
US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots - kjhughes
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140120/DEFREG02/301200035/US-Army-Studying-Replacing-Thousands-Grunts-Robots
======
ChuckMcM
Its not surprising, having a quadcopter type drone with a video link back to
the squad for doing down range recon is a huge force multiplier. The challenge
of course is batteries.

Soldiers are powered by eating organics, potentially very light weight
organics rehydrated with locally available water. They can carry several days
worth of rations and be operationally effective for nearly 24/7 of those days.

There is no robot on the planet yet which has a battery that will last on
'standby' for multiple days, allow it to engage in active service for several
hours each of those days. The weight kills you. It slows you down.

Two technologies "win" in the military space. Just enough tech and weight to
increase down range lethality over the existing system, and tech which doesn't
have to be carried so can be called in remotely.

~~~
downer83
Yeah, but this puts us closer than ever to the brink of a nuclear exchange.

For the purposes of a thought experiment, consider the false dichotomy of
"America" and "NotAmerica" as two hypothetical opposing forces, where America
has nukes and killer robots and NotAmerica has only nukes.

If you find yourself living in NotAmerica, your motivation to pre-emptively
nuke America, simply to avoid the threat of a horrific death dispensed by
killer robots, presents itself as an absurdly simple choice. Even if it means
suicide.

~~~
ChuckMcM
As I am sure you know John, nuclear policy is a bit more nuanced than that. It
is completely valid that by having a nuclear arsenal that can destroy any
nation, a nation does not need to have a standing army that can repel an
invasion (after all if you invaded, you're home country would get
obliterated).

The discussion referenced by Defense News though is policy around the
deployment of Squad and Battalion level forces which are typically engaged in
situations where either the nation-state isn't the target (say Somali pirates,
of Afghan warlords), and/or the goal is incompatible with mass destruction.

Your hypothetical suicide inference leaves out the choice of compliance. One
could look at a place like NotAmerica' where no one is at risk of horrific
death due to killer robots, versus NotAmerica where death by remote action is
a more common occurrence, and look at what is different between the two
places. In all the theaters of the world today it's pretty clear what action
would completely remove that threat of horrific death. (hint: it isn't going
to America and blowing yourself up.)

~~~
downer83
The funny thing about policy wonks is that they believe policy, diplomacy and
international law are the only way things get resolved, even amidst the state
of nature that persists between international actors.

The reason stock markets have black swans is because legal transactions can
never account for illegal activity. Sure, you can buy replacement insurance
against theft, but you cannot actually build theft into an accounting model.
Stock markets, as social laboratories of economic exchange, will always have
crashes because there are black markets that operate behind them in secrecy.
Certain companies might befall "unfortunate accidents" and whoopsie daisy! How
did that happen?

Consider the question: How interested are you in being arrested and imprisoned
by a robotic civilian police officer?

~~~
georgemcbay
"Consider the question: How interested are you in being arrested and
imprisoned by a robotic civilian police officer?"

Basically exactly the same as I'm interested in being arrested and imprisoned
by a meat-cop.

And the robocop might win just based on the fact that he's less likely to have
a "respect mah authoritai" chip on his shoulder that results in me being tazed
or shot for no good reason.

~~~
downer83
When your accusers are provided the luxury of never having to face you, how
confident are you that "the law" will be carried out fairly, and that the
"laws" themselves will not be arbitrary? Just as confident as you are now of
the law?

This is about power differential. Imbalances of power contribute to
instability. The kinds of power discussed in this equation are vast, and not
to be trifled with. Errors made with the toys of modern warfare can be
unforgiving to the point that submarine personnel might be the only survivors.

When you scale up conflict beyond the individual concept of arrest and
imprisonment, there is a volatility to open warfare that is whithering, when
compared to civil society. If you're that eager to thwart some cops in their
activities, then vote a draft into law, advocate mandatory military service
and then go rob a bank and shoot some tellers while you're at it. I dare you.

~~~
georgemcbay
"Just as confident as you are now of the law?"

Well, yes. But that's primarily because I am not currently confident in the
law.

~~~
downer83
Which is worse?

A robotic crime wave, or a human crime wave?

A robotic miscarriage of justice, or a human miscarriage of justice?

I think, in both situations, the two are not equivalent, and the robotic
version is not only worse, but carries the potential of total devastation. But
maybe I'm chicken little.

------
kposehn
Interesting.

The part that piqued my interest most is that weight is a huge factor in
efficiency for the military (kind of surprised I didn't think of that before).

By replacing 25% of a brigade with robots, the army could substantially reduce
weight without a commensurate decrease in battlefield effectiveness. This
would lower fuel costs, increase combat readiness (fewer people to drill) and
make time-to-battlefield far shorter.

I would think that in the tooth-to-tail equation, robots have a substantial
place at both sides. As the saying goes, “Amateurs think about tactics, but
professionals think about logistics.” (General Robert H. Barrow, USMC) and
making the logistics chain more effective could translate into an overwhelming
advantage.

~~~
TrainedMonkey
Because robot do not need fuel, maintenance, or spare parts.

If you replace 25% of brigade with robots, you will need to add 2-3% of
personnel minimum for maintenance of those robots. And that is before spare
parts and supplies. And you definitely need to train people to work together
with robots, so I think drilling time will actually go up.

So while, there will be reduction and weight and potentially highly increased
performance, I do not think it will be pronounced in first few generations.

~~~
JonnieCache
Now there is an interesting possible future: the american empire is brought
low by a massive investment in robotic soldiers from the same contractors that
brought you healthcare.gov and the veterans disability payments system.

------
NAFV_P
A long quote from the article:

 _It’s hard to see such a radical change to the makeup of the brigage combat
team as anything else than a budget move, borne out of the necessity of
cutting the personnel costs that eat up almost half of the service’s total
budget.

Cone used the Navy as an example of what the Army is trying to do.

“When you see the success, frankly, that the Navy has had in terms of lowering
the numbers of people on ships, are there functions in the brigade that we
could automate — robots or manned/unmanned teaming — and lower the number of
people that are involved given the fact that people are our major cost,” he
said._

If the army goes down this route, it will still have a high cost of personnel.
It will require engineers and programmers to build and maintain these systems,
and many of these personnel will be required to work on the front line.

Well, a ship has a decent power supply. The Nimitz run on nuclear reactors
that keep them going for months. A factor in their success is their sheer
size, boasting a displacement of 92,000 tons.

------
pmorici
Sounds like they are talking about automating supply chain convoys.
Robotization of the military is kind of a mixed bag. One one hand it is great
if it makes for a more cost efficient and effective military. On the other
hand if it sanitizes the costs of war in the eyes of the public (does anyone
care when a drone gets shot down?) or just funnels more money to beltway
bandits then we'd be better off w/o it.

~~~
krapp
It could be argued that advances in the technology of warfare _have_ sanitized
war to a degree, as well as made combat more survivable, than in the past.
Surely the more machines and fewer humans the better?

~~~
eropple
Fewer humans and more survivability on one, predominantly aggressive, side. I
don't think that's necessarily a plus.

~~~
krapp
It is if you're on the side with the robots.

~~~
PavlovsCat
Please tell me you were being sarcastic :(

What's the upside of being "on the side" of an entity of even less hesitation
of engaging in aggressive warfare? That's like saying making it easier to beat
up kids and take their lunch money is a plus, as long as you're the one doing
it - and that's the mildest example I could think of, to keep this as nice and
friendly as possible.

How long will it take until other major and minor powers have them, too? Then
that advantage shrinks or even disappears, yet the robots remain. How long
until they get turned on citizens? What leg would you have to stand on,
morally, if you justify wars of aggression by (thinking you're) profiting from
them? If it was profitable to crush dissent with robots, none.

This idea of "sides" is very flawed, too. Are US citizens on the side of those
who lead them into wars, or do these wars more and more mean profit to a very
small subset to them, and huge costs to the rest? Here's a thought, if you
post on HN, you're by definition not part of the group who would stand to gain
by such things. HN may represent a elite in comparison with other groups, but
in comparison with actual elites it still represents peons.

Last, but not least: what if you're "on the side of humans", and don't buy
into the whole nationality stuff in the first place?

~~~
krapp
I was being sarcastic. However your points are worth stirring the pot over.

>What's the upside of being "on the side" of an entity of even less hesitation
of engaging in aggressive warfare?

It would be preferable not to engage in aggressive warfare. But it's also
preferable not to be the one who ends up dead from it.

>That's like saying making it easier to beat up kids and take their lunch
money is a plus, as long as you're the one doing it - and that's the mildest
example I could think of, to keep this as nice and friendly as possible.

You're correct. That's exactly what I think it's like. It's not fair and it's
not just.

>This idea of "sides" is very flawed, too. Are US citizens on the side of
those who lead them into wars, or do these wars more and more mean profit to a
very small subset to them, and huge costs to the rest?

Americans are by no means the only militaristic nationalists around. And this
is a complex question. But it's worth pointing out that those two things are
not mutually exclusive.

>what if you're "on the side of humans", and don't buy into the whole
nationality stuff in the first place?

If you're born into a nation, and into the systems which brought it into
being, and you derive benefits from it - food, education, language, culture -
then I believe you are to a degree a paricipant in or benefactor of the crimes
which made those benefits possible. They were done on your behalf whether you
like it or not. "Gain" from warfare can be a subtle thing, and can be doled
out across generations, even millennia.

I think you can put yourself beyond nationalism if you wish, and doing so is
understandable in a post-Internet age. But I don't believe that puts you above
it. You are a product of the industries of slavery, barbarism, greed and
genocide, as am I, as is every human being. Before nations, people slaughtered
one another in the name of their tribe, or their clan, or their family, or
gods. We are all of us standing atop a pile of bones simply by virtue of
birth... it's just that some piles are bigger than others.

~~~
PavlovsCat
I feel a bit silly now, I really thought you might have meant it seriously and
with a straight face. But I guess there are those who _would_ say it with a
straight face, so I'm glad we can have this discussion anyway.

> It would be preferable not to engage in aggressive warfare. But it's also
> preferable not to be the one who ends up dead from it.

So far, since the end of the cold war, the US is waging war on much weaker
enemies, not any who pose an actual threat to its existence. And I think even
conquering any and all potential threats will inevitably mean turning onto its
own citizens, too, I believe. I mean, even more so than that is already the
case.

And China for example will rise either way, a military defense against
aggression might be unrealistic; however, there is also culture, and being
worth more as an ally than a conquered territory. More importantly, there is
democracy; not yet in China, heck, not yet hardly anywhere, but in theory. And
people in general don't like war, it's the elites that use them as
cannonfodders and bill payers in them who do. Not being hateworthy seems less
risky than trying to win all the time and constantly increasing the stakes.
But sadly I think the US is very used to being aggressive, and assumes
everybody else is, too, that only American power keeps them in check. I don't
think this is true.

> Americans are by no means the only militaristic nationalists around

Of course they're not, but we're talking about the US military on an american
website. And the US, at least for the time being, is the top dog. The path the
US takes is very important to me because of that, I do think it trickles down
to everybody else to a degree, or at least makes it harder to achieve some
progress and sanity in other countries.

> it's worth pointing out that those two things are not mutually exclusive.

I disagree, though I guess it's hard to know for sure, because how would we
measure it? Still, I think when a nation wages war, the citizens get to
shoulder _all_ the costs (or debt, in the case of the US), but they don't get
a comparable share in the profits. And I don't think that share outweighs the
costs to them, either.

> If you're born into a nation, and into the systems which brought it into
> being, and you derive benefits from it - food, education, language, culture
> - then I believe you are to a degree a paricipant in or benefactor of the
> crimes which made those benefits possible. They were done on your behalf
> whether you like it or not.

Of course. But I also derive a lot of benefit of things people in general are
doing. By "not buying into nations" I meant I don't feel pride in "my"
country, just like I don't feel pride in what another right-hander, or male,
or member of any other group I could be said to "belong to", is doing. War
does live off this spectator sports mentality, and I just don't feel it. It
has nothing to do with the internet, at least for me, though I hope it can
help that process along. Nations are a way to organize things on a certain
scale, but no more. They are not holy or special, they are arbitrary.

> I think you can put yourself beyond nationalism if you wish, and doing so is
> understandable in a post-Internet age. But I don't believe that puts you
> above it. You are a product of the industries of slavery, barbarism, greed
> and genocide, as am I, as is every human being. Before nations, people
> slaughtered one another in the name of their tribe, or their clan, or their
> family, or gods. We are all of us standing atop a pile of bones simply by
> virtue of birth... it's just that some piles are bigger than others.

Sure, but I think we have long since reached a point where the drawbacks of
constant warfare and greed are bigger than the benefits of co-operation,
though I can not really prove it. One thing is true for sure though, co-
operation is _also_ as old as history; if parents and children fought each
other over food, we wouldn't exist. We're not _just_ products of exploitation
and slaughter, not by a long shot. And whatever put us here, now we are here:
with an ability to think and make choices.

I actually don't think humans always slaughtered each other whenever they
could and derived some benefit from it. That is, scarcity makes us do that,
and nowadays I feel this scarcity is also artificially created, even more so
going forward. Greed also creates scarcity: if one is greedy enough, they will
not ever be satisfied, even ruling the whole universe. That way lies at best
despair, at worst disaster - so why not look for a better way to spend the
time until the heat death? Yes, I'm an idealist. I believe in striving for
something worthwhile more than adapting myself to what I found, and leaving it
behind the way I found it.

I like to believe this is true:

 _[Humans] have been genetically programmed through hunting behavior:
cooperation and sharing. Cooperation between members of the same band was a
practical necessity for most hunting societies; so was the sharing of food.
Since meat is perishable in most climates except that of the Arctic, it could
not be preserved. Luck in hunting was not equally divided among all hunters;
hence the practical outcome was that those who had luck today would share
their food with those who would be lucky tomorrow. Assuming hunting behavior
led to genetic changes, the conclusion would be that modern man has an innate
impulse for cooperation and sharing, rather than for killing and cruelty._

Erich Fromm, "The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness"

------
joe_the_user
It sounds like they want to shrink the size of a brigade and say they've
replaced the soldiers by robot but actually they'll just be shrinking (Edit:
It's not like I'd contest the decision to shrink brigade size. The main thing
is the claim this will be replacing soldiers with robots, seems like just
overly bold PR.).

Unless there were a whole lot of articles on robots working outside of rather
specialized situations like defusing bombs (where I think a lot of the
operation involve remote control activity, not autonomous activity).

~~~
Spooky23
After a decade at war, you need to wind things down and consolidate to get rid
of the waste that's accumulated.

The Army probably has all sorts of problems because they weren't prepared for
urban warfare in 2001, and they got prepared by welding armor to everything
that they have. Humvees and trucks with an extra ton of armor lose at least
that much cargo capacity.

------
cinquemb
Kind of interesting that there wasn't a head nod to potential attack surfaces
opened with using robots in the article or comments here so far. It was the
first thing I thought about before reading the article.

Makes you wonder especially in the 21st century urban combat where someone on
some rooftop out of view (or across the world) could exploit/take over such
machines and that force multiplier will starting to not look like one. But
also seeing the trend of armies facing off people of the general populace
(regardless of their "enemy combatant" status) and not other standing armies
in general, I wouldn't say I'm bothered by the studies/movement in this
direction, I might even welcome it.

~~~
TrainedMonkey
I do not think that is a real possibility unless there is a deliberate
sabotage or engineering control interface left open. I mean tanks, planes, and
drones already contain large amount of "hackable" hardware. Has not happened
yet.

~~~
jrochkind1
How confident are you that it hasn't happened yet? I'm not sure we have had
the opportunity to find out if it's happened yet, yet.

~~~
cinquemb
Well only a casual peruse[0][1][2] tells me that I'm confident that it has
happened on multiple occasions, has been reported on by media (at least for
drones) to some degree, and that we most likely that haven't had the
opportunity to see how far down the rabbit hole this can go.

[0]:
[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=drones+are+hackable](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=drones+are+hackable)

[1]: [http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/drone-virus-kept-
qui...](http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/drone-virus-kept-quiet/)

[2]: [http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/19/aerial-drones-
vulne...](http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/19/aerial-drones-vulnerable-
to-being-hacked-congress-told/)

------
wildgift
Mobile car bombs? Is that what these are, ultimately?

~~~
krapp
I didn't read that in the article anywhere...

------
tomphoolery
Wow, surprising. Wasn't really expecting the clone wars to happen during my
lifetime. ;)

