Comments on: A BEAR on the Battlefield

By: Brian

Brian — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:49:29 +0000

No comments from the Peanut Gallery, DJ.

By: DJ

DJ — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:52:40 +0000

Gee Brian.…..that was really bright.
What did your post have to do with the topic at all?
If you wish to belittle people, why not try a different forum, like a mirror, perhaps.

By: Brian

Brian — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:51:32 +0000

You know, “bear” is a slang term for a fat gay man with a lot of body hair.
Do we *really* want these picking up our soldiers?
You know, just sayin’.

By: THS

THS — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 05:05:10 +0000

Demophilus:
There’s a group of people at Carnegie Mellon doing research concerned with “promoting positive interaction between robots and people”. One of the robots developed in this enterprise was the Nursebot, subsequently called “intelligent assistive device for the elderly”.
See http://peopleandrobots.org/ and follow the links.

By: j house

j house — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:53:47 +0000

There are 3 primary reasons the military uses robots–
First, it puts a machine, not a human in a dangerous environment to perform a task a human would have otherwise been required to do
Second, it allows them to use less resources to accomplish a given task
Third, it can provide a unique capability humans cannot do well (like a 24 hr loiter over a battlefield,or,operate a multisensor platform to feed humans data remotely)
Too often our present day political calculus that requires minimal US casualties to carry forward a policy makes us focus too much on the first criteria to solve a problem, thus, we have the BEAR.
One of the reasons our UAV’s have been so successful is their relative invulnerability and our air supremacy in Iraq/Afghanistan.
We may face a future environment where counter capabilities against robotic platforms will be greatly improved…it sould be unwise to believe this is an elixir for reducing battlefield casualties.

By: j house

j house — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:40:09 +0000

If we’re going to get creative and loopy,why stop at a robot with tracks? Why not strap a jet pack on it and have it fly itself back to the base autonomously.We could then drop one out of a helicopter, have it parachute in and get on with it.Or, deploy 10 BEARS for every soldier and confuse the enemy as to who is who.
Why not infuse the robot with enough intelligence to operate on the soldier in situ?
Or, program the robot to find and pick up the enemy and deliver them to our soldiers? Geez…
Now, I just have to set up my company’s shop near the Pentagon and cozy up to a Congressman for a fat R&D earmark…

By: Grandjester

Grandjester — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:37:11 +0000

J House and Eric make some good points to which I will add: Can it take a and/or many 7.62mm AP rounds to the head/torso and continue to function? RPG round? Shrapnel from mortars/arty? Land mine/IED/EFP resistant? Etc, etc, etc.
While I can appreciate the desire for this sort of thing, it seems expensive (uncomfortable fact: unlike UAV’s replacing pilots, the cost of replacing medics/infantry with robots is probably NOT effective or reasonable nor will be in any conceivable timeframe) and fraught with technical difficulties.

By: j house

j house — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:26:40 +0000

Another go at thoughtless military technology overkill.Mike has the best comment here,but that would violate the Geneva Convention, unless you kept a human in the loop.
Wouldn’t we potentially lose more lives trying to extract a ‘wounded’ BEAR carrying a litter?
Why would we develop a robot to carry out a single task when it could performa myriad of things our guys have to already, like carrying ammo, radios, water and other difficult but useful tasks?
Could it operate at 3,000 meters in knee deep snow? Or, ford a river or climb over dead trees through wood thickets?

By: Mike Schofield

Mike Schofield — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:53:07 +0000

Hold the phone people, $1.1 million for a retriever of the wounded, why not just make them tactical shooters instead, then you won't have any wounded. Cheaper to build, less fuctionality, can draw fire for orbiting Predators, Global Hawks, and our guys can sit in the bunkers, eating HoHo's and sucking down Pepsi's. Sorry for being synical, but come on, it makes more since to remove the human target in the first place if your dead set on going this way. What would happen to the wounded troop rolling around in the arms of a bot? I'll tell you, he would be a clay pidgeon on roller tracks. Jeeze where do you guys come from? "Damage to a Bot is more preferable" What do you think is going to happen to the poor soul it's carrying. "A Nation cannot be Destroyed from without, until it is destroyed from within"

By: glenn m harris

glenn m harris — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 03:23:41 +0000

it nut