Machine Gun Sentry Robot Unveiled 845
mpthompson writes "Samsung has partnered with a Korean university to develop a robotic sentry equipped with a 5.5mm machine gun. Meant for deployment along the DMZ between North and South Korea, the $200,000 robot employs sophisticated pattern recognition software for targeting humans. No three laws here, but the robot does include a speaker that can be used to politely issue a warning before taking the target out. The promotional video is both scary and funny at the same time."
Re:I WANT ONE! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:OMG! (Score:5, Informative)
the coolest part... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:We're Winning Again (Score:5, Informative)
Just because the war ended
The war didn't end. That requires a surrender or peace treaty.
Re:Overpriced and vulnerable (Score:3, Informative)
optics for ir sensors are incredibly expensive — the gimbal mounted color + mwir or lwir pan/tilt/zoom units that get mounted on military jets cost on the order of $200k a pop, with about $50k going to the gimbal mount and $50k+ going to the insanely huge and incredibly lenses (regular glass is opaque in the mid-wave and long-wave ir bands, i.e. the "useful" bands so i believe that they use gallium instead). add on another $20k odd for controllable optics and a large sensor which is cryogenically cooled. that right there accounts for more than half the cost of the robot. embedded electronics will run another $5-10k at a minimum, which leaves really not that much for an industrial robot. all things considered, i'm surprised that it's as cheap as it is.
Re:Welcome to the Free World? (Score:3, Informative)
When people escaped the DDR (East Germany), specifically over the Berlin Wall - the West Germans helped them in any way possible with open arms, short of provoking war.
North Korea is still at war with South Korea. The border is militarized far more than the Berlin wall. As I understand it, there are still people getting killed now and then.Re:Overpriced and vulnerable (Score:3, Informative)
Why go for half measures? Why not just ban war by treaty? Its been done before [infoplease.com], and would be at least as effective as what you suggest. I think it would also be much easier to reach agreement on simply banning war since it could be done on simple principle. Your proposal would require all manner of messy discussions about different type of weapons, their munitions, and variations. If you have having that discussion you might have to include some types of obstacles too, since some of them are dangerous and can kill passively. You are better off just banning war since that means that tiny little countries are safe from big, aggressive neighbors. Under your proposal, the tiny countries would be stripped of many useful defensive weapons that can act as combat multipliers to help defend them from a much bigger attacker. That would leave them vulnerable to being easily conquered, and who wants that?
Re:Mines (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mines (Score:2, Informative)
Light anti-tank/anti-vehicle mines cause deaths among civilians since they will take out soft skinned vehicles (which are often more valuable targets than any armored combat vehicle anyway because of the supplies they carry) as easily as an armored car or an APC which is why there has been considerable lobbying to include AT/AV mines in the scope of the ban as well. From a military standpoint banning anti personnel mines but not AT/AV mines is pretty stupid anyway since AP mines are the key to making minefields aimed at tanks or other vehicles hard to deal with by making life difficult for the enemy sappers. You typically want to use both types of mines together because they complement each other. The AP mines take out the human sappers the AT/AV mines make life hard for their fancy robots as vell as for enemy tanks and combat vehicles. Banning only AP mines is a bit like allowing people to own cars but not wheels.
It's not just the desperate militaries of this world that consider mines an indispensable tool. It is the non-desperate ones as well. My prediction is simple, the moment there is a really serious shooting war involving the armies of NATO and a worthy enemy of equal power (which NATO hasn't had since the Soviets went on permanent vacation although China is looking like a budding successor) any armies whose governments signed the land-mine ban treaty will forget about their high and lofty ideals, plant anti tank and anti personnel mines with wild abandon and the men who make that decision will be lauded as heroes and strong leaders for doing this regardless of the slaughter of innocents their actions caused. The anti land-mine treaty will not survive contact with reality because it is totally impractical just like that papal bull 800 years ago banning crossbows. The mine like the crossbow is just to useful for anybody to ignore using it. You might as well concoct a treaty that bans traffic accidents and get everybody to sign it, the accidents won't stop happening.
Re:We're Winning Again (Score:5, Informative)
Degenerated? "Crazy Olympics?"
It isn't even a contest. South Korea is left setting on the bench, consoled by its modern economy and democracy. The field is North Korea [globalsecurity.org] all the way.
North Korea has the:
Gold [guardian.co.uk]
Silver [timesonline.co.uk]
Bronze [nysun.com]
Runner Up [heritage.org]
and "Miss Congeniality" [globalsecurity.org]
With the recently added [bbc.co.uk] events [bbc.co.uk], they could be in an even better medal position next year.
I think that North Korea's official motto must be the inverse of Google's.
Re:Welcome to the Free World? (Score:1, Informative)
Well, there are a couple of reasons. First, the two Koreas are technically still at war, and even recent years have seen minor skirmishes. The North Koreans have even tried building an occasional tunnel under the border.
But probably the main reason is that the DMZ is the most heavily armed border in the world and it's within artillery range of Seoul and its satellite cities. When you have hundreds of thousands of potentially hostile troops within pissing range of your political and economic center (not to mention something like a third of your population), you tend to get very paranoid. Seoul changed hands four times in the last war. So yeah, the paramount concern is to fortify the shit out of that border and protect Seoul just a little bit better. If that means refugees have to go through China, then it's a reasonable trade-off.
Re:Welcome to the Free World? (Score:3, Informative)
I fully agree. But I have to add something:
As I understand it, there are still people getting killed now and then.
The border between East and West Germany also had its victims. 1065 people werde killed along the border and the Berlin Wall until 1989. (source [berlinermaueronline.de])
Re:OMG! (Score:5, Informative)
But that being said this robot is designed to patrol a known area where the users know the locations of the mines, because they planted them. The robot is created to take men out of harms way and serve as an ever watchful eye. If an attack comes this is not the last defense, only the first.
Re:On threads like these, turn off the "funny"... (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously, if you want to learn anything when it comes to threads like these, tune your preferences to demote posts marked "funny". You'll be amazed.
Then...
(Score:5, Funny)
What do you know... Slashdot mods actually do have a sense of humor. Can I mod this comment's moderation +1, Funny?
Re:OMG! (Score:4, Informative)
Mines are not designed to kill - they are designed to blow someone's legs off and leave them screaming on the battlefield. Psychological effects aside, this design choice is very economical. Killing a soldier takes one person out of a war. Maiming them takes not only the victim out, but also the one or two soldiers who carry them back, the supplies to transport them to medical facilities, a bed in the hospital, and the time of the medical staff treating them.
It's the intent to maim bit that caused mines to be banned (plus the fact that no one cleans them up after a conflict).
Re:Apparently, (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Terrorist attack tool? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Polite Warning! (Score:3, Informative)
The article states it's a "5.5 milimeter" machine gun. That's only
Also, I suspect that the article meant 5.56 mm; I don't know of a "5.5mm" cartridge, and the size of the bullet is only half the picture: the amount of powder propelling that bullet impacts a LOT of factors.
(And for what it's worth, 5.5 caliber ammunition are in the range of crew-served and ship-based artillery, not a personal arm. 5.5 caliber = 5.5" diameter.)