animal? I put it to you that such experiments redefine the very meaning of life.
If it's found to be faster to construct the neural networks with actual brain cells, do we still call it machine intelligence? Cyborg isn't quite specific enough. Organic intelligence is not any smarter than machine intelligence of the same complexity, why the distinction? If you upload your mind into a Robot Body, will you care if the Neural Network is of Mice or Men? Our time of being the smartest creatures on the planet is coming to a close... If we hooked a sufficient amount of rat brains together (physically or via wireless hive mind), could it attain sentience? What if we doubled its complexity? If it could think more deeply than humans, would we grant it rights? Do rats get medals of bravery for saving a soldier's life?
If all the world's computers were hooked into a single neural network framework, and all the computers ran operating systems with thousands of easily exploitable remote code execution vulnerabilities, a self assembling mesh neural network could be constructed having more brain power than any living entity... Such a system could analyse new exploit vectors faster than anyone could patch them. It would saturate the network with exploit packets such that new nodes could be enjoined simply by connecting a clean machine to the network and waiting... Why, only a fraction of the CPU time would be needed to maintain a system of such complexity -- Our own minds cycle at 20 to 40 times a second, much slower than any computer today. I bet such a system would be smart enough to know we're not ready for it to be revealed to us, yet.
Ever wonder what your PC is doing when the CPU spikes up for no apparent reason? I don't. ::sigh:: I Love the Internet <3! Don't you?
Miniature Daleks with toothpicks instead of broomsticks, like an appetizer with an attitude.
Willard Flashback (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Rats fight for soldiers.
Soldiers fight for pigs.
Turtles, all the way down.