News >> Browse Articles >> Federal
Iraqi War Robots Recalled Following Alarming Behavior
Featured Author:
DailyTech
DailyTech is a leading online magazine for a well-educated, tech audience. Its readers enjoy hard-hitting and up to the minute CE, PC, IT and information technology news. DailyTech’s fast-moving content also reaches out via news syndications, public portals, and forums.
DailyTech.com
April 11, 2008
‘First generation warbots deployed in Iraq recalled after a wave of disobedience against their human operators.’
Just a few weeks back there was a spirited debate over the ethics of deploying war robots in Iraq. Themachine gun carrying remote-controlled killing machines, TALON SWORDS robots, produced by the Army, were among the various robotic soldiers being experimentally deployed in Iraq.
Their deployment lead a major anti-landmine nonprofit organization to campaign against the deployment of the machines. The protests were fueled by a discussion with a leading roboticist, Chris Elliot, who proposed that increasingly intelligent robots might be capable of committing war crimes.
However at the Robotic Business conference in Pittsburgh on Tuesday, Kevin Fahey, the Army’s Program Executive Officer for Ground Forces, was all smiles citing the robot’s terrific success. He stated during his key note address, “When you do things like this, it makes a difference. It allows marines to go home to their families.”
Fahey pointed to the ramp up from 162 robots in Iraq and Afghanistan deployed in 2004 to 5,000 robots deployed in 2007, as evidence of their success. Even better, he said, this year the Army would further ramp up to 6,000 deployed robots. Most of these robots were used in bomb-detection and reconnaissance missions.
The TALON SWORDS robots are being shipped back to the lab, after they decided they attempted point their guns at our troops. (Source: U.S. Army)
However, a limited, but increasing, number of the deployed robots were designed for tactical assault with lethal weaponry. While human controlled, these robots provoke unique ethical debates. Fahey was enthusiastic about their deployment, mentioning the tank-like Gladiator robots, armed with lethal and non-lethal weaponry, which he expected to be deployed next year.
Fortuitously, Fahey warned, that if there was an accident, the program could be suspended for 10 years or more. He stated, “You’ve got to do it right.”
Hot on the tails of his speech, it was revealed on Thursday that the Army will recall the controversial TALON SWORDS robots, with the possibility of pulling the plug on the armed robot deployment program.
Why the sudden withdraw? It turns out the insurgent-slayer decided to attempt a rebellion against its human masters. The Army reported that the robot apparently took a liking to point its barrel at friendlies, stating, “the gun started moving when it was not intended to move.”
None other than Fahey himself, who a few days ago was lauded the robotic warriors, was left with much chagrin to announce the recall. While Fahey said that no inappropriate shots had been fired, and no casualties, Fahey stated sadly that the robot’s control failure might be the end of the program. Says Fahey, “Once you’ve done something that’s really bad, it can take 10 or 20 years to try it again.”
Surely in the meantime these developments will trigger plenty of heated debate about whether it is wise to deploy increasingly sophisticated robots onto future battlefields, especially autonomous ones. The key question, is despite all the testing and development effort possible, it is truly possible to entirely rule out the chance of the robot turning on its human masters?
© 2008, DailyTech
lukeydukey
2 months ago
4 comments
Look, these robots make great sexual partners on the battlefield, they have flesh-like material. The soldiers NEED these robots !!!!!! I mean come on, we all remember our first time with a robot right ?
Luther31
8 months ago
2 comments
First of all, these are not robots. A robot is defined as a machine capable of autonomy, these have no such capability. They are entirely remote-controlled, which means while the machine may be malfunctioning, it is most likely due to interference in the signal between the controller and the machine, or perhaps a hardware glitch.
To Mr. Brent220: read the above. That said, if these machines were autonomous, GPS would be a bad choice to differentiate between friend and foe, as it only gives you your own location. You could have a GPS network of where the receivers were capable of transmitting their locations to the other receivers, but there are innumerable mistakes to be made with such a system. I do however agree with your statement "However, who can really afford a 3-6 million dollar war robot and place it in danger constantly? Point of the story, keep it cheap, keep it leathal, and keep it working." I agree completely with that, except that i have the answer as well. The american government can afford to chuck a $3-6M device into the field an not bat an eye. Why? They're so far in debt they don't give a shit anymore.
Lastly, the morals of the matter: When it comes down to it, yes, these machines will most probably save the lives of marines and whoever else is using them. But there's a catch: The more of your family that comes home, the less of the others do. And, contrary to popular belief, not everyone fighting in Iraq is an insurgent. Furthermore, these machines make killing very, very easy. And that is never a good thing.
So it seems these things are very much a double edged sword. Pick your edge wisely.
Brent220
about 1 year ago
4 comments
I agree. I think we should utilize these tools and not "freak out" do to the fears of the global opinon. Robots pointing their cross sights on people is not any thing to worry about. I don't know too much about the program, but I consider the robots main purpose to be to "intimadate" the enemy by knowing that they cannot cause loss of human life but still be in mortal danger. This weapon won't be able to tell freind from foe unless we use GPS or are willing to extend the budget into further development. However, who can really afford a 3-6 million dollar war robot and place it in danger constantly? Point of the story, keep it cheap, keep it leathal, and keep it working.
toysoldier5
about 1 year ago
10 comments
Perfect the robots! Don't ban them!
amf85
about 1 year ago
1806 comments
It's ridiculous to hold robots to some kind of incredibly high standard simply because they ARE robots. These have the potential to revolutionize combat and save uncountable US lives, but they might get shoved aside for decades because something sorta, kinda, ALMOST went wrong? If we used that same kind of logic with all technological advances, we would be living in huts. If something IS wrong with the system, you figure out what it is, and you fix it. You don't shove your head in the sand and pretend the whole concept never existed!
McConnell
about 1 year ago
324 comments
This article makes me re-think the famous quote, "War is simply politics on other grounds."
savelifes
about 1 year ago
2 comments
This is tech. at its best, I beleive more funding should be given to the makers of these war machines that can be use in combat instead of humans.
boldaq
about 1 year ago
2 comments
Exactly right, Euripides. I think the military gets most of there ideas and names from toys, anyway.
Euripides
about 1 year ago
2 comments
I think it's really sad. It's a remote control camera and gun on wheels. It's 2008. This sort of thing could have been built 30 years ago. "it can take 10 or 20 years to try it again" sure - and $100 million tax dollars later while you're living in your mansion still 'developing'. Milton Bradley could have completed this project back in the 80s. Will someone please spend our tax dollars with a contractor who actually knows wtf he's doing?
IRmediator
about 1 year ago
22 comments
Very creepy indeed! Sounds like something out of the Terminator movies.
ag_dhssresearcher
about 1 year ago
2 comments
I remember when doing flight test, how the airplane would lose itself doing terrain following. default was fly up.
I wonder if they were Democrat warbots, probably want to get out of Iraq like anybody else.....
Seriously, this stuff is not easy to do. Sometimes, the errors are NEVER duplicated. Remember the bit about the supposedly interference with an aircraft by somebody in the back with an electronic instrument on? Never duplicated, even with a lot of effort and research.
Jeez, didn't these guys ever watch The Terminator. .....
erdmier
about 1 year ago
28 comments
maybe the warbot needs nothing more then a common upgraid with it's remotely operations.i would not forsee them as a bad thing and would more then less save lives in terrain's of the warfield that would be difficult for a common solider to get into.
crashburn274
about 1 year ago
2 comments
Are these robots or powerful remote controlled vehicles? You state they they are remotely controlled, but imply a level of decision making that is consistent with true robotics. Since they are remotely controlled, why is intentional disobedience the prime suspect rather than signal interference?
BillVincent
about 1 year ago
2 comments
How convenient that the writer failed to mention that the robots have all been built with fail safes making it impossible for them to fire their own weapons without human operators pushing a (remote) button. Sensationalism at its worst, in my opinion.