Quote:
The US military is planning to deploy robots armed with machine-guns to wage war against insurgents in Iraq.
Eighteen of the 1m-high robots, equipped with cameras and operated by remote control, are going to Iraq this spring, the Associated Press reports.
The machine is based on a robot already used by the military to disable bombs.
Officials say the robot warrior is fast, accurate and will track and attack the enemy with relatively little risk to the lives of US soldiers.
Unlike its human counterparts, the armed robot does not require food, clothing, training, motivation or a pension.
When not needed in war, it can be mothballed in a warehouse.
However, the robot will rely on its human operator, remotely studying footage from its cameras, for the order to open fire.
According to Bob Quinn, a manager with Foster-Miller, the US-based company which worked with the military to develop the robot, the only difference for a soldier is that "his weapon is not at his shoulder, it's up to half a mile away".
Test of metal
The robot fighter has been named Swords, after the acronym for Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems.
It is based on the Talon robot, which is widely used by the military to disarm bombs.
A US officer who helped test the robot said it was a more accurate shot than the average soldier because it is mounted on a stable platform and takes aim electronically.
"It eliminates the majority of shooting errors you have," said Staff Sgt Santiago Tordillos.
Mr Quinn says there are plans to replace the computer screen, joysticks and keypad in the remote-control unit with a Gameboy-style controller and virtual-reality goggles.
The Foster-Miller company is owned by the QinetiQ Group, a joint venture between the UK's Ministry of Defence and US-based holding company, Carlyle Group.
Eighteen of the 1m-high robots, equipped with cameras and operated by remote control, are going to Iraq this spring, the Associated Press reports.
The machine is based on a robot already used by the military to disable bombs.
Officials say the robot warrior is fast, accurate and will track and attack the enemy with relatively little risk to the lives of US soldiers.
Unlike its human counterparts, the armed robot does not require food, clothing, training, motivation or a pension.
When not needed in war, it can be mothballed in a warehouse.
However, the robot will rely on its human operator, remotely studying footage from its cameras, for the order to open fire.
According to Bob Quinn, a manager with Foster-Miller, the US-based company which worked with the military to develop the robot, the only difference for a soldier is that "his weapon is not at his shoulder, it's up to half a mile away".
Test of metal
The robot fighter has been named Swords, after the acronym for Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems.
It is based on the Talon robot, which is widely used by the military to disarm bombs.
A US officer who helped test the robot said it was a more accurate shot than the average soldier because it is mounted on a stable platform and takes aim electronically.
"It eliminates the majority of shooting errors you have," said Staff Sgt Santiago Tordillos.
Mr Quinn says there are plans to replace the computer screen, joysticks and keypad in the remote-control unit with a Gameboy-style controller and virtual-reality goggles.
The Foster-Miller company is owned by the QinetiQ Group, a joint venture between the UK's Ministry of Defence and US-based holding company, Carlyle Group.
Seems like waging war is becoming a simpler thing by the day. For one side, at least. As if it weren't enough having tanks, helicopters and all sorts of modern warfare supplies, now the american troops don't even have to actually be there! Just a half mile away.
Soon enough, people will be able to fight for their countries comfortably at home, not even having to see the enemy in person. A real life, real time video game.
Besides the fact that the new robot troops are really what AI development researches should not be aiming at, this new atribute is also talking away the humanity of the matter.
Quote:
How 'normal folk' can kill
Most soldiers pull the trigger reluctantly; We are both averse to it and predisposed; [MET Edition]
Patrick Evans. Toronto Star. Toronto, Ont.: Aug 14, 2005. pg. D.01
On a perfect summer day at Lake Couchiching, there's talk of killing.
The use of force within and between nations was the theme of this year's Couchiching Summer Conference, and as Canada's Provincial Reconstruction Team gears up to secure and rebuild Afghanistan's Kandahar region, talk of force - and killing - has a grim relevance.
Canadian troops will be moving into territory reputed to be swarming with remnants of the Taliban regime. A new generation of Canadian soldiers could soon learn how it feels to kill somebody.
Peter Bradley, associate chair of the war studies program at Royal Military College, told last week's conference that people carry within them both an aversion to killing and a predisposition for it.
"Almost everyone can be conditioned to kill," he said. "Most of us are averse to it, and will do it only with great reluctance. And we experience great remorse afterward."
Bradley outlined four conditions that enable what he called "normal folk" to kill.
The first condition is distance. "The closer the killer is to the victim, the more resistant the killer will be," he said. "The more the potential killer recognizes the victim's humanity, the more difficult the killing becomes."
This distance can be found both in the physical space between killer and victim, and inside the killer's mind.
In terms of physical space, Bradley cited studies that show that bomber crews that never actually see their enemy experience less remorse after killing than soldiers who fight in close quarters.
Distance from a victim can be achieved psychologically by focusing on an enemy's religious or racial differences. And Bradley added that killing is easier if the killer sees her victim as less than human.
"Examples along this vein include Slobodan Milosevic, who called Bosnian Muslims 'black crows,' and Rwandan Hutu leader Leon Mugusera, who called Tutsis 'cockroaches.'"
The second condition that enables a person to kill, Bradley said, is that a legitimate authority orders it.
"Many veterans report that the primary reason they fired at the enemy is that their officer ordered them to fire. There are many historical accounts from leaders who state they had to continually order their soldiers to fire at the enemy," Bradley said.
The third condition is a moral justification for the killing.
"Soldiers need to be able to believe that the killing they are involved in is not murder," Bradley said.
This is where a warrior code comes into play.
"Because there is such a strong taboo against killing another human, soldiers who are required to kill in turn need a special moral framework which authorizes them to kill and specifies who can be killed, when can they be killed and how they may be killed."
The final condition that enables a person to kill is group pressure.
"Bonds that are created in military units are so strong that individual soldiers are reluctant to let the group down. If there is strong support in the group for killing the enemy and the group is nearby, the individual will feel a strong compulsion to conform to the group pressure to kill," Bradley said.
In this case, the nearness of a soldier to his comrades plays a decisive role. Bradley talked about studies of soldiers fighting in foxholes in World War II that showed "80 to 85 per cent of them did not fire at the enemy when they were not under attack."
But weapons that require a team effort to fire, such as artillery, were fired 100 per cent of the time.
Bradley also described a five-stage reaction to killing that has been observed in soldiers.
The first happens before the kill, when a soldier wonders if he'll be able to pull the trigger.
The second is the kill itself, which Bradley said most soldiers do with reluctance, but find it's over very quickly.
Stage three is a wave of exhilaration immediately afterwards.
Remorse is the fourth stage, which can emerge with reflection on the humanity of the victim.
The final stage is acceptance.
"That can take a lifetime," Bradley said.
"For some, remorse and guilt can never be completely eradicated."
Most soldiers pull the trigger reluctantly; We are both averse to it and predisposed; [MET Edition]
Patrick Evans. Toronto Star. Toronto, Ont.: Aug 14, 2005. pg. D.01
On a perfect summer day at Lake Couchiching, there's talk of killing.
The use of force within and between nations was the theme of this year's Couchiching Summer Conference, and as Canada's Provincial Reconstruction Team gears up to secure and rebuild Afghanistan's Kandahar region, talk of force - and killing - has a grim relevance.
Canadian troops will be moving into territory reputed to be swarming with remnants of the Taliban regime. A new generation of Canadian soldiers could soon learn how it feels to kill somebody.
Peter Bradley, associate chair of the war studies program at Royal Military College, told last week's conference that people carry within them both an aversion to killing and a predisposition for it.
"Almost everyone can be conditioned to kill," he said. "Most of us are averse to it, and will do it only with great reluctance. And we experience great remorse afterward."
Bradley outlined four conditions that enable what he called "normal folk" to kill.
The first condition is distance. "The closer the killer is to the victim, the more resistant the killer will be," he said. "The more the potential killer recognizes the victim's humanity, the more difficult the killing becomes."
This distance can be found both in the physical space between killer and victim, and inside the killer's mind.
In terms of physical space, Bradley cited studies that show that bomber crews that never actually see their enemy experience less remorse after killing than soldiers who fight in close quarters.
Distance from a victim can be achieved psychologically by focusing on an enemy's religious or racial differences. And Bradley added that killing is easier if the killer sees her victim as less than human.
"Examples along this vein include Slobodan Milosevic, who called Bosnian Muslims 'black crows,' and Rwandan Hutu leader Leon Mugusera, who called Tutsis 'cockroaches.'"
The second condition that enables a person to kill, Bradley said, is that a legitimate authority orders it.
"Many veterans report that the primary reason they fired at the enemy is that their officer ordered them to fire. There are many historical accounts from leaders who state they had to continually order their soldiers to fire at the enemy," Bradley said.
The third condition is a moral justification for the killing.
"Soldiers need to be able to believe that the killing they are involved in is not murder," Bradley said.
This is where a warrior code comes into play.
"Because there is such a strong taboo against killing another human, soldiers who are required to kill in turn need a special moral framework which authorizes them to kill and specifies who can be killed, when can they be killed and how they may be killed."
The final condition that enables a person to kill is group pressure.
"Bonds that are created in military units are so strong that individual soldiers are reluctant to let the group down. If there is strong support in the group for killing the enemy and the group is nearby, the individual will feel a strong compulsion to conform to the group pressure to kill," Bradley said.
In this case, the nearness of a soldier to his comrades plays a decisive role. Bradley talked about studies of soldiers fighting in foxholes in World War II that showed "80 to 85 per cent of them did not fire at the enemy when they were not under attack."
But weapons that require a team effort to fire, such as artillery, were fired 100 per cent of the time.
Bradley also described a five-stage reaction to killing that has been observed in soldiers.
The first happens before the kill, when a soldier wonders if he'll be able to pull the trigger.
The second is the kill itself, which Bradley said most soldiers do with reluctance, but find it's over very quickly.
Stage three is a wave of exhilaration immediately afterwards.
Remorse is the fourth stage, which can emerge with reflection on the humanity of the victim.
The final stage is acceptance.
"That can take a lifetime," Bradley said.
"For some, remorse and guilt can never be completely eradicated."
