A New Workhorse For DARPA 111
Roland Piquepaille writes "Later this month, Carnegie Mellon University and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) will unveil the successor of the Spinner, a 7-ton unmanned robotic vehicle. Dubbed Crusher, this new 6.5-ton robot will be able to carry payloads of up to 2 tons on very complex terrains. Crusher will rely on surrounding sensors to keep its balance and learn about its environment. After intensive testings, it should start to perform its duties in 2008. Read more for additional details and pictures of Spinner and Crusher in action." However, I can see they have not yet performed the test of having Sigourney Weaver fight a hitchhiking alien with it, which is obviously crucial to our national defense.
Re:Oddly ironic (Score:3, Insightful)
- George S. Patton
How long till they are armed? (Score:5, Insightful)
This would not only be useful in "declared zones" but undeclared humanitarian ones as well. Think of a place like Dafur (who everyone refuses to allow combat troops to go to - NATO was told no as well) where you have militants who would definitely intefere with aid packages.
Machines like this could also be equipped to go places too hazardous or just generally inaccessible by normal means. Drop one or two off in the remote areas for monitoring of conditions... If they could survive forest fires they could be used to rescue smoke jumpers who get in trouble or deliver supplies over logging roads through already burning areas.
One of the few times automating transport is harder for ground based versus air based.
On another note, how long before some developer decides to make them look closer to some famous movie machines?
Re:Oddly ironic (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How long till they are armed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Quick question: If they're already being used for moving troops...why bother having it drive itself? I could see how drive-by-radio might potentially be unreliable if you think your enemy will somehow jam your control signals, but if your vehicle's already full of people, why not just make one drive the thing?
Re:Only a matter of time... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not withstanding that the Legislative and Executive branches would NEVER relinquish such power, I would normally criticize such a move. Primarily, it would esculate to groups demanding THEIR favorite despised branch of the government include "opt out" funding on that same tax form.
The initial results of that would likely be agencies spending YOUR tax money on advertising on why THEY should recieve a percentage of your taxes.
Now, if you could not only "opt out" of funding those branches, but also get that money back, that would be pretty interesting to watch.
Bahhhh! They'd still find a way to get their money.
Re:Oddly ironic (Score:3, Insightful)
This argument stinks. You first argue "there's no repercussions", then you argue that there still are repercussions. I don't actually disagree here. Most wars start because someone thought they would make a huge gain through war. Most wars end because those people were wrong.
I don't actually see robotics being that useful in war. The problem is that they are currently are expensive. While that's not necessarily going to remain that way, it's worth noting that US military equipment has been progressively getting more expensive ever since the end of the Second World War (and perhaps long before that). I think this is due to the influence of defense contractors who get higher profit margins on expensive equipment. What it means though is that the US military is getting saddled with equipment that is expensive to use and break.
When the enemy can't hit back, then it's not too bad. But when they can, then the pricy equipment actually restricts US options. Vandalism becomes an effective military tactic. If a little kid with a small amount of explosives or concentrated battery acid could do several million dollars of damamge, then that's going to change the equation of war for the US. Even if no one dies.
Re:Oddly ironic (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck these guys. War should be fought by people. It should be a horrific ordeal and one that is not entered into lightly. Making decisions based on the knowledge that there are no repercussions is tantamount to driving down Route 66 with a blindfold. Maybe you'll miss everything in the road. However the more likely outcome is that you'll kill everyone out there and evenutally yourself. This type of weapon makes America more unsafe, more prone to domestic terrorism, and more likely to get involved in other frivolous wars.
What do you want, a baseball game? 'Cuz if it's not an even match, it won't be "fair," right? Wrong. If you're going to fight a war and you give a shit about concepts like what's fair, you're already teeing yourself up for a loss.
Like many modern military advances, the idea of this vehicle is deterrence through overwhelming technological superiority, so that our *enemies* think twice before doing their little evil deeds. US airborne drones, while not autonomous, have been so effective that everyone -- even the Palestinians -- are trying to copy them. An added bonus is saving friendly lives, and in this case, with US convoys being a primary target in Iraq, many of us think this technology can't be deployed fast enough.