Sadistic Bastard
No Mercy
DARPA's little "automated delivery vehicles".
S.W.O.R.D.S, aka a "minesweeping" robot modified with a machine gun.
UAV's. "Reaper", and the X-45...
Yes, the remote control weapon's platform is here, reality, and killing people NOW. Given the USA's sensitivity to losses, it was logical that we'd develop ways of getting weapons into tight areas without risking personnel. Given what we pay to train even an infantryman now adays, it even makes economic sense to risk a $100,000 robot vs a grunt. Plus, robots are cheaper to repair.
However, I've been reading up on a new proposal for an "escort" version of a UAV. Basically, a constellation of UAV's accompany a manned strike aircraft, protecting it and acting as extra weapons platforms. The really interesting part is that some of the UAV's would be be "leaders", going into a target area in advance of the manned strike, with their own, ON BOARD targeting criteria (usually AAA, SAM's or their associated radars). Since the manned aircraft is behind, and may or may not be able to act as a communications relay, and because satellite is jammable in some cases, the computers on the un-manned aircraft would have a list of things to look for to drop a bomb on. Again, at this level it's all logical. "Look for something that looks like a missile launcher, radar station, anti-aircraft gun, OR is radiating at these frequencies, and drop a bomb on it".
How long, however, before we have a situation where we change the parameters?
How long before a mission is either too dangerous or too low-priority to bother with a manned or remote presence at all?
"This valley's full of bad guys, anything in X area, destroy it".
If you bomb a school, there's no malice. It's just a programming error...no one is responsible.
It supposedly takes a lot of time to train someone to kill someone they don't really know. Now you don't even need to bother with that.
Chilling.
-SB
S.W.O.R.D.S, aka a "minesweeping" robot modified with a machine gun.
UAV's. "Reaper", and the X-45...
Yes, the remote control weapon's platform is here, reality, and killing people NOW. Given the USA's sensitivity to losses, it was logical that we'd develop ways of getting weapons into tight areas without risking personnel. Given what we pay to train even an infantryman now adays, it even makes economic sense to risk a $100,000 robot vs a grunt. Plus, robots are cheaper to repair.
However, I've been reading up on a new proposal for an "escort" version of a UAV. Basically, a constellation of UAV's accompany a manned strike aircraft, protecting it and acting as extra weapons platforms. The really interesting part is that some of the UAV's would be be "leaders", going into a target area in advance of the manned strike, with their own, ON BOARD targeting criteria (usually AAA, SAM's or their associated radars). Since the manned aircraft is behind, and may or may not be able to act as a communications relay, and because satellite is jammable in some cases, the computers on the un-manned aircraft would have a list of things to look for to drop a bomb on. Again, at this level it's all logical. "Look for something that looks like a missile launcher, radar station, anti-aircraft gun, OR is radiating at these frequencies, and drop a bomb on it".
How long, however, before we have a situation where we change the parameters?
How long before a mission is either too dangerous or too low-priority to bother with a manned or remote presence at all?
"This valley's full of bad guys, anything in X area, destroy it".
If you bomb a school, there's no malice. It's just a programming error...no one is responsible.
It supposedly takes a lot of time to train someone to kill someone they don't really know. Now you don't even need to bother with that.
Chilling.
-SB
