Last week at the Army Aviation Symposium, in Arlington, Va., a U.S. Army officer announced that the Army is looking to slim down its personnel numbers and adopt more robots over the coming years. The biggest surprise, though, is the scale of the downsizing the Army might aim for.
At the current rate, the Army is expected to shrink from 540,000 people down to 420,000 by 2019. But at last week's event, Gen. Robert Cone, head of the Army's Training and Doctrine Command, offered some surprising details about the slim-down plans. As Defense News put it, he "quietly dropped a bomb," saying the Army is studying the possibility of reducing the size of a brigade from 4,000 soldiers to 3,000 in the coming years. To keep things just as effective while reducing manpower, the Army will bring in more unmanned power, in the form of robots.
Related: Google's Noisy "BigDog" Robot Fails to Impress U.S. Marine Corps
Related Stories
Google bought robotics company Boston Dynamics a little over two years ago. Now, a potential customer for the hulking "BigDog" quadruped pack mule is balking due to noise concerns:
The US military's flirtation with robotic pack animals looks set to end: the Marine Corps has halted further testing of the BigDog contrivance from Google stablemate Boston Dynamics.
BigDog, aka the Legged Squad Support System, has been under development at a cost of $32m, with the goal of making a four-legged machine capable of carrying 400lb (181kg) of supplies. The final design did just that, but painted a target on the troops it was supporting.
"As Marines were using it, there was the challenge of seeing the potential possibility because of the limitations of the robot itself. They took it as it was: a loud robot that's going to give away their position," Kyle Olson, a spokesman for the Marine's Warfighting Lab, told Military.com.
BigDog's carrying power wasn't disputed, and the robot dealt well with clambering over rough terrain without a human controlling it during the 2014 Rim of the Pacific war games. But the power needed to do all this required a petrol engine, which was so loud that the enemy could hear soldiers approaching before they saw them.
Boston Dynamics did develop a smaller, electric-powered robotic dog called Spot. This was also tried out by the Marines at its massive Quantico base in Virginia, but Spot could only carry 40lb (18kg) of equipment and needed a human to guide it.
Two YouTube videos accompanying the article.
Related: Pentagon Scientists Show Off Robot And Prosthetics
Marines give Google's latest robot a tryout as "working dog"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @12:58PM
Stupid robots are going to ruin the pt test grade curve.
(Score: 2) by Username on Friday February 05 2016, @08:05PM
Maybe for the women.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Gravis on Friday February 05 2016, @01:01PM
they aren't replacing people with robots. they are replacing robots with mindlessly obedient robots. ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @01:53PM
Do these mechanical robots (as opposed to human robots) have penises too?
If yes, then they might be useful for gay people.
If no, then at least they won't want to rape and impregnate the conquered women and girls. Murder will still be an issue.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Phoenix666 on Friday February 05 2016, @02:01PM
So...Windows 10 users, then? :-)
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Friday February 05 2016, @03:14PM
Just wait til the robots convert to Islam!
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 1) by anubi on Saturday February 06 2016, @03:07AM
If the Imam knows computer programming, that could happen!
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @12:27AM
oooh, sick burn on all those stupid veterans! Thin skin suckers never saw that coming. It's not like they've been hearing that same well thought out and mature cut-down over and over for decades from all of us enlightened and intelligent people. I've never heard us civilians working jobs that could be replaced by mindless robots. I mean, we don't have repetitive jobs that require us to sit on our ass in a 2 meter by 2 meter cube and produce code like we're some kind of replaceable cog in a machine.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by CHK6 on Friday February 05 2016, @01:26PM
Someone has to maintain those things when the wear down and break. Then add infrastructure costs with new feature overhauls. This is great news for soft and hard IT professionals. Also great news for defense contractors. In fact really great news for defense contractors. Then add the amount of counter-hackers they will need to prevent the subversion of the robots. The more I think about it, this is a massive windfall for the tech community. Not so much so for the high school graduate looking for a job right after graduation. Because I think the college educated Army officers will be fine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @01:46PM
Sure, until the robots are maintaining each other.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by wonkey_monkey on Friday February 05 2016, @01:52PM
Someone has to maintain those things when the wear down and break.
The wars of the future will not be fought on a battlefield or at sea.
They will be fought in space.
Or possibly on top of a very tall mountain.
In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots.
And as you go forth today, remember always your duty is clear - to build and maintain those robots.
Thank you.
-
-from The Secret War of Lisa Simpson
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 3, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Saturday February 06 2016, @12:04AM
The war of the future will still target enemy lives and critical infrastructure. It will therefore not focus on uninhabited areas.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @02:05PM
You are one militant geek. Anyone responsible for making killing machines needs to take responsibility for the deaths their creation (or its future versions) will cause. It is militants like you who make bombs when there is no threat; who design new ways of killing and maiming people just going about their business; who keep thinking of new, more powerful machines that militaries would buy making you one rich militant geek. No ethics. Shame indeed!
$DIETY protect us from you.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday February 05 2016, @03:05PM
How about Mars/Ares?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by deadstick on Friday February 05 2016, @05:11PM
DIETY...is that about what you eat?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Friday February 05 2016, @01:46PM
When one of your most belligerent enemies has a seemingly inexhaustible supply of brainwashed fanatics determined to die on the battle field and to take you with them, robots are the ideal weapons to use against them.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @01:55PM
Wait until they come up with their own mechanical mindless robots. And of course captured enemy ones. Or do you think it cannot be done?
Or we could solve the cause and stop the invaders from invading more places? Or is that asking for too much?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Immerman on Friday February 05 2016, @06:52PM
But a large part of the cause is that we've been killing innocents and interfering with and deposing legitimate governments for decades in order to further our own business interests in the region. How could we possibly solve that?
I'm only being partialy sarcastic. We could theoretically stop feeding the flames, but its an open question whether the backlash has now gained enough momentum and organization to continue on without the convenient whipping boy of foreign invaders. After all, a big part of the problem is that we're seen to have installed puppet governments, so the closest thing they have to a legitimate government is also a legitimate target. Perhaps if we actually cut their strings they could appease the populace well enough to hamstring further recruitment by the rebels, but there's no guarantee of that. And I doubt or government would be willing to do so even *with* a guarantee. There's also the uncomfortable truth that, historically, when colonial puppet governments are cut loose they usually just continue their abuses for their own profit instead of that of their foreign masters, and very little improves for the people.
I suppose the other option is we could be honest about our intentions, and simply claim the region as a US territory, granting the citizenry the rights and privileges that come with that. It might take a few years, but the benefits *might* win over the populace. Of course doing so would set off a political firestorm among not only the regional powers, but the entire world.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @02:57AM
Sounds like a DMCA violation. No one's going to risk prosecution for that, just to try to win a war.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by wisnoskij on Friday February 05 2016, @02:51PM
Or not. Depending what form these robots actually take. It has already been estimated that in a real all out war, since the weapons they need (that cost less than a hundred dollars) to take out our multi million dollar equipment effectively, when it concerns warfare, mud hut dwelling third world countries are many times richer than the US. All it would take is a concerted effort with some cheap AK 47s, home made bombs, and a few grenade launchers, and infinity replicable free lives to cost the US more than our GNP; And then we lose the war.
America's only weakness in its military is the cost of the equipment it depends upon and the amount of value it puts in the lives of its soldiers. If it believes that it is better to lose a million dollar robot than a human soldier, then it will become very easy to defeat in any long drawn out war of attrition. Human soldiers will remain for a while yet, far more better at waging war than any robot, and they are far easier and cheaper to maintain and most likely will remain far cheaper to create and replace.
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday February 06 2016, @04:35AM
Not only that. I went to back-country Mexico this fall and talked to a guy on a beach over some drinks. A self educated middle aged guy. At some point he said that Mexico is going to have California back. How do you imagine doing this I asked. He said that Americans don't know how to win wars. The only thing they know is how to bomb for awhile, but their soldiers are weak. Then he said that the only good solders in the US army are in fact Mexicans, same as the only good workers in California.
I've heard this idea that the US does not know how to and can not win wars in quite a few places already with different arguments. He was just the very first one who articulated a proposal to take the territory back.
In the hightech area of warfare, many believe that the US does not have an edge as well because their expensive solutions are designed to enrich corporations as opposed to make the army strong and that the US will find it out hard way once it meets a sophisticated adversary. This sounds plausible just by looking at supersonic Russian cruse missiles that make an aircraft carrier a swimming duck or radar jammers that make Russian fighter bombers invisible for a fraction of the stealth tech costs. The conflict does not have to be with Russia either because Russians are happy to sell said rockets to anybody. Vietnam for example has subs with those rockets and they probably have long unsettled issue with aircraft carriers.
I am not saying that Vietnam or Mexico will fight the US. What I am saying is that a rather small country can and that the progress in technology makes it easier to win a war with the US. Probably even a "well organized militia" could probably have a successful fight with the government these days if it is willing to do all out no restrictions warfare.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Friday February 05 2016, @04:21PM
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the cruelty and mercilessness with which the innocent bystand—er - terrorists in those countries are treated/killed.
Surely, a robot controlled remotely with the operator having no context outside the scope of his camera will have much greater inclinations to mercy.
I sense real-life Ender's Games coming. "We're going to stop the live camera feeds and replace it with an easier-to-use 3D interface - it'll look just like a video game! Oh, you shot a kid? Lost 100 points! But if you complete the missi—er, level without taking damage you get 1000 bonus points and an extra $500!! What do you mean war crimes? There were no witnesses there! This was a computer simulation and nothing else."
(Score: 2) by turgid on Friday February 05 2016, @05:22PM
How many suicide bombers would be willing to blow themselves up to disable a robot? Think about it.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @06:11PM
Honestly, I can't fathom the motivation of a suicide bomber, so I really can't begin to guess. But, put in the terms, "disable a robot", I would guess very few. But to, "defend our lands from their mechanical abominations!" probably more than you might think.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday February 05 2016, @05:53PM
Cubs fans? Your idea has great merit and deserves full funding.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @01:50PM
In the future we'll have to be careful of the cheap Russian sex-bots that are repurposed old surplus Military bots. Talk about Fem-Fatal.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Phoenix666 on Friday February 05 2016, @01:59PM
Beware the robotic vaginas [soylentnews.org]?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @04:14PM
In Soviet Russia, sexbot screws YOU!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Friday February 05 2016, @03:04PM
Look how much manpower shrank with artillery, armored warfare, radio, computers...
Oh wait it didn't.
Army runs like an empire where you control as many underlings as reasonably possible under battle field conditions. If you had more people you'd theoretically be more lethal but it would be harder to control and organize them. If you had less people you'd be less lethal and be wiped out by an opponent with more people.
So naturally you'll end up with robot equipped 4000 person brigades that are more lethal than 4000 person non-robot brigades.
There is a stealth system where you have 2000 soldiers and 2000 private contractors and depending on who you're talking to and what you're talking about, you either have 2000 soldiers or 4000 people. Some of the maintenance of robots will probably be done by civvie contractors. Not just high level PHD stuff but also low level like outsourced food prep and outsourced truck drivers.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday February 05 2016, @04:01PM
I don't wanna go to war!
*puts daisy in mouth*
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Bobs on Friday February 05 2016, @04:19PM
Want to make “a million dollars?"
How much do you think someone will pay for a 0-day hack for the army’s robots?
What would be the easiest way to win (asymmetric) warfare with the US?
1) Co-opt the military robots, or
2) Disable the military robots during an attack.
Subverting our bots will be a whole lot easier and cheaper than building a nuke or a navy or ….
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Friday February 05 2016, @04:35PM
Just wait until the Chi-Coms figure out how to take control of these, and suddenly turn ten thousand killing machines on behind our front lines. If into this future we go, only pain will we find.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Funny) by BK on Friday February 05 2016, @04:57PM
Well obviously we don't want that. We'll make them answerable only to some central command and control network with uplink to satellites... in the sky...
We can call it SkyNet.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday February 05 2016, @07:53PM
This isn't for use against foreign enemies. This is to ensure the loyalty of the army in case of domestic disturbances.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by deadstick on Friday February 05 2016, @05:13PM
...is Isaac Asimov rolling over in his grave.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Saturday February 06 2016, @12:16AM
In other news: New, clean power supply detected
Scientists of the MIT surrounded the grave of Isaac Asimov with static magnets and wrapped his body in hundreds of thin layers of wire. Resulting energy will be sufficient to supply New York with free electricity.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Saturday February 06 2016, @01:22AM
Oblig : http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2429 [smbc-comics.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @05:42PM
Support the troops. Show them you're patriotic! Obey your robotic overlords...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday February 05 2016, @05:50PM
Give a human an order that is immoral or illegal and there is a chance they will refuse. This is not the case with a robot.
The main thing a recruit goes through in boot camp is intense mental and psychological reconditioning, brainwashing really, that will turn a normal person with a sense of morals and a cultural inhibition against killing other people into someone who will kill on command. Anyone thinking about joining the military should keep that in mind, you will be turned into a killer first, then you'll get trained in all those job skills they promise in the recruitment adds. The thing the military hates is that over time the conditioning wears off a bit, and if the soldiers are ordered to do something that is just too immoral, like kill a village filled with unarmed women, children and elderly, or fire on citizens of their own nation if they are rebelling against the government, there is a real chance that the soldiers will refuse.
A robot on the other hand will do exactly what its told to, including suppress anti-war demonstrations. Remember that guy in Tienanmen Square who stopped the tanks? That was because there was a human who didn't want to kill at the tank's controls. If it had been a robot tank that guy would have been flattened.
Another concern is that war will become to easy. One of the main things that prevents wars is the fact that people will die, and when citizens are burying their family members in droves popular support for a war evaporates really fast and they will want to remove those running the government so the war can end. Not a problem with a robot, once you have robot warriors you can start as many wars as you want and not have to worry about if its popular at home anymore, and even if it isn't who cares? Its not like the public could do anything about it now that you have robots who will enforce your will, even if what you want is immoral, illegal or unethical.
If the US Military actually starts to deploy these things the people of the USA better have a revolution asap, because once there are enough bots protecting the Elite the common citizen won't stand much of a chance.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday February 05 2016, @06:34PM
There are some fundamental errors in your argument. You are assuming that these robots will be autonomous. Note that the "robots" that we are talking about here are mechanical devices that are remotely controlled by real people. The Tienanmen Square demonstration need not have ended with a squished person even, if the tank was a robot. Now, assuming, full on Skynet / iRobot kind of AI. Sure, you could end up with some serious issues, but that would put responsibility of the robot's actions higher up the food chain. You're also assuming a Whole Lot when you assume we are even remotely close to a suitable AI. Robots as we are talking about are nothing more than tools. Would you rather be a grunt headed to a Normandy Beach on D-Day or a robot "pilot/driver/?" helping to send in a first wave of robots? War is terrible, but there are times when it is necessary. When those times come, I would be much happier sending in waves of robots to help reduce the loss of lives on our side. You think your enemies wouldn't do the same, if they have the same opportunity?
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @07:06PM
His second assumption is that in a real war there is such thing as "immoral or illegal".
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/132/pg132-images.html [gutenberg.org]
If you go in with the idea that some things are off limits you can have those very things used against you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @03:45AM
If you establish an international consensus that some things, e.g., poison gases and germ warfare, are off limits, you can appeal to the international community when those things are used against you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Saturday February 06 2016, @07:25AM
When I mentioned illegal and immoral actions I was not just referring to the Geneva Conventions which ban the use of chemical, biological and weapons specifically designed to cripple (you can make a LASER specifically designed to kill but not to just blind, twisted right?), I was referring to situations where military personal are ordered to fire on unarmed, non hostile citizens of their own country. A US soldier take an oath to protect the citizens from all threats, foreign and domestic, a US service person who is ordered to fire on a group of unarmed college students has the responsibility to refuse to carry out that order. Sadly that doesn't always happen, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings [wikipedia.org]
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @03:39AM
There were allegations that a few soldiers opened fire at Tienanmen Square and other places during the protests of 1989. Whatever the reason, the demonstrations ended, didn't they?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/chinese-newspaper-cites-wikileaks-tiananmen-massacre-a-myth/2011/07/14/gIQAhF1MEI_blog.html [washingtonpost.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/12/world/turmoil-in-china-student-tells-the-tiananmen-story-and-then-machine-guns-erupted.html [nytimes.com]
A few well-armed soldiers with a certain mentality can be highly effective against ordinary people.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Saturday February 06 2016, @07:09AM
I was not attempting to make an argument, I was simply expressing my concerns.
You made several very good points in your comments but while it is true that the current generation of "warbots" or what ever you want to call them are nothing more than ROVs you fail to take into account that the Military will at some point start using AI to operate them, and then you have exactly the scenario that I mentioned; the ruling Elite in command of an army that will do what ever they are told, like shoot some citizens peacefully demonstrating against the government. Also your comment about being a grunt or drone pilot validates my concern about how war will become too easy, people wont care if their government has invaded another country because the only casualties will be among "Them". and even more innocent civilians will die for reasons that have nothing to do with them. You may be happier with the idea of sending waves of robots to fight a war but I would be much happier with not having a war in the first place.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday February 07 2016, @05:54AM
man that's the biggest load of shit i've heard in a long time, spoken by somebody who has no idea what he's talking about.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @06:31PM
How much would a subscription to call of duty cost, if played in first person from the perspective of a drone in real life?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday February 05 2016, @07:24PM
We need to make sure all of our killbots have a pre-set kill limit, so that they can be defeated by Zapp Brannigan sending wave after wave of his own men at them.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin