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.
Oddly ironic (Score:4, Interesting)
How ironic, then, that these unmanned war machines fly in the face of the famous Star Trek TOS episode A Taste of Armageddon [trekguide.com] where the inhabitants of a planet who have been at war with each other for 500 years have simply learned to accept casualty-less war as normal life. The people who have been selected to die go to their death chambers and are peacefully snuffed out. No one has the will to stop fighting because no one really gets hurt.
How much lower will our resolve to make peace be when the cost to ourselves in a war is insignificant? When we count our casualties by the amount of toys broken than the number of lives lost?
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.
The DARPA Grand Challenge (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oddly ironic (Score:2, Interesting)
I just could never get interested in Dr. Crusher. She just didn't ever seem...foxy.
How ironic, then, that these unmanned war machines fly in the face of the famous Star Trek TOS episode A Taste of Armageddon
So...you're saying that unmanned vehicles shouldn't be used in war because of...a TV show? I'm sure I'm missing some of your logic here.
Almost the opposite. It wasn't well-explained in the show, but what the people were doing was accepting a war without wounded, and without damage to property. There most definitely were casualties. In fact, the crisis was precipitated by Kirk when the foxy chick was declared a casualty, and he was unwilling to accept that.
No one has the will to stop fighting because no one really gets hurt.
On the contrary. The casualties all got hurt. The reason they were unwilling to stop the war is because they didn't realize that the other side would find a return to a shooting war as undesirable as they, themselves, did. They thought that if they stopped the booths, the other side would start shooting real munitions instead of simulated ones.
How much lower will our resolve to make peace be when the cost to ourselves in a war is insignificant? When we count our casualties by the amount of toys broken than the number of lives lost?
I'm having a little trouble discerning the problem here. Suppose two countries decided to draw high card instead of have a war. Loser has to offer unconditional surrender. To quote Jacopo, "How is this a bad plan?" Oh, it's not horrific enough? You have to kill millions of people, wound three-millions, and destroy lots of stuff first? And then you can surrender?
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.
I'm drinking a glass of ice water right now, based on the knowledge that there are no repurcussions. So far I haven't hit a soul.
-Loyal
Re:Wars should be fought by nerf darts. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, in a perfect world, wars would be fought by a handful of kids and nerf darts. In a perfect world we wouldn't have B-52s and nuclear bombs.
But guess what... War isn't about being nice. War is about destroying the enemy any means possible.
War is horrible yes, but if you think they are making robots just to save human life because they are humanists, you've got another thing coming.
Robots are coming because they win wars. Sure... A dead soldier is less expensive than a robot, but what happens in a protracted war in which a nation has tens if not hundreds of thousands of casualties like WWII?
They can build more robots, but they can't instantly build more men. Germany lost WWII simply because it could not replace its huge casualties in its officer core nor replace all its well trained fighter pilots after several years of attrition.
What if this same nation could simply replace all its air craft with automated fighters and robotic tanks?
The simply have to outproduce the enemey and they win.
Any nation that fails to use robotics in warfare will loose to a nation that correctly implements said technology. We simply do not have a choice.
Wars will be fought by robots.