Slashdot Log In
First Robotic Drone Squadron Deployed
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Jul 17, 2007 09:37 AM
from the every-rigger-is-a-dwarf dept.
from the every-rigger-is-a-dwarf dept.
coondoggie writes with a link to a Network World blog post on the world's first unmanned attack squadron. The US is deploying a full squadron of combat drones to Iraq this week. These armed and remotely controlled robots can be manipulated from on the ground in the field, or via satellite from thousands of miles away. "The MQ-9 Reaper is the Air Force's first hunter-killer unmanned aircraft. It is the big brother to the highly successful and sometimes controversial Predator aircraft, which General Atomics said this week had flown over 300,000 flight hours, with over 80% of that time spent in combat. The company said Predator series aircraft have flown an average of 8,200 hours per month over the past six months while maintaining the highest operational readiness rates in the U.S. military aircraft inventory. The MQ-9 Reaper is twice as fast as the Predator - it has a 900-horsepower turbo-prop engine, compared to the 119-horsepower Predator engine - and can carry far more ordnance - 14 Hellfire missiles as opposed to two."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
First Skynet! (Score:5, Funny)
Better yet (Score:4, Funny)
Interesting... (Score:3, Funny)
Robotic? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Robotic? (Score:4, Informative)
If anyone is interested, learn to program in ladder logic [wikipedia.org], and you'll understand how industrial machines and robots operate.
someone beat me to the overlord comment (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My assessment (Score:4, Insightful)
The human in me: Why the fuck do we have to spend so much money on killing each other?
Re:My assessment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My assessment (Score:4, Funny)
Brilliant!
It's also a psychological weapon. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's also a psychological weapon. (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, those ingrates. The people whose countries we invade never appreciate the sacrifices we make for them.
Re:It's also a psychological weapon. (Score:4, Insightful)
I must agree with the GP (to an extent). The feuds between factions in Iraq are very old. Some can be traced back to the time of Muhammad, others probably originate with somebody sleeping with someone else's wife thousands of years ago. Saddam only controlled the feuds by violent suppression. Take that away, and they all come back.
Where I disagree with the GP is the fact that the fundamental problem is somehow limited to the Arab region. It's actually a problem with humanity as a whole, and the Arab region just happens to have the oldest feuds.
Re:It's also a psychological weapon. (Score:4, Insightful)
Saddam didn't control the feuds with violent suppression. Sure, he controlled the country that way and prevented any significant uprisings that way, but violent suppression is not going to cause a Sunni and Shia who otherwise would have killed each other to marry! And intermarriage was quite common, as were Sunnis and Shias working together and living together and Saddam didn't force them to do so. In other words, at least in Iraq, the Sunni/Shiite rift was not as inherently violent as you may now suppose.
In fact the sectarian violence that seems to define Iraq now, and which you may have predicted to occur as soon as Saddam was out of power, didn't really kick up significantly until 2006. That's when the cycle of killing--reprisal killing--re-reprisal killing took off, starting in particular with the bombing of the Shia mosque. Before that there had been what appeared to be targeted killings, but on a much smaller scale and more importantly without the violent reaction -- leaders of both sects urging calm and peace, not retribution, in an effort to not create a huge rift where there hadn't been before.
Now, though, things are much worse, and formerly integrated neighborhoods have become segregated because one sect or the other is too at risk from insurgents knocking on their doors. I've even seen photographs of Sunnis and Shiites signing over the deeds to their houses to each other so that they can move their families. The very fact that they can peacably cooperate to deal with this new terrible circumstance just shows that Iraq wasn't this way, and didn't have to be this way.
Ultimately I think both al Qaeda and Iran are responsible for causing this, each has significant reasons to want to create a rift between people in Iraq, both to get one sect or the other to align with them, and to disrupt our efforts in the country. And, yes, I put some blame on the U.S. planners in particular the Sec. of Defense for completely and utterly failing to predict or prepare to counter these influences.
In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
What are the moral implications? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the new Star Wars trilogy is massively disappointing so I hesitate to use the term "droid army" but that's still the best phrase I can come up with. What are the moral implications of operating a droid army? In conventional armies, a general who orders his soldiers to massacre civilians could meet with resistance. Even a Chinese Army tank driver balked at the idea of rolling over a protester in Tienanmen Square. Who is there to object in a droid army? The lowest level humans involved would be the support crew. Would they even know what the bots are up to?
I do think that the decision to go to war will become much easier with droids. What motivates objections to our current Iraq war, dead Americans or dead Iraqis? Would we object any less if it was 0 dead Americans instead of 4,000 and the Iraqi toll was still around 700k? I would like to think we wouldn't but people can be selfish.
Re:You're a math whiz (emphasis on WHIZ) (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.de
BALTIMORE, Maryland (CNN) -- War has wiped out about 655,000 Iraqis or more than 500 people a day since the U.S.-led invasion, a new study reports.
Violence including gunfire and bombs caused the majority of deaths but thousands of people died from worsening health and environmental conditions directly related to the conflict that began in 2003, U.S. and Iraqi public health researchers said.
"Since March 2003, an additional 2.5 percent of Iraq's population have died above what would have occurred without conflict," according to the survey of Iraqi households, titled "The Human Cost of the War in Iraq." (Watch as the study's startling results are revealed -- 1:55 )
The survey, being published online by British medical journal The Lancet, gives a far higher number of deaths in Iraq than other organizations. (Read the full report -- pdf)
Holy War (Score:5, Funny)
*shakes head*
Controversial? (Score:3, Insightful)
In what way is the Predator aircraft controversial?
General Atomics (Score:3, Funny)
Those things look slow (Score:4, Interesting)
-b.
Re:Those things look slow (Score:5, Informative)
For those that have seen Transformers, there is a scene when the Special Ops team calls in fire support and a Predator (or what is supposed to be one) comes over the sand dunes. From what I understand that is NOT how a Predator is used. They stand off a ways and take pictures from a high altitude (25,000ft).
What I would be really interested in hearing are anecdotal accounts by soldiers/airmen who have been either supported by or used the Predator systems. Assuming, of course, that they are allowed to talk about it.
Obligatory wikipedia links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-1_Predator [wikipedia.org] Predator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-9_Reaper [wikipedia.org] Reaper
Re:Those things look slow (Score:4, Interesting)
Shoulder-launched SAMs aren't able to intercept targets flying that high. An MQ-9 Reaper is only vulnerable to them during takeoff, landing, or low-altitude operations.
The best way to kill a high-flying drone is to use another high-flying vehicle carrying air-to-air missiles, ideally a drone. In 2002, the Iraqi Air Force managed to shoot down an MQ-1 Predator with a MiG-25 by shooting an air-to-air missile at it. Still, they risked a life and a very expensive MiG-25 to shoot down a cheap 3.2M$ drone.
Oh, you could always use a huge SAM with enough power to climb to 50000ft, but you're going to need a big truck to carry it around, and the SAM won't be cheap either.
Re:Those things look slow (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, most man-portable SAMs are heat-guided. A Reaper has its engine and exhaust vents on top of the ship and flies at 50,000 ft, so it would be resistant to heat-guided SAMs. It doesn't travel fast enough to heat up the leading winig edges. I bet it's stealthier than you might think.
From a long time ago; (Score:5, Funny)
Re:From a long time ago; (Score:4, Funny)
That can happen in a smaller way (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want a roboticized military that can be controlled from the Pentagon and White House because that is far, far worse than having a nation defended by mercenaries. Even mercenaries can decide that the money doesn't justify their orders and quit. One of our strengths is that enlisted men and field-grade officers are in control of the day-to-day things. If the shit hits the fan, as long as they are decent men and women, we can trust that it won't get but so bad.
It won't be Skynet, but it could be a dictator who is in control of such a roboticized army. Fighting it would be very difficult as the government could largely rule without the support of the population. Even a hostile population would be largely irrelevant.
We need to be careful with this sort of thing.
Re:That can happen in a smaller way (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That can happen in a smaller way (Score:5, Insightful)
2. It's psychologically easier to kill people the farther removed from them you get.
Re:That can happen in a smaller way (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry, I can't agree with that. Is a war fought on another country's soil because they asked for help in fighting some horrible aggressor not to be considered morally justified? And here's another example (sorry for its length). Let's say there are two tribes living in roughly the same geographic area. Both tribes live along a river not too far from an ocean. The river provides all the resources they need for life -- fresh water, fish for food, fertile soil for farming. The two tribes are aware of each other and have previously had a good relationship. However, things go awry when the tribe upstream has a change in leadership who does not care about the welfare of the tribe downstream. He decides that his tribe will build a dam on the river so that they can have a larger area of available fresh water, and so that his tribe has an easier time finding fish. Without consulting the downstream tribe, he implements his plan. Now the folks in the downstream tribe notice a serious dropoff in water flowing down the river. They head upstream to investigate and find that the source of the problem is the dam built by the upstream tribe. Repeated delegations are sent to the leader of the upstream tribe to explain their position and ask if they can come up with a mutually beneficial solution. Each time, the response is "Talk to the hand," and the leader of the upstream tribe does not yield. During the course of "political discussion", the leader of the upstream tribe builds up a very strong following among his people because they are very happy with their now easier way of life. Few of them are interested any longer in helping the downstream tribe. Now the downstream tribe has two choices: 1. Leave the area where they are living which is, other than the recent loss of the river that they depend on, a more or less ideal spot to live. Or 2. Try to destroy the dam built by the upstream tribe, which will require killing members of the upstream tribe and will clearly be considered an act of war. Would you consider option 2 to be morally unjust?
My point is this. If you take away the resources that my people need to survive and you turn a deaf ear on the fact that you have endangered the existence of my people, I will do what is necessary to regain the resources that my people need. I will obviously choose the path that does the least damage, but I will feel morally obligated to protect my people. I will mourn the loss of members of the opposing forces, but given the same options, I would make the same decision each and every time.
Re:That can happen in a smaller way (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, drop a squad of robot soldiers into the same situation. Sure, the controllers don't need to see the carnage that they inflict. That said, they also do not have their life threatened. If the order from up high is to "don't kill any civilians", then they can happily let their little robot squad return fire with the weakest and most precise weapons they have at their disposal and if they are over run? Eh, a few thousand dollars into the shitter. It isn't a happy ending, but hell, when you already pay a few thousand for the lid to a real shitter, it isn't the end of the world.
War might never be 'humane' but it certainly has the capacity to be a lot more humane then it is. The easiest way to make war safer, besides spewing some idealistic crap about 'lets never fight wars!' is to take the survival of soldiers out of the equation. With the survival of soldiers out of the equation and human controlled robots that will happily let themselves die rather then tear apart an apartment complex where a single sniper is shooting from, we have the capacity for a war with far fewer civilian causalities.
As for the squadron being discussed in the article, these are UAVs, not 'soldiers'. The difference between flying a UAV and an attack airplane is that the UAV is cheaper and you don't die if it gets shot down. In both cases, you see what you are blowing up on a little TV screen. UAVs don't go down any 'slippery slops' that we have not already wondered down.
Are you kidding? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, think again, buddy. When the people doing the firing are far away from the consequences of their actions, and when the people that they're targetting are little different from sprites in a computer game then, as research has proven, those people are more not less likely to be indiscriminate with their use of force.
One of things you learn from being in the field is that actions have unintended consequences, and it's often those unintended consequences that give veterans an appreciation of the true horrors of war and the real value of peace.
Do you think that the UAV pilot sitting in his comfy chair somewhere in Arizona will have the same insight into the war that these guys [independent.co.uk] have had?
Re:Are you kidding? (Score:5, Insightful)
Drones don't face this problem. Drones can follow the rules of engagement to the letter while soldiers can't. If you tell a drone operator to never use heavy weapons on civilian buildings where there is a reasonable chance that civilians are inside, they won't. For a drone operator, it is nothing for their drone to 'die'. Further, the entire thing is constantly being recorded and any misconduct is easily rooted out. You can have strict rules of engagement and the drone soldiers will follow them to the death.
I am not saying that a drone army doesn't have a slightly higher potential for abuse in some instances. Certainly, it is a easier to line up and shoot civilians using a drone then it is to be there in person. That said, only two things lead to civilians being lined up and shot, crazy soldiers who have been under constant fire from people dressed in civilian clothing, or genocidal leaders. Drones eliminate crazy soldiers and eliminate soldiers putting their lives before the mission. As far as genocidal leaders, well, I doubt even the most hearty cynics believe that anyone will get elected on the "let's kill all the woman and children so they can't breed any more" campaign.
Civilian casualties the American inflict comes from soldiers and leaders picking the lives of soldiers over the lives of civilians, not some concerted effort of the higher up leadership commit genocide for shits and giggles. Reduce the number of soldiers that need to be protected in combat and you will see the number of civilians that die drop dramatically.
Is that really a good thing?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just playing devil's advocate, is it really a good thing for wars to be more humane? Look at the difference between Iraq and (Germany || Japan). Both Germany and Japan were absolutely fucking destroyed during WWII. As a result, the civilians quit. They threw up their hands and said, "screw this, we quit."
A few years later, Germany and Japan are two of the richest, most prosperous nations on Earth.
Contrast with Iraq. We try *really* hard not to hurt anyone, to avoid casualties, we apologize if we destroy a building. Result: civilians kind of shrug and do their best to live their lives and avoid the fighting. A group of foreign insurgents can move into a town and the civilians will say, "eh, they're not here to kill me so I don't care - it's none of my business."
At this rate, Iraq will continue to be a war zone indefinitely.
So all I'm saying, again as the devil's advocate - what if the people of Iraq had to suffer as much as the people of Germany or Japan suffered? Maybe they would say, "screw this - you foreign insurgents get the fuck out - we want the Americans to rebuild."
Maybe.
Re:Is that really a good thing?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Your argument ignores differences between Arabs and Germans/Japanese, who have more of a tribal than national structure.
The Japanese civilians did not quit. Their emperor quit, with the result that the militaristic aggression of the Japanese stopped in unison (with the exception of a few living out in the jungle who did not get the message). And Germany was occupied, and the press seized by the occupiers (which was the effective mode of communication between leadership and rank and file).
To get the Iraqis to quit in unison is a lot harder. The hierarchy is a lot lower level, and thus harder to control. That's part of the reason they don't tend to do well in organized, large scale, European type battles, but do well at irregular type warfare. Easy to invade, hard to control.
There is also the question of the pretext of the war. On what grounds is the US justified in carpet bombing Iraq into submission? WMD or bringing democracy?
Re:That can happen in a smaller way (Score:5, Insightful)
1) They are remote controlled. Humans still make the decisions.
2) Despite what you want to believe, everything from the Milgram experiment to the Holocaust demonstrates that humans can easily be programmed to kill with complete disregard for "morality," just like robots. All it takes is a little nationalism, religion, racism, or just plain sternly-stated orders, and men will commit atrocities with the efficiency of any killbot.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:There should be some way for civilian control (Score:5, Funny)
Re:There should be some way for civilian control (Score:5, Funny)
I agree -- we should replace our current government with one where the head of state and head of government is a civilian, and put them in charge of all our military branches.
Re:Any Helicopters? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The US is deploying (Score:4, Insightful)
The actions of the US Government ARE the Actions of the United States. The actions of individual citizens without direct government sanction are not.
If you feel the government is not acting as commanded by the people you are obligated to remove them from office.
But hey. The current war in Iraq was well and truly on and known to be a fraud before the last presidential election. Even so Bush was returned to office. That tells me he has the approval of the American people. Those who disagree are free to do so vocally and repeatedly but don't delude yourself.
These planes are being deployed by the United States of America.
Re:Crazy wings (Score:4, Informative)
War is Violence ... (Score:5, Insightful)
War is violent by definition. The way to end war by winning it. The winner is one who is better at killing the other side. So in a way, this plane ends wars. The quicker you end a war, the fewer casualties are the result. This war machine is a life saver (especially our own!!)
Look, I know that this is a long string of logic, but long drawn out wars are the worst on both the armies fighting it and the innocent population bystanders. With precision weaponry fought by machines (at least on our side), we can minimize the civilian risk as well as our own.
Re:War is Violence ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody is going to want to go out and plant roadside bombs if the chances are good that they're going to get spotted by a predator and killed doing it.
Even if they had a SAM that could shoot down something the size of a predator at 60,000 feet it would make them an instant target and chances are good they'll get killed doing it, to accomplish nothing more than destroying a disposable asset.
Depending on where they deploy these and the tactics they use to employ them, I can imagine it'll force the insurgents to further refine their tactics.
However, when I think about how this will change their tactis, my only thought is that they'd instead go after softer targets, they'll instead draw American forces into situations where it'll be impossible to use a predator (such as a gun fight in a market). Situations where they can cause large numbers of civilian casaulties and blame the Americans.
The solution to this problem is to change the nature of the game.
Re:War is Violence ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's true that it will definitely save American lives. It will also make it easier and less risky to kill foreign people. Intuitively, it seems like the result of that would be a lot more foreign people getting killed.
Now, you seem to make the claim that since this plane is such an efficient killer, it will actually result in
What this plane will do is make it easier and less risky for the US military to conduct bombing runs. The more bombing runs get done, the more people (innocent and otherwise) get killed.
In general, new US military advances do result in more death.
Please explain (Score:4, Interesting)
Then please explain why combat deaths have gone down since WWII? This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of historical fact. Korea had less kills than Vietnam than Beirut/Panama than Iraq I. Right up until Iraq II, it had gone down in every single war.
If what you said was true, we would have seen MORE death over that period. Because nobody doubts significant military advancements have happened since WWII.
Re:War is Violence ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:War is Violence ... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the exact same justification the 9-11 attackers used.