
A Soldier’s Eye in the Sky - robg
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/business/12combat.html?pagewanted=all
======
avner
Having seen combat and being exposed to some of these bots as a soldier in the
recent past, I can confidently say that the mobility and situational awareness
provided by some of these bots superlatively increases the operating
effectiveness of a platoon. There was an instance when we were handed "maps"
of an AO before an operation and to my surprise the maps were nothing more
than hand drawn topo details, with rather miniscule details of the area
itself. All this when the bad guys were using google maps to coordinate their
own operations!

Months later, we inducted a mobile UAV into the platoon and I still, to this
day think about the number of times it saved us from certain trouble.

Today, as I work on autonomous military bots as an engineer I can only
appreciate the effort that goes into building these things. Occupancy grid
mapping in a noisy environment of a battlefield being one the most challenging
aspects of making these bots.

~~~
jgrahamc
Thanks for sharing that. I'm intrigued by your wording "we inducated a mobile
UAV into the platoon". I've long thought that battlefield robots (especially
those that have some sort of autonomy) would be considered almost humans by
the flesh and blood troops along with them.

Sounds very cool to be working on military bots.

------
trafficlight
I know this article isn't specifically about this, but it's something I've
been thinking about for a while now.

I strongly disagree with the use UAVs like the Predator and the Reaper. They
detach the operators from the very traumatic act of killing another human
being. Military Brass will argue that it makes war safer. That's a fucking
insane statement to make.

I'm not sure where I'm even going with this, but I wish more people would
really consider the repercussions of such technologies.

~~~
robotrout
A lot of bomber pilots feel the weight of their actions, even though they are
also physically detached from the killing area.

Even squeezing the trigger on a gun and seeing a guy fall to the ground is a
detached experience.

Any weapon besides a knife provides detachment, because you don't see the face
and pain of the person you're killing.

There were terrible, bloody wars where the majority of the killing was with
axes, knives, and swords. Not having weapons that allowed detachment didn't
stop them.

Feeling the weight of your actions is about the man, not the weapon, I think.

~~~
trafficlight
But even in a bomber you are still in the situation. You out there flying.
With a UAV, you can get up go to the bathroom or walk down the hall and grab a
Coke out of the vending machine.

~~~
robotrout
I fail to see your point. I assume you feel that since the soldier is not
physically inconvenienced or in personal danger, that he is more likely to
make inappropriate kill decisions. In my opinion, exhaustion and fear are the
enemies of good decision making. Your guy with the can of coke doesn't fire
blindly because he's terrified. He doesn't fire on his own men because he's
too tired to see they're friendly.

Whether he "gets off" on firing on random targets, is a problem with the man,
not the technology. Such a man would be a menace anywhere he was, even without
the can of coke.

