(yes, I know you can get caught even if you wear undies. It is, however, significantly harder)
I have always feared sackzipper more, however unlikely it may be. One false move and suddenly your coin purse is spilling change all over the floor. *shudder*
(yes, I know you can get caught even if you wear undies. It is, however, significantly harder)
I have always feared sackzipper more, however unlikely it may be. One false move and suddenly your coin purse is spilling change all over the floor. *shudder*
And if there's a civilian in the way, it's a fuckin' warzone!
I'm sorry, mate, it doesn't work that way. "It's a warzone" is not open season to kill civvies, it's not even a fucking excuse. Pull your head out of your ass. On top of that - it's a direct violation of the Geneva convention, which specifically outlines the protections of civilians in and around the warzone - in fact, it is considered a grave breach of the geneva convention, or in other words, a serious fucking war crime.
And Landmines are automated robot killing machines! You put it there, someone steps on it, and it fuckin' kills them! How is that any different?
Because a landmine is a mechanically or electronically triggered explosive device. The only sorts of landmines which are in any way close to robotic or automated are Anti-vehicle landmines, which are not set off by people, but by the magnetic signature of a vehicle, and have the signatures of friendly vehicles stored in the device, so that they don't kill friendlies. Also, most landmines don't have batteries to run down - most of them use a combination of mechanical and chemical detonators, which are more reliable. Most anti-personnel landmines that do use batteries - such as the M86 Pursuit Deterrent Munition - self destruct after a certain amount of time, and if that fails, the battery runs down after a very short time - less than a day - and renders the mine entirely inactive.
You can order soldiers "Go wipe out this village, we know they're terrorists"
You can, but most likely, without some proof positive from those soldiers, or a recon team, they'd tell you to go gently fuck yourself with a breadknife. Even in the unlikely event the op was started, if they found that it was not a village of terrorists, they would pull out immediately, and if you were going to mount such an op, the way it would be done would most likely be a precision raid, rather than an all-out gunfight in the streets. This isn't the Vietnam era anymore, and giving that order without the overwhelming proof on your side would get you thrown in Leavenworth faster than your razor arse can say "But I thought they were terrorists!".
If someone orders you to violate the Geneva convention, you can just not do it. You might just...get shot, but you're supposed to, on paper, not do it.
This is true enough, however, whoever shot you would be going down for murder. Also, if you do something that directly convenes the Geneva convention, "I didn't know" isn't a terribly good excuse, because most things that you would be ordered to do which directly convenes the Geneva convention are pretty obvious and well known - the Geneva Convention only handles the treatment of Non-combatants, such as Civilians, Medical or religious Personnel, the wounded or sick, and prisoners of war. More likely, what you're speaking of would be a violation of the Hague Conventions, rather than the Geneva Conventions. I'll only pull you up on this once, even though you say it more than once.
Worst that happens for you is your drone blows up and you take a coffee break.
Actually, your drone blows up, and then you go through the paperwork hell of "A 4.5 million dollar piece of equipment under your control just got blown the fuck up", which includes internal reviews, interviews, and more paperwork than you'd see in a year, and if they find that you fucked up, possibly punishment.
That'd be some pretty good aim
Eh, at ten to fifteen yards? I could probably shoot something of that size, 9.5 times outta ten, assuming a half decent rifle, maybe six to eight times out of ten with a pistol. Don't know. How big do you think the average testicle size is? I'm guessing about the size of a large grape or a small egg.
Other than that - Good job, very interesting, I liked it.
I get brief's that are not white so they can not be called Tighty Whities and well Scott I don't know about you but I walk around my house when no one is around pretty much in Underwear ESPECIALLY in the summer.
You wear underwear at all?
Due to the implications of that comment, I am never, ever sitting on anything in your home, ever.
I get brief's that are not white so they can not be called Tighty Whities and well Scott I don't know about you but I walk around my house when no one is around pretty much in Underwear ESPECIALLY in the summer.
You wear underwear at all?
Due to the implications of that comment, I am never, ever sitting on anything in your home, ever.
Well it's not like anyone ever visits me anyway. :P
I'm waiting for remote controlled bipedal war machines. The most effective robots killing machines will be remote controlled, allowing for human decision making.
The S. Koreans are now deploying remote machine guns for the DMZ. They identify and report suspicious movement and then allow a human operator to make a decision whether to engage or not. I'm not aware of any robots that are fully autonomous and have any firepower.
A remote machine gun (or chain of such) along a fence line or as area denial weapon could be effective, assuming that they were routinly rearmed and repaired. The advantage in fixed known defensive areas (such as a fortified border) would be great, thier usefullness in urban or close in areas is limited.
Landmines are not robots. Landmines are also not intended to kill outright, but to wound, the idea being that one wounded soldier bogs down more enemy resources than a dead one. Landmines also make great area denial weapons.
The S. Koreans are now deploying remote machine guns for the DMZ. They identify and report suspicious movement and then allow a human operator to make a decision whether to engage or not. I'm not aware of any robots that are fully autonomous and have any firepower.
The US navy tried one, but not loaded. Fortuitously so, because first thing it did, ignore the range targets, and tried to engage the observers.
I'm waiting for remote controlled bipedal war machines.
The controls problem of bipedal movement is extremely difficult and extremely inefficient. The likelihood that a robotic platform to be used in warfare will have bipedal movement is remote.
The most effective robots killing machines will be remote controlled, allowing for human decision making.
More than likely true. Currently the only deployed remote operated ground platform that is weaponized is the Foster-Miller (QinetiQ) Talon-based SWORDS. However, they have yet to be used in combat.
Honestly, the near future of autonomous robotics will deal primarily in sensor deployment focusing around behaviors such as SLAM and waypoint following. Robots are dumb, really fucking dumb. The problem is that the feature extraction of most sensors these days is still extremely poor to be used in highly contextual and sensitive applications such as autonomous combat. However, there are a ton of problems which robots can be put to really good use. The best example these days are the use of EOD robots for ordinance disposal and mine clearing. iRobot has deployed several thousand EOD packbots and they have been put to great use.
Use of robots in highly volatile situations is an excellent application (especially in the highly urban or cavernous/mountainous terrain we are operating in currently). Other applications are autonomous convoys in which you can have a lead driver and several autonomous supply trucks following or moving through an MSR autonomously (DARPA Grand Challenge anyone?). The risk of losing soldiers to roadside IEDs is now eliminated or significantly reduced.
A remote machine gun (or chain of such) along a fence line or as area denial weapon could be effective, assuming that they were routinly rearmed and repaired. The advantage in fixed known defensive areas (such as a fortified border) would be great, thier usefullness in urban or close in areas is limited.
The Phalanx CIWS is essentially what you are describing.
Use of robots in highly volatile situations is an excellent application (especially in the highly urban or cavernous/mountainous terrain we are operating in currently). Other applications are autonomous convoys in which you can have a lead driver and several autonomous supply trucks following or moving through an MSR autonomously (DARPA Grand Challenge anyone?). The risk of losing soldiers to roadside IEDs is now eliminated or significantly reduced.
That's a really interesting idea. The problem is if you have the lead-driver configuration, then you have a single point of failure. Take out the head, and the convoy fails.
A better idea would be to have a single person controlling the entire convoy remotely. Most of the time he can simply control the lead vehicle, and the others will follow. But if say, a middle vehicle is taken out, they can split into groups and elect new lead vehicles, multiple lead vehicles. If worst comes to worst, each vehicle can be individually remotely controlled and people can hop on remotes and start driving to make sure as much of the convoy makes it as is possible.
There are certainly variations on mixed robots and human controlled vehicles that will be really advantageous in future combat. I see a future with mixed units in the field and more and more non-combat vehicles going autonomous. Even now the DoD is testing unmanned autonomous helicopters, but not for combat units.
I don't think we'll see any form of autonomous killing machines anytime soon.
The problem is if you have the lead-driver configuration, then you have a single point of failure. Take out the head, and the convoy fails.
A bit obvious, but yes there are much better ways to approach the problem then the way I stated it.
However, a major problem with the autonomous convoy is that destroyed vehicles run the risk of being looted without any proper protection. You would more than likely require some sort of aerial escort be it a security force in blackhawks or maybe even a predator drone. Heterogeneous use of autonomous vehicles within a mission space is the future.
However, a major problem with the autonomous convoy is that destroyed vehicles run the risk of being looted without any proper protection. You would more than likely require some sort of aerial escort be it a security force in blackhawks or maybe even a predator drone. Heterogeneous use of autonomous vehicles within a mission space is the future.
The thing is, armored cars are pretty damn hard to loot, but they have to be accommodating to humans. Imagine if you made a vehicle with no human accommodations because it would never carry a single passenger. You could make something pretty damn hard to loot. After the looters get frustrated and realize they can't even blast it open, you can retrieve it at your convenience.
The thing is, armored cars are pretty damn hard to loot, but they have to be accommodating to humans. Imagine if you made a vehicle with no human accommodations because it would never carry a single passenger. You could make something pretty damn hard to loot.
This is a picture of an MRAP after taking an IED hit. I'm pretty sure gaining entry wouldn't really be an issue when you are planting old artillery pieces underneath roads.
This is a picture of an MRAP after taking an IED hit.
That's actually in pretty good shape, considering. Now imagine if it didn't need doors or windows. A bank vault on wheels. They need to disable it and then the safecracker needs to come in and open it. That extra step gives you plenty of time to make a move.
Also, unless they disable every vehicle in the caravan, the safecracker wont' be able to get to work. You can just run him over with the one remaining remotely controlled vehicle. If you have a remotely controlled turret mounted on it, then that's that. Odds are, they'll be more than one non-disabled vehicle, too. So unless it's a narrow mountain road Indiana Jones situation, you're looking pretty good.
The real thing to worry about is jamming and hacking. They might cut off your connection, and then you have to deploy people. Even worse, if they take over the connection, they can drive the vehicles away. They might not even have to be at the scene. If you can drive them remotely, they can theoretically control them remotely. Just push some buttons on the computer + radio + antenna setup, and the trucks will go wherever they please.
They need to disable it and then the safecracker needs to come in and open it. That extra step gives you plenty of time to make a move.
You gravely overestimate the security of modern locking systems. To attain bank vault security, you would need a vault in excess of a several tons, and the required torque to move that shit safely would almost necessitate a full-on tank. You'd need an RC M1 Abrams.
EDIT: I just formed a mental image of this and it was insanely awesome.
You gravely overestimate the security of modern locking systems. To attain bank vault security, you would need a vault in excess of a several tons, and the required torque to move that shit safely would almost necessitate a full-on tank. You'd need an RC M1 Abrams.
Just listened to this episode. The only lasting thought in my head is that Rym's grunt/yell at the end of the episode instantly made me recall Colossus's special power sound from the classic 6-player X-men arcade game.
Comments
penis. in. zipper.
(yes, I know you can get caught even if you wear undies. It is, however, significantly harder)
Every man fears this.
More likely, what you're speaking of would be a violation of the Hague Conventions, rather than the Geneva Conventions.
I'll only pull you up on this once, even though you say it more than once. Actually, your drone blows up, and then you go through the paperwork hell of "A 4.5 million dollar piece of equipment under your control just got blown the fuck up", which includes internal reviews, interviews, and more paperwork than you'd see in a year, and if they find that you fucked up, possibly punishment. Eh, at ten to fifteen yards? I could probably shoot something of that size, 9.5 times outta ten, assuming a half decent rifle, maybe six to eight times out of ten with a pistol. Don't know. How big do you think the average testicle size is? I'm guessing about the size of a large grape or a small egg.
Other than that - Good job, very interesting, I liked it.
(Isiah Mustafa voice) Sorry ladies, already taken. I said anything.
The S. Koreans are now deploying remote machine guns for the DMZ. They identify and report suspicious movement and then allow a human operator to make a decision whether to engage or not. I'm not aware of any robots that are fully autonomous and have any firepower.
A remote machine gun (or chain of such) along a fence line or as area denial weapon could be effective, assuming that they were routinly rearmed and repaired. The advantage in fixed known defensive areas (such as a fortified border) would be great, thier usefullness in urban or close in areas is limited.
Landmines are not robots. Landmines are also not intended to kill outright, but to wound, the idea being that one wounded soldier bogs down more enemy resources than a dead one. Landmines also make great area denial weapons.
However, they have yet to be used in combat.
Honestly, the near future of autonomous robotics will deal primarily in sensor deployment focusing around behaviors such as SLAM and waypoint following. Robots are dumb, really fucking dumb. The problem is that the feature extraction of most sensors these days is still extremely poor to be used in highly contextual and sensitive applications such as autonomous combat. However, there are a ton of problems which robots can be put to really good use. The best example these days are the use of EOD robots for ordinance disposal and mine clearing. iRobot has deployed several thousand EOD packbots and they have been put to great use.
Use of robots in highly volatile situations is an excellent application (especially in the highly urban or cavernous/mountainous terrain we are operating in currently). Other applications are autonomous convoys in which you can have a lead driver and several autonomous supply trucks following or moving through an MSR autonomously (DARPA Grand Challenge anyone?). The risk of losing soldiers to roadside IEDs is now eliminated or significantly reduced. The Phalanx CIWS is essentially what you are describing.
A better idea would be to have a single person controlling the entire convoy remotely. Most of the time he can simply control the lead vehicle, and the others will follow. But if say, a middle vehicle is taken out, they can split into groups and elect new lead vehicles, multiple lead vehicles. If worst comes to worst, each vehicle can be individually remotely controlled and people can hop on remotes and start driving to make sure as much of the convoy makes it as is possible.
I don't think we'll see any form of autonomous killing machines anytime soon.
(ps, I want my Mechwarrior Warhammer tomorrow!)
However, a major problem with the autonomous convoy is that destroyed vehicles run the risk of being looted without any proper protection. You would more than likely require some sort of aerial escort be it a security force in blackhawks or maybe even a predator drone. Heterogeneous use of autonomous vehicles within a mission space is the future.
Also, unless they disable every vehicle in the caravan, the safecracker wont' be able to get to work. You can just run him over with the one remaining remotely controlled vehicle. If you have a remotely controlled turret mounted on it, then that's that. Odds are, they'll be more than one non-disabled vehicle, too. So unless it's a narrow mountain road Indiana Jones situation, you're looking pretty good.
The real thing to worry about is jamming and hacking. They might cut off your connection, and then you have to deploy people. Even worse, if they take over the connection, they can drive the vehicles away. They might not even have to be at the scene. If you can drive them remotely, they can theoretically control them remotely. Just push some buttons on the computer + radio + antenna setup, and the trucks will go wherever they please.
EDIT: I just formed a mental image of this and it was insanely awesome.
And he only had to trade in his crotch plate.
Seriously? It took multiple days and 59 posts until Bender showed up in a thread about killbots? You people disappoint me.
That thing gave me nightmares.