The.future of wars will be robots.and drones there is no doubt in my mind

[shockedcanadian]

When I was teaching myself Machine Learning and was engaged in image recognition algorithms my immediate thought went to military applications. That was a few years ago and here we are in 2024 and the war in Ukraine illustrated the value of simple, low cost drones. I urge you to investigate companies such as Chinas Unitree and Boston Dynamic. Their robots are advancing rapidly, more human-like with far more flexibility and unique movements. Terminator in the warzone will becone a reality in the future. Those who have manufacturing might will be able to build a million man army made of steel. You can even purchase a cheap Unitree robot right now for $16k. One day the wealthy will have 10 of them.walking by his side (he just better hope no one hacked his software)

 

[JGalt]

Robotics in the defense industry is a booming sector right now. I just bought some stock in a new company the other day.

 

[crossbody]

Robotics in the defense industry is a booming sector right now. I just bought some stock in a new company the other day.

View attachment 1058395

I believe you are on to something.

The robots will be corresponding with the COVID vaccine satellites inside of people's bodies known as microchips. Their bodies will fall limp so they cannot get to their guns as the robots drag them out of their homes.

 

[JGalt]

I believe you are on to something.

The robots will be corresponding with the COVID vaccine satellites inside of people's bodies known as microchips. Their bodies will fall limp so they cannot get to their guns as the robots drag them out of their homes.

That probably has something to do with the magnetic nanoparticles in the Covid vaccine.

I'm sure glad I didn't take any of those jabs.

 

[sealybobo]

When I was teaching myself Machine Learning and was engaged in image recognition algorithms my immediate thought went to military applications. That was a few years ago and here we are in 2024 and the war in Ukraine illustrated the value of simple, low cost drones. I urge you to investigate companies such as Chinas Unitree and Boston Dynamic. Their robots are advancing rapidly, more human-like with far more flexibility and unique movements. Terminator in the warzone will becone a reality in the future. Those who have manufacturing might will be able to build a million man army made of steel. You can even purchase a cheap Unitree robot right now for $16k. One day the wealthy will have 10 of them.walking by his side (he just better hope no one hacked his software)

I remember when Bill Clinton won the Kosovo War and only one death. And it wasn't a combat death. Accidents happen. It was an accidental death. That was in the 1900's and I thought "how wonderful, we will never have another ground war like Viet Nam where privates die for no good reason."

Instead we take out their tanks and airplanes with our weapons and we don't do hand to hand combat.

So sure, in the future we will have drones and so will they. When we take out all their drones on the battle field we will fight gorilla war in the cities with drones too. No shit. Why send soldiers in?

During a BLM protest a guy killed 5 cops. The cops sent in a robot with a bomb and drove it up to the guy, and detonated it. The first time ever cops used a robot to kill someone. 2016.

Police Use of Robot to Kill Dallas Suspect Unprecedented, Experts Say​

The death of a suspect in the Dallas police shootings marks the first time U.S. police officers have used a robot to kill someone, according to Texas and national experts.

BY ISABELLE TAFT
JULY 8, 2016

 

[whitehall]

Robots are expensive to make and easy to destroy because they have no sense of self protection. Drones and robots are just tools like missiles and IED's.

 

[kyzr]

Robots are expensive to make and easy to destroy because they have no sense of self protection. Drones and robots are just tools like missiles and IED's.

Yep. An EMP renders them useless

 

[Mushroom]

That was a few years ago and here we are in 2024 and the war in Ukraine illustrated the value of simple, low cost drones.

Let me know when drones are somehow able to take and hold land. Because until that happens, it will never happen.

And no, "robots" will never become anything other than a mild curiosity at most on the battlefield even 100 years from now. No nation is going to trust the AI, and they would be highly dependent upon humans for maintenance.

Hers is the amazing thing about humans, we can literally feed them dead animals and plants, and they can continue to function. Dead animals and plants mind you that can be found almost anywhere on the planet. Show me a robot that can function surviving on rice and rodents. We are also "self-repairing", where as robots need to have a human to actually fix them when something breaks.

I always laugh at these science-fiction like fantasies. They are as laughable as the belief of many after WWII that because of bombers that infantry was obsolete. And that air power would dominate warfare in the future and not the boots on the ground. Or that advances in machine guns and artillery would make infantry obsolete.

This is simply yet another iteration of the same loony ideas that "XXX Technology" makes actual soldiers obsolete. It has never been true, and will likely never be true.

 

[Mushroom]

Yep. An EMP renders them useless

Actually, EMP is amazingly easy to shield against. The US military has been shielding most of their equipment against it for over five decades now.

Here you go, this is how sophisticated the technology has to be to protect equipment from EMP:

The Faraday Cage is actually very old technology. As in, the actual concepts for how it works were first published way back in 1754, making it older than the US itself. And Benjamin Franklin experimented with them. But at that time it was just a curiosity, something they could observe but because of technology levels had no useful function. But after the EMP effect from atomic blasts was discovered, the military quickly started to place them in their equipment. Then by the 1950s they started to be used for other purposes, like counter-espionage.

In the 1980s and early 1990s we had entire series of computers that had EMP shielding built into them. It was called TEMPEST, and was designed to keep "information" from leaking out of a computer. But the exact same technology works both ways, and it also prevented things from leaking into a computer. I actually used some of those beasts in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Meet the AN/UYK-83. I actually used to have one of those beasts on my desk from 1988-1993. The thing was an absolute beast, the main computer must have weighed almost 100 pounds. The monitor was another 100 pounds, the keyboard was around 10 pounds. All of that casing you see is thick steel, and all the doors and openings are protected with overlapping metal that functioned like a Faraday Cage. The entire computer came in three large shipping containers, and weighed something like 250 pounds.

And when I was deployed, I had a similar computer that was a "laptop". That is, if you consider it did not have a battery and had to be plugged into the wall to work. And weighed around 50 pounds. But it was portable, so easy to take with me when I went overseas.

Not the same thing I had, but actually fairly close.

But the problem is that for anything like that to work, you need humans to maintain them. If you have a "squad" of 10 "robots" functioning on the battlefield, then there are likely going to be about 150-200 men required to maintain them regularly within a short distance away. To fix them when something breaks, and to provide them with whatever fuel they will need to function. You can send out a squad of humans with a case of MREs and they can operate for days. And if they are there longer, just send them more MREs. You ain't gonna do that with machines.

 

[kyzr]

Actually, EMP is amazingly easy to shield against. The US military has been shielding most of their equipment against it for over five decades now.

Here you go, this is how sophisticated the technology has to be to protect equipment from EMP:

The Faraday Cage is actually very old technology. As in, the actual concepts for how it works were first published way back in 1754, making it older than the US itself. And Benjamin Franklin experimented with them. But at that time it was just a curiosity, something they could observe but because of technology levels had no useful function. But after the EMP effect from atomic blasts was discovered, the military quickly started to place them in their equipment. Then by the 1950s they started to be used for other purposes, like counter-espionage.

In the 1980s and early 1990s we had entire series of computers that had EMP shielding built into them. It was called TEMPEST, and was designed to keep "information" from leaking out of a computer. But the exact same technology works both ways, and it also prevented things from leaking into a computer. I actually used some of those beasts in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Meet the AN/UYK-83. I actually used to have one of those beasts on my desk from 1988-1993. The thing was an absolute beast, the main computer must have weighed almost 100 pounds. The monitor was another 100 pounds, the keyboard was around 10 pounds. All of that casing you see is thick steel, and all the doors and openings are protected with overlapping metal that functioned like a Faraday Cage. The entire computer came in three large shipping containers, and weighed something like 250 pounds.

And when I was deployed, I had a similar computer that was a "laptop". That is, if you consider it did not have a battery and had to be plugged into the wall to work. And weighed around 50 pounds. But it was portable, so easy to take with me when I went overseas.

Not the same thing I had, but actually fairly close.

But the problem is that for anything like that to work, you need humans to maintain them. If you have a "squad" of 10 "robots" functioning on the battlefield, then there are likely going to be about 150-200 men required to maintain them regularly within a short distance away. To fix them when something breaks, and to provide them with whatever fuel they will need to function. You can send out a squad of humans with a case of MREs and they can operate for days. And if they are there longer, just send them more MREs. You ain't gonna do that with machines.

I was picturing armed dog robots patrolling both sides of the Panama Canal. They could be swapped out and maintained.

As you say, in a remote place like AFG or VN or the ME, they would not be as practical.

 

[Mushroom]

I was picturing armed dog robots patrolling both sides of the Panama Canal. They could be swapped out and maintained.

Sorry you ain't patrolling much of anything along the Panama Canal.

Trust me, I've been there. That is nothing like say the Suez Canal, almost all of the length is almost impenetrable jungle on each side. With no reason to really patrol it anyways. Even humans on foot are lucky to make 2 miles in an hour, that is incredibly dense and thick triple canopy jungle laid on top of come of the most treacherous terrain I ever had to deal with.



That will give just a taste of what the terrain in that area is like. That is what was known as "Green Hell" at Fort Sherman. Been there - done that. And almost all of the area around the canal is just like that. In fact, most of the damned country is exactly like that.

To give an idea, the terrain there is so bad, that is why there is not a single road that connects North and South America. It's called the "Darien Gap", a 66 mile part of Panama at the southern end of the nation that is impassable.

 

[hjmick]

Anyone remember Star Trek TOS, season 1, episode 23, A Taste of Armageddon?

 

[kyzr]

Anyone remember Star Trek TOS, season 1, episode 23, A Taste of Armageddon?

Yep, Captain Kirk and his team were told they were registered casualties and had to report to the disintegration machine.

 

[frigidweirdo]

When I was teaching myself Machine Learning and was engaged in image recognition algorithms my immediate thought went to military applications. That was a few years ago and here we are in 2024 and the war in Ukraine illustrated the value of simple, low cost drones. I urge you to investigate companies such as Chinas Unitree and Boston Dynamic. Their robots are advancing rapidly, more human-like with far more flexibility and unique movements. Terminator in the warzone will becone a reality in the future. Those who have manufacturing might will be able to build a million man army made of steel. You can even purchase a cheap Unitree robot right now for $16k. One day the wealthy will have 10 of them.walking by his side (he just better hope no one hacked his software)

And then it'll be about how many you can build. So again, the richest countries will pound on the poorest countries. Nothing changes.

 

[shockedcanadian]

And then it'll be about how many you can build. So again, the richest countries will pound on the poorest countries. Nothing changes.

Everything changes as it will depend on advanced innovation, the ability for a nation to protect the secrets surrounding those innovations, the manufacturing know-how to build the military industrial base. Just being more wealthy, as say the UK or France, doesn't assure success

 

[frigidweirdo]

Everything changes as it will depend on advanced innovation, the ability for a nation to protect the secrets surrounding those innovations, the manufacturing know-how to build the military industrial base. Just being more wealthy, as say the UK or France, doesn't assure success

No, it doesn't. However having excess money for the military, with the US, China and Russia pumping loads into making themselves more powerful, more asshole.

 

[shockedcanadian]

No, it doesn't. However having excess money for the military, with the US, China and Russia pumping loads into making themselves more powerful, more asshole.

WWIII is still.possible. We will.see how it all unfolds.

 

[frigidweirdo]

WWIII is still.possible. We will.see how it all unfolds.

Sure it is, but the modern world has been one where the big countries don't want to get into war with each other. The USSR and USA did everything they could to limit everything to proxy wars.

The US got involved in Vietnam, the USSR didn't, for example.

 

[Mushroom]

Anyone remember Star Trek TOS, season 1, episode 23, A Taste of Armageddon?

Sure do, an absolutely classic Cold War episode.

In short for those that have never seen it, an "enlightened culture" had evolved their war to a more "civilized" way. They would launch simulated bombs at each other, computers would calculate deaths, and the side that had people killed would have them report to stations to die. It was civil, as there was no more threat of fallout or damage to their infrastructure. And allowed the war to continue on, as neither side was really impacted anymore other than by deaths.

And in ultimately a clear violation of the Prime Directive, Kirk ordered the system to be dismantled, so the only solution was to either end the war, or return to the massively destructive manner of warfare that has existed before. To actually face the consequences of nuclear war, which led to the two sides finally making peace.

This absolutely was a commentary on MAD, why it was effective, and why unless the weapons themselves are eliminated there is no other way to have a war that would involve their use. But it was not a commentary on "robots" or anything like that, as all of the attacks by each side were simulated. State A launched a simulated attack at State B, losses are calculated and those "killed" report to be liquidated.

 

[Mushroom]

No, it doesn't. However having excess money for the military, with the US, China and Russia pumping loads into making themselves more powerful, more asshole.

But are they more powerful?

Compare 2003 with 2022. Can anybody seriously even try to claim that the Iraq military was less powerful than that of Ukraine? Yet the US and a coalition primarily made of up forces from half way around the world went into Iraq, and their nation collapsed one month, one week and four days later. Completely and utterly destroyed.

Meanwhile, Russia stormed into a country they actually share a border with, and two years later is still fighting tooth and nail for any advances.

So I would very much state clearly that they have been trying to do so, but it has not been effective at all. Especially as they have increasingly been forced to resort to decades old Cold War era weapons to even maintain the stalemate that is in place now. And they have lost a lot of their most "powerful" equipment to a nation significantly weaker than they are.

The amount of money is actually almost completely unimportant. China for example in many ways reminds me of WWII era Germany, with their obsession on developing "Wonderwaffe" that in the end would mostly be failures. Just as the Wonderwaffe that Russia has spent so long developing have largely turned out to be failures.

However, the US has been effective in doing that. Because their advances have been much slower, and matched with training and doctrine changes to make them and the military more effective. The US military of today is not the same that entered Iraq in 2003. Or that which liberated Kuwait in 1991. Or the same that fought in Vietnam in the 1960s and early 1970s. There have been multiple changes in everything from the top on down in the US military during and after each of those conflicts. Each one making it more effective. Russia on the other hand appears to have hardly changed since when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979.

They are literally decades behind the curve when it comes to doctrine and training, and the Ukraine War has shown a giant spotlight on them. That they really are a "paper tiger" when it comes to true military might, other than their size and that they have nukes.