Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

defensenews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 52 posts

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#11

Post by 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.

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#12

Post by downer83 »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #11

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…

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.

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#13

Post by ChuckMcM »

downer83 wrote: post #12
ChuckMcM wrote: post #11

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…

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 de…

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.)

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#14

Post by jahewson »

downer83 wrote: post #12
ChuckMcM wrote: post #11

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…

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 de…

> Even if it means suicide.

Erm, this is why nuclear deterrents work.

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#15

Post by kposehn »

TrainedMonkey wrote: post #8
kposehn wrote: post #3

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…

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 increas…

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

Actually, they do need those - but most likely have significantly lower maintenance/upkeep costs than the average soldier. Still a big savings.

Good point about drilling time. Maybe less man-hours in drilling overall, but more per head?

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#16

Post by [deleted] »

downer83 wrote: post #12
ChuckMcM wrote: post #11

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…

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 de…

[deleted]

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#17

Post by downer83 »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #13
downer83 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 de…

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 forc…

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?

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#18

Post by PavlovsCat »

pmorici wrote: post #7

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.

Ultimately, it also makes the refusal of orders impossible, and then it could get really hairy real quick.

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#19

Post by JonnieCache »

TrainedMonkey wrote: post #8
kposehn wrote: post #3

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…

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 increas…

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.

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#20

Post by georgemcbay »

downer83 wrote: post #17
ChuckMcM wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 forc…

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…

"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.

Post reply on HN