[dalsingh101]

Pacham (western) style jungh vidya - Vadhay soormey.

http://news.bbc.co.u...rld/8495946.stm


Can war be fought by lots of well-behaved machines, making it "safer for humans"? That is the seductive vision, and hope, of those manufacturing and researching the future of military robotics.

With 8,000 robots already in use, they believe they can bring about a military revolution.

Most of the robots currently deployed on land deal with non-combat tasks such as bomb disposal - unlike lethal aerial drones.
But Bob Quinn, who works for the US subsidiary of the British robot manufacturer QinetiQ, says the future promises more armed robots on the battlefield, including driverless vehicles.

"The closer you are to being shot, the more you understand the value of having a remote weapons capability," he says.


Anyone who has seen the Terminator films may find this vision scary. Quinn admits that, even among senior military figures, "science fiction movies caused a great deal of angst".

He stresses the need to make sure "that the weaponised robots only operate under the control of the soldier and never independently".

But the speed of modern warfare can make direct human control difficult, says Peter Singer, author of Wired for War.

Take the automated counter-artillery system deployed in Afghanistan.

"The human reaction time when there's an incoming canon shell is basically we can get to mid-curse word… [This] system reacts and shoots it down in mid-air. We are in the loop. We can turn the system off, we can turn it on, but our power really isn't true decision-making power. It's veto power now," Singer says.

Vegetarian vehicles

But if automated systems are taking decisions, how can we be sure they are hitting the right targets and obeying the laws of war?

US academic Patrick Lin was recently commissioned by the US military to study robot ethics.


QinetiQ's Talon robots are used to counter improvised explosive devices
"When you talk about autonomous robots," he argues, "a natural response might be to programme them to be ethical. Isn't that what we do with our computers?"

A striking example of a robot in need of careful programming is a driverless vehicle developed by the Pentagon, called the EATR.

It can refuel itself on long journeys by scavenging for organic material - which raises the haunting spectre of a machine consuming corpses on the battlefield.

Its inventor, Dr Robert Finkelstein of Robotic Technology Inc, insists it will consume "organic material but mostly vegetarian."

"The robot can only do what it's programmed to do, it has a menu," he adds.

All this worries sceptics like Professor Noel Sharkey, co-founder of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control.

If there's an area of fighting that's so intense that you can assume that anyone there is a combatant, then unleash the robots

Dr Patrick Lin, California Polytechnic
"You could train it all you want, give it all the ethical rules in the world. If the input to it isn't correct, it's no good whatsoever," he says. "Humans can be held accountable, machines can't."

If you cannot rely on a robot knowing what to target or distinguishing between enemy forces and innocent non-combatants, Patrick Lin suggests another solution.

"If there's an area of fighting that's so intense that you can assume that anyone there is a combatant," he argues, "then unleash the robots in that kind of scenario. Some people call that a kill box. Any target [in a kill box] is assumed to be a legitimate target."

No emotions

Other researchers suggest robots may avoid the faults of human soldiers.

"Robots that are programmed properly are less likely to make errors and kill non-combatants, innocent people, because they're not emotional, they won't be afraid, act irresponsibly in some situations," says Robert Finkelstein.

But Christopher Coker of the London School of Economics, an observer of wars past and present, disagrees.

Let's keep our guys safe, and kill the enemy

Bob Quinn
"We should put our trust in the human factor," he says.

"Unfortunately the military in their reports often see the human factor as what they call the weakest link. I don't think it's the weakest link. I think it's the strongest link."

Computers will never be able to simulate the "warrior ethos", the mindset and ethical outlook of the professional soldier, he says.

The military revolution in robotics has already advanced rapidly in the air, where remotely piloted drone aircraft are now central to conflicts such as Afghanistan.

On the ground, use of robots has so far been more limited.

Yet given the political and popular concern about casualties among Nato forces, robot manufacturer Bob Quinn's sales pitch is likely to be persuasive.

"Let's keep our guys safe, and kill the enemy. Unfortunately, in warfare that's the situation you're in."

This post has been edited by dalsingh101: 08 February 2010 - 11:12 AM

[kdsingh80]

What is the cost of Each robot? If army of robots can bankrupt a country and then there will be so much other problems from which people started to suffer or die, then robots are useless

[bhooliya]

I wonder sometimes that how much will be the cost to live as human? Is it possible for super power countries to leave their ego and spend money to make this world little bit better? They are finding new technology to destroy and if they find technology to built?

[kdsingh80]

bhooliya, on 08 February 2010 - 11:28 PM, said:

I wonder sometimes that how much will be the cost to live as human? Is it possible for super power countries to leave their ego and spend money to make this world little bit better? They are finding new technology to destroy and if they find technology to built?

The new technology,science only helps developed countries mainly USA.Look at the defence budget of countries like India they are in thousand billions.The cost of maintaining jets,missiles is huge.
On the other hand poor people of india are suffering because Government Don't have funds.so what's the point of these new technologies which make people suffer and die indirectly

[HSD]

Robots would be pretty useful, as long as the soldiers were trained to do the same jobs as the robots just in case there are problems with using the machines in certain battlefield conditions.

This topic opens up many related questions. What about clones instead of machines? I know there arent many scientific debates on this site, and that science isnt heading towards human cloning anytime soon, but if it does happen, would they be used as cheap cannon fodder?

[dalsingh101]

kdsingh80, on 08 February 2010 - 07:18 PM, said:

The new technology,science only helps developed countries mainly USA.Look at the defence budget of countries like India they are in thousand billions.The cost of maintaining jets,missiles is huge.
On the other hand poor people of india are suffering because Government Don't have funds.so what's the point of these new technologies which make people suffer and die indirectly

I hear you but the truth is that you have to do both simulataneously. Akin to the sant-sipahi model. Look at Mumbai, Hindustanis get caught with their 'knickerh' down.

Thing is once you have anything of worth savage types will eventually storm your fort. The thing about India is that they are dumb and weak militarily speaking, despite the big size. They are akin to harmless gentle giant. That cuddly, smiley 'lulloo' naive spirit becomes dangerous when you have to deal with chuost dark hearted types. Indian history gives a wonderful example how to end up as other people's kootis for centuries on end - be they goray or sulley. Hell, if you think about it, if the Nazis didn't 'roti bundh' the Wasps with their impetulant behaviour over the world wars they might still be lording it over us now!

The other thing is that the west makes BIG money from arms sales. It is serious part of the GDP, so they obviously have their own agenda here. Plus, seeing as one wrong move by whitey in the wrong area can lead to them ending up on the Internet surrounded by vicious masked Abduls brandishing a machete threatening and carry out beheadings, they have obvious reasons to cosy up to the docile, sycophantic Hindustanis for economic and strategic reasons. But to India's credit, they have managed to avoid a complete chumcha position in the west's war on terror. Which is surprising.

Mu point is that you need to be able to protect what you have gained especially with the type of neighbours India has. But India has other problems like a lack of shame and an ingrained inhumanity towards its own poor. India is the essence of duality as we can see by contrasting its movie industry with the slums that lay on its doorstep.

In any case India might have the technology but I doubt she has the heart or knowhow of how to actually use it effectively - push comes to shove. Failures in security can cost as much as the equipment you're talking about.

[dalsingh101]

HSD, on 08 February 2010 - 09:15 PM, said:

This topic opens up many related questions. What about clones instead of machines? I know there arent many scientific debates on this site, and that science isnt heading towards human cloning anytime soon, but if it does happen, would they be used as cheap cannon fodder?

They'd probably make clones of a docile Sikh soldier who happily fights everyone elses battles. That was the best cannon fodder they ever had. lol

[HSD]

Dalsingh post 6:

Do you honestly think the hindustanis/whoever is in Delhi would have it any other way? They have always been weak throughout history when it comes to dealing with external powers yet incredibly ruthless in dealing with 'insubordination' among the minorities. And we wonder where sikhs get that attitude from, lol.

Quote

They'd probably make clones of a docile Sikh soldier who happily fights everyone elses battles. That was the best cannon fodder they ever had. lol

Why bother with expensive clones when they could have the real thing for half the price? lol.

[dalsingh101]

HSD, on 08 February 2010 - 09:55 PM, said:

Why bother with expensive clones when they could have the real thing for half the price? lol.

If they paid in beer they would get lots of takers...

[kdsingh80]

Quote

Mu point is that you need to be able to protect what you have gained especially with the type of neighbours India has. But India has other problems like a lack of shame and an ingrained inhumanity towards its own poor

Which under developed or developing country has humanity towards its poor.Everybody talks about china
as economic power but there are lot of reports coming
how brutal exploitation of workers going on there

Quote

India is the essence of duality as we can see by contrasting its movie industry with the slums that lay on its doorstep.

It is because of these slums movie and other industry get cheap workers Just shift either of one industry/slums and the other will automatically shift itself.
Cheap labour and exploitation of workers is one of the main reason of huge economic success of China.

Quote

In any case India might have the technology but I doubt she has the heart or knowhow of how to actually use it effectively - push comes to shove

I don't think India have the technology.India still cannot produce its fighter jets and they are placing their billion of $ contact to import jets

[dalsingh101]

kdsingh80, on 09 February 2010 - 07:09 AM, said:

Which under developed or developing country has humanity towards its poor.Everybody talks about china
as economic power but there are lot of reports coming
how brutal exploitation of workers going on there

If every time we self reflected and found flaws that needed addressing, we then went and found others who are doing similar crap and made ourselves feel better about it, we will just justify every last nooks in the end?

The problem is that what you are doing is looking around and not focusing on an independent plan at progression. If we look around we will always find excuses or a rationale to accept things. If India is every to become truly great, it has to develop the confidence to carve its own way forward regardless of what others are doing. It has to use its own imagination and innovation.

The same goes for Sikhs - who actually demonstrated remarkaBLE confidence in this way not long ago but seem to have spectacularly lost this since. I identify the meeting with the wasps as the start of this myself.

PS - Whites selling expensive military hardware to India is their way of keeping their own economy afloat as well as making inroads into the heart of the Indian infrastructure. India is being a bit chuost in this respect by dealing with Russia and the west simultaneously, so not becoming too dependent on either.

One thing I've never understood is how India is still using sten guns and 303s?? No wonder a bunch of paks literally walked into one of India's major towns and sprayed up the place like a kid letting loose in Grand Theft Auto. Hindustan is way too inward looking I guess, it is clueless as to what goes on outside of its borders and struggles to keep up. Hence Indians leave India and do noticeably well outside but inside many are condemned to poverty and no opportunity - unless your born into the right family.

This post has been edited by dalsingh101: 09 February 2010 - 12:42 PM

[kdsingh80]

Quote

The problem is that what you are doing is looking around and not focusing on an independent plan at progression. If we look around we will always find excuses or a rationale to accept things. If India is every to become truly great, it has to develop the confidence to carve its own way forward regardless of what others are doing. It has to use its own imagination and innovation.

The problems of India are not so small they are huge
The present day India and Pakistan are nothing but British gifted territories to Nehru and Jinnah.people of north India hardly know about south India or north east India.moreover there are regional conflicts.we are already seeing marathi vs UP bihari in bombay.So governing India is not so easy

Anyway my point is this whole discussion was that scientifically devloped countries have sold and still selling billions of $ weapons to Asia,africa and other countries.The money that these poor region could have utilised in providing food,education and healthcare facilities to its people.So the more the scientific
development of weapon system happens the more developing countries will suffer

[HSD]

Quote

If they paid in beer they would get lots of takers...

I wonder if we still have the 'take a bullet for the memsahib' types running around. The anglos would love them.

Anyway, whats all this concern about Hindustan for? It's just another country where the rulers dont give a crap about the people at the bottom. Terrorism will never affect the elites on a day to day basis, so why waste money on improving defences is the way they think. It also lets them play victim each time there is a terrorist attack as well. In mumbai, the excited hindustani journalists were all like 'it's our 9/11, it's our 9/11,' which is quite pathetic really - celebrating reaching the same status as the whites. You can take the empire away from the hindu but you cant take the hindu away from the empire.

[dalsingh101]

India is going straight back into 'cha wallah' mode again.

[dalsingh101]

Quote

Anyway my point is this whole discussion was that scientifically devloped countries have sold and still selling billions of $ weapons to Asia,africa and other countries.The money that these poor region could have utilised in providing food,education and healthcare facilities to its people.So the more the scientific development of weapon system happens the more developing countries will suffer

Do you honestly think that there is any chance that any money currently being spent on arms would have reached the needy, if weapons weren't being purchased? Maybe I'm too jaded?

What I want to know is, what are the plans for the slums?

Also you're not getting it. Countries need a strong military, especially in volatile regions. If the west bodges up its Af-Pak war, there are likely to be serious reprecussions in India afterwards. A part of the profit from development needs to go to defence. I just hope India isn't simply buying old crap.