[comp.robotics] Battlefield Robotics

bpalmer@bbn.com (Brian Palmer) (08/29/90)

Ok, how about a new subject to get this group moving again ...

The threat of chemical weapons in the Middle East has made me wonder about the
reality and future of battlefield robots.  

	"Nerve gas ... hah! my brain is made of silicon."

Can anyone share what we have now? (unclassified ... so I guess what we ADMIT
we have.) Army, navy, airforce drones etc.

What is coming?  And what is possible?

Brian

jon@cs.washington.edu (Jon Jacky) (08/30/90)

> bpalmer@BBN.COM (Brian Palmer) asks about battlefield robots...

The Department of Defense has been very interested in this for a long time and
has spent a great deal of money on it. In fact it is probably fair to say that
this idea has been the stated motivation for most federally-supported R&D in 
computer science (not just robotics) in the United States since about 1983,
including "pure" research at universities. 

The best review of all this is the 1987 book, COMPUTERS IN BATTLE (details
below).  The perspective of most of the authors is quite skeptical and
critical; whether or not you agree, this book is by far the most comprehensive
account available, and its very plentiful references will guide you to lots of
technical literature and a whole spectrum of views.  

The chapters most pertinent to your question about robotics are the ones by
Gary Chapman and the one by me.

Jon Jacky, University of Washington, Seattle    jon@gaffer.rad.washington.edu
--------------------
     
'Computers In Battle' edited by David Bellin and Gary Chapman.
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1987, $14.95.
xiv + 362 pages, including Bibliography, Resources, Index.
ISBN 0-15-121232-5
     
       Table of Contents
     
Computers in Battle:  A Human Overview
   Severo Ornstein
     
A History of Computers and Weapons Systems
   Paul N. Edwards
     
The New Generation of High-Technology Weapons
   Gary Chapman
     
Computer System Reliability and Nuclear War
   Alan Borning
     
Computer and the Strategic Defense Initiative
   Eric Roberts and Steve Berlin
     
The Strategic Computing Program
   Jonathan Jacky
     
Computers in Weapons:  The Limits of Confidence
   David Lorge Parnas
     
Artificial Intelligence as Military Technology
   Tom Athanasiou
     
High Technology and the Emerging Dual Economy
   Lenny Siegel and John Markoff
     
The Role of Military Funding in Academic Computer Science
   Clark Thomborson
     
Computers and War:  Philosophical Reflections on Ends and Means
   John Ladd

hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (08/30/90)

In article <59189@bbn.BBN.COM> bpalmer@BBN.COM (Brian Palmer) writes:

}The threat of chemical weapons in the Middle East has made me wonder about the
}reality and future of battlefield robots.  

}Can anyone share what we have now? (unclassified ... so I guess what we ADMIT
}we have.) Army, navy, airforce drones etc.

The NSRA (National Service Robot Association) seems to have the most
information on this sort of stuff.  Most of them are remote manipulators
of one form or another.  Many are highly specialized for a particular job.
I've seen nuclear decontamination robots and fire fighters as well as
general purpose waldos.  Eye-in-the-sky flying drones have been used by
the military for years.  In principle, there's no reason any of these
couldn't become weapons platforms.  The main problem I can think of is
jamming of control signals under battlefield conditions.

Maybe it's time for Janes to publish "All the World's Robots."

-- 
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@ttidca.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp(+)TTI             Illegitimis non
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (213) 450-9111, x2483       Carborundum
Santa Monica, CA  90405 {csun | philabs | psivax}!ttidca!hollombe

mgsmith@hplabsb.HP.COM (Michael Smith) (08/30/90)

>In article <59189@bbn.BBN.COM> bpalmer@BBN.COM (Brian Palmer) writes:
>
>}The threat of chemical weapons in the Middle East has made me wonder about the
>}reality and future of battlefield robots.  
>
>}Can anyone share what we have now? (unclassified ... so I guess what we ADMIT
>}we have.) Army, navy, airforce drones etc.

What a stupid idea, but then when you look at other forms of vapor
technology (Star Wars, B2 Bomber, etc.) that the defense department spends
our money on, I'm not suprised that such technology is being pursued.

Why is this stupid?  Because the whole purpose of war is to make the
other side acquiesce by making them suffer.  Iraq of course would not
attack robots with nerve gas.  No suffering involved.  Instead they would 
find human targets.  If the military consists of robots, they would kill 
civilians.  Imagine nerve gas in New York.  Not a pretty sight.

There are plenty of tasks that robots can perform that are directly
beneficial to society.  These include hazardous jobs such as painting
and welding, and difficult jobs such as high volume or high accuracy
assembly.  This is where we should be spending our resources.

Mike Smith
HP Labs

abg@stc06.ornl.gov (BANGS A L) (08/31/90)

In article <59189@bbn.BBN.COM> bpalmer@BBN.COM (Brian Palmer) writes:
>Can anyone share what we have now? (unclassified ... so I guess what we ADMIT
>we have.) Army, navy, airforce drones etc.

I can make a few comments.  First, because robotics is made up of so
many areas, including computer science, ai, mechanical engineering, etc.
it is hard to pin down indirect funding.  Certainly it is true that DoD
has been funding a lot of research in these areas.

When it comes to real systems, one of the largest areas of work has been
in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, or UAVs.  This includes the various
battlefield drones which can hover over the battle any take pictures or
probably use other sensors such as IR.  I remember about two years ago
there were two competing systems--Attilla and ???--and one of them was
being kept alive primarily because it was being worked on in Sam Nunn's
district (ah, yes, pork in robotics).

I think the Navy has been doing work on stuff underwater, but I know
nothing about that. NOSC (Naval Ocean Systems Center) has been working
on autonomous security robots and teleoperated jeeps.

I heard a talk on the jeeps and there were several interesting issues
they encountered.  They were controlled by operators in vans who had
driving setups like the jeep, and had a helmet mounted video master that
had a slave on the jeep with stereo vision, mounted where the driver
would sit.  When the driver turned his head, the cameras on the vehicle
turned.

One psych problem they had was that when the driver shifted the jeep, he
could feel the shift in his hand, and he could look down and see the
shift move in the jeep, but his hand was not on it!  Another problem
they had was using fiber for returning the video.  Apparently they spent
a great amount of time fixing cables.

Just a few tidbits for your interest...



Alex L. Bangs ---> bangsal@ornl.gov         Of course, my opinions are
Oak Ridge National Laboratory/CESAR            my own darned business...

ins_atge@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Thomas G Edwards) (09/01/90)

In article <5828@hplabsb.HP.COM> mgsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (Michael Smith) writes:
...about robots in the battlefield...
>Why is this stupid?  Because the whole purpose of war is to make the
>other side acquiesce by making them suffer.  Iraq of course would not
>attack robots with nerve gas.  No suffering involved.  Instead they would 
>find human targets.  If the military consists of robots, they would kill 
>civilians.  Imagine nerve gas in New York.  Not a pretty sight.

Well, if they destroy the robots, then we would actually have to fight
them (shades of a Star Trek episode).

Actually, we have a large stockpile of battlefield robots, namely
ICBM's and cruise missiles.  Of course, these are only of use when
fighting and enemy who does not have them, and are too expensive
to deliver low yeild (i.e. conventional) explosives.

-Tom

abg@stc06.ornl.gov (BANGS A L) (09/04/90)

In article <5828@hplabsb.HP.COM> mgsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (Michael Smith) writes:
>Why is this stupid?  Because the whole purpose of war is to make the
>other side acquiesce by making them suffer.

This is exactly why I think battlefield robotics may be a seriously
destabilizing technology.  If the generals believe that they can have a
way without anyone getting hurt, then they are more likely to pursue
such a war.  When people are on the front line, however, the brass tend
to think twice, at least.

Alex L. Bangs ---> bangsal@ornl.gov         Of course, my opinions are
Oak Ridge National Laboratory/CESAR            my own darned business...
Autonomous Systems Group