Talk:Military robot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Fiction section[edit]

in the televison section of the fiction part, battlebots and robot wars should not be there because they shouldn't be considered fiction. --Nick Scratch 20:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts on work required[edit]

  1. Article could be subdivided into air, land and sea. Explain how environmental differences affect these areas, i.e. air less complex than sea, which is less complex than land. Air would mainly link to the unmanned aerial vehicle article as it does now, others need much expanding:
    • sea could include remotely operated vehicles and torpedoes -- notably the CAPTOR mine, currently TTBMK the only armed robot which operates a weapon autonomously;
    • land needs to greatly beef up bomb disposal robots -- the grandaddy of them all, and overwhelmingly the most common type, yet currently get just one line.
  2. More information on differences between remotely operated vehicles, ROVs with autonomous modes, and truly autonomous vehicles (TTBMK CAPTOR is the only example of the latter, although one could draw a long bow at missiles and torpedoes being rather single-minded autonomous vehicles);
  3. Control systems for remotely operated vehicles;
  4. The developments section needs serious rework, and referencing. Unless someone can show me refs, I remain to be convinced that Defense contractors in the USA are hard at work developing autonomous "robot soldiers". Certainly none of the given refs indicate any such thing, and the current state of the art in machine intelligence is a long way from reliable locomotion in random terrain, never mind reliable target identification. Current armed robots may have autonomous motion (although rarely, and even then only on restricted terrain types), but they all have human controlled weapons. On the other hand, apart from this pie-in-the-sky autonomous weapons control, no other developments are mentioned.

-- Securiger 06:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If a robot were to be given autonomy in the decision to fire its weapon it would be a violation of Azimov's First Law of Robotics and the thin edge of the wedge that would inevitably lead to the type of situation depicted in the Terminator films. Do current military robot designers/researchers take such issues in to consideration? Another problem with giving a robot "fire authority" is, who does one prosecute in the event of a wrongful death incident? Roger 20:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Submission Question[edit]

I am new to Wikipedia and would like to understand why a link I submitted (http://www.studysphere.com/Site/Sphere_11677.html) to the "External Links" section was deleted? This directory has over 3,000 human selected articles and Military Robotics resources in it. Thank you for any assistance.Bbowenjr 12:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a hint: studysphere.com links have been campaign-spammed to Wikipedia; see 29 November 2006 discussion at WT:WPSPAM. Bbowenjr added them to a wide range of articles from Dental implants to Military robots. There's been a misconception among some spamdexers that if they get a link deleted they can question the deletion on the talk page and still get the page rank benefit; this is wrong since all Wikipedia talk and user page links are automatically coded with the html tag rel="nofollow"; search engine bots don't follow these links. --A. B. 23:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Issues needs editing[edit]

In the issues section, the following text is found:

"In literature, a play published in 1921, 'Rossum's Universal Robots' by Czech writer Karel Capek, tells the story of how people built better and better robots until they finally built robots to fight wars. In the end, the robots decide that fighting is crazy, and take over the world. This idea has since become a common staple of fiction in books, films and television and is entirely possible given current technological advancement."

Imho, the "is entirely possible" comment either needs to be given a foundation in fact or a source, or it needs to be removed. Without that, it is mere speculation and thus should not be in wikipedia. -- Mercury271 09:00 31-10-2006 (UTC)

This issue was addressed and the "entirely possible" part was removed -- Mercury271 08:00 2-10-2006 (UTC)

Fiction section[edit]

  1. Really, Asimov's stories include some examples of military robots. But he was the main opponent of theirs in literuture! His mention here is mitakenely.
  2. Film fiction section isn't correct: for example, I've never seen any military robots in AI film. There was no robots in 2001 Odyssey—HAL 9000 was a supercompeter.—217.106.171.43 12:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

picture under fiction[edit]

would it be a good idea to add a picture to the picture section (such as that of a b-1 battle droid)? 67.35.181.167 06:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The statement about the "mechanical super-fighter" doesn't seam right[edit]

I have strong doubts about the factual accuracy of the statement that MT is "looking into building a mechanical super-fighter" that will be able to "heal his own wounds, leap buildings, deflect bullets and even become invisible." Although citation was provided, and the ten years of developement would give some time for technological advances, many of the claims just seem implauseable. I don't think that we will be seeing robots that can regenerate themselves anytime soon. Also, it would be a big challenge to create a bipedal robot that can move quickly by 2012, (that was when the article used as citation was posted online.) when the fastest bipedal robot so far can only go as fast as someone jogging. (at most) Besides, I couldn't find any other websites mentioned such a project.

In-line Citations is the only thing keeping this article from getting a B rating[edit]

Please insert inline citations using <ref> with proper citation formatting (WP:CITE). I'm pretty sure this article can be raised to B-class article from just doing this. ~~

Image copyright problem with Image:DroidekaAOTC.jpeg[edit]

The image Image:DroidekaAOTC.jpeg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Issues with Issues[edit]

The "Issues" section of the article only talks about the benefits of war robots, more specifically, a man's quotes that praise war robots. I suggest that the section either be deleted or be cleaned up. Montgomery' 39 (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and in general the whole article is quite POV in the sense that it makes no direct mention to the ethical issues of having killing robots, or remote-controlled robots. Stevo2001 (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove the quote from Major Kenneth Rose though the section could be improved by expanding it so that it covers more issues. --GrandDrake (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Israel's military avatar: Robots on the battlefield[edit]

This Israeli site: [Haaretz] claims that With self-detonating grenades, thinking bullets and robot warriors, humans on the frontline could soon be a thing of the past.Agre22 (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

autonomy vs. remote piloting[edit]

The predator is not autonomous but is remotely piloted, so this doesn't make sense at all. That is why we need to cite reliable sources and not write an original article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Already remarkable success has been achieved with unmanned aerial vehicles like the Predator drone, which are capable of taking surveillance photographs, and even accurately launching missiles at ground targets, without a pilot. A subclass of these are Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles, which are designed to carry out strike missions in combat."

Suggestion: Replace "without a pilot" with "under remote control".
Comment: A fully autonomous combat robot would be a "First Law" violation and could concievably be the start of a real-life "Skynet". However no matter how far fetched the the sci-fi what-ifs may be, the real problem with having a robot capable of using weapons autonomously is the chain of command and legal and moral responsibility. A soldier can be made to take responsibility for a mistake or prosecuted for a war crime but how does one censure or prosecute a robot. This problem could make the land mine issue look like a chilren's playground argument. I wonder if there is any serious literature on this subject? Roger (talk) 10:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Important article[edit]

http://chronicle.com/article/Moral-Robots-the-Future-of/134240/ User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

the Dussaud autonomous robot vehicle[edit]

"Experiments with electromechanical computers (endomecanique) carried out in 1938 by Francois Dussaud. Dussaud ordered from SATME (a company building railroad equipment) an "endomechanical" truck.

This vehicle was controlled by a programmable automaton using two separate perforated bands of paper constituting "separate memories" which alternated according to information supplied by a photo-electric sensor or the front bumper.

This true mechanical computer enabled the vehicle to follow a pre-determined path (the base program which enabled such functions as "start, stop, move away, move back, hoot") or upon sensing an obstacle to avoid it (using the alternate program).

Endomechanics were also applied to a boat experimented on the lake of Geneva. The 1938 article also points out that endomechanics can be applied to torpedoes, tanks or recon airplanes.

Endomechanics as an early form of computer science was defined as an extended program automaticity which manoeuvres in function of the path encountered and not in function of the time elapsed."

(Source: sciences and vie 1938)

http://i59.tinypic.com/2igesl2.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.223.119 (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

the Aubriot-Gabet ground torpedo[edit]

"This electrical ground torpedo was proposed (probably in 1915) by Aubriot and Gabet. The machine could carry 200kg of explosive material in the enemy trenches. It was fed by two electrical wires behind it. It was probably guided by clutching in or out the side tracks. After the war it was not series produced... yet it anticipates remarkably the world war two era Goliath!"

http://i58.tinypic.com/34iobgx.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.223.119 (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Military robot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Police robots[edit]

The 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers was the first time in U.S. history a police robot was used to deliver lethal force. Do we have an article for police robots, or only military? -- GreenC 19:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Military robot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)