[Wolfman]

You mean like UAVs? I don't think that will happen in my life time.

[Suska]

If we stick to urban combat, yes

artillery is the reason urban combat is usually fought around rubble

You mean like UAVs? I don't think that will happen in my life time.

UAVs have been fighting for years now

[MB.]

Didn't you post the mecha above, Wolfman?

Anyway I mean like these.

[Wolfman]

artillery is the reason urban combat is usually fought around rubble

A google image search for 'Fallujah, Building, battle' shows these pics:



Amoung others

UAVs have been fighting for years now

They're not going to replace infantry in my life time

Didn't you post the mecha above, Wolfman?

You do know I was being a smart ass about the practicality of a Railgun, don't you? And what you posted wont be a viable alternative to infantry in my lifetime. And I hope it doesn't.

[MB.]

And what you posted wont be a viable alternative to infantry

Robots aren't supposed to be a 'viable alternative'

They're supposed to compliment the infantry.

A google image search for 'Fallujah, Building, battle' shows these pics:

lol? You're basing your case on a poorly phrased google image search?

They're not going to replace infantry in my life time

They're not supposed to

Also, how old are you? I want to determine if these 'in my lifetime' claims are at all accurate or if you've simply depleted your verbiage.

[Wolfman]

They're supposed to compliment the infantry.

Probably wont happen either.

You're basing your case on a poorly phrased google image search

Feel free to post better

They're not supposed to

O Rely?

What if soldiers are replaced by robots wielding railguns?

[MB.]

What if soldiers are replaced by robots wielding railguns?

Sarcasm. Although presumably by the time you can fit railguns and their power and ammunition supplies on robots small enough very well could replace soldiers.

Feel free to post better

Feel free to build a real case.

[Wolfman]

You need to be a little more specific, since there are people who want to replace infantry with robots

[MB.]

since there are people who want to replace infantry with robots

I'm certainly among them.

Anyway...

With Fallujah cordoned by the remaining troops, the assault force struck from the north on 8 November 2004, quickly breaching insurgent defenses and reaching the heart of the city. Although fighting was at times severe, by 12 November, U.S.-Iraqi forces controlled 80% of the city.[13] Combatants and observers recognized a heavier and broader application of firepower. By 10 November, U.S. artillery batteries had fired at least 800 rounds into the city; a frequently cited report claimed 24 sorties were flown over the city on the first day of combat and a total of four 500-pound bombs was dropped.[14]

[Suska]

uav = unmanned aerial vehicle =/= robot

A google image search for 'Fallujah, Building, battle' shows these pics:

Not even to mention the 1700 air sorties 504 cruise missiles were launched during the 2 weeks of the shock and awe phase of the Iraq war. What you're talking about is an assault on a friendly town in a country already under occupation - a police action really.

The problem of robots is that they need to be remotely controlled or preprogrammed. There is no AI. They would need radar to move around obstacles and wouldn't be able to distinguish a coffee cup from a briefcase.

[MB.]

a police action really.

This is a massive understatement with regard to the scale of and significance of the combat in Fallujah.

[Suska]

I was guessing

[Wolfman]

I'm certainly among them.

Make up your mind. Are for or against robot soldiers?

[MB.]

I never said I was opposed to the complete replacement of human soldiers with mechanical ones.
I have to go to work, but

or preprogrammed. There is no AI. They would need radar to move around obstacles and wouldn't be able to distinguish a coffee cup from a briefcase.

As you are surely aware there are other types of sensors robots use (besides RADAR), optics, IR, sound, motion, etc etc. AI is pre-programed. It follows a set of guidelines to reach a particular end state, and given the tools to reach that state, the rest is left to the computer. Robots today can maneuver through rubble, caves, houses, etc and can identify and autonomously destroy objects and people, if so required.

Of course, I hear where you are coming from which is essentially that the machine is only as good as its programmer.

[Suska]

I've been researching possibilities for AI for a decade. I'm still no expert but I can make informed guesses, I have good friends working in AI vision research too who I've talked to about this. What we have now is either remote controlled or unarmed and as far as I can tell that will be the case for decades to come. Computers are blind, unless you want them to shoot anything that moves it just won't work. You need to give them enormous amounts of instruction just to get across town and on top of that a LIDAR system for obstacles and even then they're either gonna be ok with running pedestrians over or they're gonna get twitchy around people, car motion is easier to predict. But anyways, no. We don't even really have the means to thwart jamming or the bandwidth to put many out there. Its a lot farther away than most people think. Robot vision technology is at the stage of head scratching, and from the way it looks to me we'll need strong AI to get the job done and the nearest possibility there looks like quantum computing which is definitely a ways off and still very uncertain.

[Wolfman]

Of course, I hear where you are coming from which is essentially that the machine is only as good as its programmer.

While true, that isn't my complaint with the replacement of humans with robots. It's the casaulties. There are two things that stop countries from going to war over any little thing: monatary cost, and human cost. The economic hit is a small aspect, as can be seen from the War in Iraq (which had no real point, but a huge economic cost). The lose of life is what stops alot of battles and whole wars. The lose of life has ended numerous wars that wouldn't have stopped otherwise. If you take humans out of war fighting, you effectivily end the major reason we don't invade every country that irritates us.

[Suska]

we don't invade every country that irritates us.

actually we do. In fact we go out of our way to annoy other countries until they give us an excuse to invade. Anyway thats a silly reason. War isn't a game.

[Wolfman]

We don't do a full scale invasion. I'm talking about out right invasion with tens of thousands of troops, and what not.

[Suska]

You don't count Iraq x2, Afghanistan and the menacing glares Hilary keeps giving Iran? How about Panama, Vietnam, Korea?

[Wolfman]

1 full scale invasion a generation isn't that bad. Iraq and Afghanistan was the first time since WWII we invaded more then country. And WWII was a different event since they were allies.