Robotic War Ships

From Wired.

The Navy has just released its "Master Plan" for robotic ships -- "unmanned surface vessels," in sailor-speak.The idea is to produce a whole bunch of these USVs, to help fight "the Global War on Terror, Irregular Warfare, and conventional campaigns." And to give guns to as many of these sea-bots as possible.

The Navy wants to develop four main classes of USVs. Three of them would be armed.

The three-meter long "X-Class" machines would be for "low-end" snooping and reconnaissance; like a robotic jet ski, with a camera attached.

The "Harbor Class" would be based on the Navy's seven meter long rigid-hulled inflatable boats, or RIBs. These unmanned Zodiacs would be used for dropping mine countermeasures, and fending off boat-borne bad guys with a mix of "lethal and non-lethal armament."

The "Snorkeler Class" is a stealthy, seven-meter submersible that would stay in the water for up to a day at a time, towing mine- and sub-finding-gear -- and maybe even carrying a torpedo or two.

Lastly, there's the "Fleet Class," capable of staying in the water for 48 hours straight, and reaching speeds of up to 35 knots. The eleven-meter long USV would be used to do everything from carrying commandos to shore, jamming enemy communications, neutralizing mines, and delivering a "Harbor Class" drone. Naturally, it would carry its own guns and torpedoes, too, so it could conduct 'high end' surface warfare missions."

Along with the autonomous aircraft and land vehicles planned, the Pentagon can run a whole war, right from their desks.
This scares the hell out of me.

At one time I worried about the professional army, and these robot weapons, carrying on secret wars without our knowing. But the internet has pretty much killed that worry... we'd know.

The worry that hasn't abated, is they will be used on us.

xoxoxoBruce;393840 wrote:

The worry that hasn't abated, is they will be used on us.

Some people subscribe to the "if it's only used on the bad guys then we have nothing to worry about" - but the problem is, what if you find yourself, one day, defined as one of the bad guys? Things like government spying tools (and robot armies) don't just go away when different politicians get elected; when different laws, that you may or may not agree with, get passed, and you find that you can't even hide in the sanctuary of your own home and do what you want.

I thought the Terminator was a fictional piece? I see it coming down the road in blue jeans and a cowboy hat.

"And when they grab you with their metal claws, you can't break free. Because they're robots, and they're made of metal."

[youtube]xVnkd7ot_pw[/youtube]

Clodfobble;393874 wrote:

"And when they grab you with their metal claws, you can't break free. Because they're robots, and they're made of metal."

...and robots are strong."

Mr.Show wrote:

Here's a simple test to determine if your child is a robot - hit him in the head with a hammer.

Autonomous killing machines.
And there were those who complain about contractors and non-military targets. Computers have poor judgment at best when making self determining decisions , and giving them the power of life and death is an overstretched delegation of power. Furthermore, human life is far too precises not to be taken without remorse.
This will end well, just like the movies.

mem;396093 wrote:

Autonomous killing machines.
And there were those who complain about contractors and non-military targets. Computers have poor judgment at best when making self determining decisions , and giving them the power of life and death is an overstretched delegation of power. Furthermore, human life is far too precises not to be taken without remorse.
This will end well, just like the movies.

Welcome to the Cellar, Mem!

I am also worried about this issue. Haven't these fools seen any science fiction movies? The robots always turn on us. Why the hell are we arming them?

But seriously, malfunction, mis-identification, poor programming ... there is so much that can go wrong.
I guess the appeal is the hope that there will be fewer flag-draped coffins. But the other side is that pollies will find it easier to go to war.

ZenGum;396283 wrote:

But seriously, malfunction, mis-identification, poor programming ... there is so much that can go wrong.

Even when they are programmed well, operator error will always sneak in.

From today's Washington Post:

[SIZE="4"]NTSB Cites Lax Safety Controls, Pilot Error in Ariz. Drone Crash
[/SIZE]
By Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 17, 2007; Page A05

Sophisticated computer systems on a 10,000-pound unmanned drone were no match for its pilot's failure to follow a checklist when confronted with a computer glitch.

The mistake set off a chain of events that led the $6.5 million Predator-B to smash into the Arizona desert near Nogales, Ariz., the National Transportation Safety Board concluded yesterday. The NTSB also cited poor oversight by Customs and Border Protection officials as a factor in the April 2006 crash.

It was the first accident involving an unmanned vehicle that the NTSB investigated, and board members said they hoped their findings would prod government officials and the industry to regulate the growing use of drones in civil airspace.

The sky is falling... it really is.

Where's Undertoad to tell us that everything will just sort of work itself out somehow...move it along folks...nothing more to see here?

glatt;396293 wrote:

Even when they are programmed well, operator error will always sneak in.

Worse, these unmanned ships aren't drones (which have operators back at base) but rather are autonomous. They make their own decisions, without a human in the loop. Which, when they also have firepower, gives a whole new level of meaning to "the blue screen of death".

It also occurs to me, that they'd make great scapegoats for when things go wrong. "A military spokesman acknowledged the deaths of the 800 civilians, but explained that it was due to a series of mis-identifications by battle-bots. No one is to blame, and no-one can or will be charged. Nevertheless, we regret the incident..."

ZenGum;396474 wrote:

It also occurs to me, that they'd make great scapegoats for when things go wrong. "A military spokesman acknowledged the deaths of the 800 civilians, but explained that it was due to a series of mis-identifications by battle-bots. No one is to blame, and no-one can or will be charged. Nevertheless, we regret the incident..."

Holy Shit.

Flint;396475 wrote:

Holy Shit.

This level of disregard of human life can only be described as evil.

Sorry for the double post but I can't edit yet. The quote should have been ZenGum's post

Wow, I'm not sure if we want to use this contractor for our robot ships.

http://www.switched.com/2007/10/19/nine-killed-when-robot-cannon-flips-out/?ncid=NWS00010000000001

I just wanted to endorse the link in lookout's post.

Holy :speechls: !!

You guys worry way too much. I'm sure a good-hearted 15 year old savant working on the project from his advanced research positions in DARPA will realize that he wants to live so that he can marry his new girlfriend he met between late night work sessions in the campus rumpus room, and he'll change out the control chip at the last moment so that the crazed robots attack the Pentagon instead, and we'll all live happily ever after.

Alas, I must retract my endorsement of Lookout's link.
New Scientist ( http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn12812-robotic-rampage-unlikely-reason-for-deaths.html ) suggests it was simply a mechanical malfunction, rather than being anything to do with a computer going haywire. The gun still (normally) requires a human in the loop to give the fire order.
I'm sure the mothers of the nine dead feel much better about this now.

Initial reports from a South African newspaper say the Oerlikon 35mm Mk5 anti-aircraft twin-barrelled gun jammed while firing. A female soldier tried to free the shell, but another shell was accidentally fired, causing some rounds in the gun's two near-full ammunition magazines to explode. The gun began firing again and swung in a circle, leaving nine soldiers dead and eleven wounded.

ZenGum;396283 wrote:

But seriously, malfunction, mis-identification, poor programming ... there is so much that can go wrong.
I guess the appeal is the hope that there will be fewer flag-draped coffins. But the other side is that pollies will find it easier to go to war.

How about a bin Laden type getting control of an unmanned weapon? Let the West make the capital investment and do the building, all he has to do is crack the security...

Good point Griff.
At one level it wouldn't apply. If the machine really is autonomous, then there is no "controller" and so no bad guy can "take control" of it, in an on-the-battlefield sense.
But what they must have is high-level control, such as being told to eliminate enemy in a given area, much as orders would be given to a human soldier. Yeah, if the enemy (whoever they be) can find a way to hack that security, and start giving them orders ... oooohhh nasty scenario.