5 ms·

Glad to see our universities making progress in this important area of national security.

by fuelfive 3y ago

croes 3y ago
How does this improve national security?
- gumby 3y ago
  They are vehicles that can navigate terrain a wheeled vehicle cannot. So they could do anything from operate as pack "animals" for infiltration teams to be armed drones that creep along the ground, harder to detect than a flying one.
  - croes 3y ago
    Once again, how does this improve national security? That's offense not defense. It worsens the national security of your opponent but doesn't strengthen your own.
    - XorNot 3y ago
      What do you think defense actually is in the current technological era? You don't defend territory with static defense's or force fields or walls.
      - croes 3y ago
        Yeah, but do you think these technology can't be copied by others? Drones and robots made attacks easier, did that help national security? Countries like Russia or China won't attack because of nuclear weapons but groups like ISIS don't care.
        Prickle 3y ago
        > Drones and robots made attacks easier, did that help national security? Large flying drones make patrolling a border easier. You don't have to worry about the pilot's fatigue level. Only fuel/battery. The war in Ukraine clearly shows that smaller drones also help in attacking and defending. Attacking, by dropping bombs or spotting targets. And defending, via spotting incoming enemy forces; spotting enemy artillery that is shooting at you, etc
        golol 3y ago
        > Drones and robots made attacks easier, did that help national security? Yes because the enemy will have them eventually regardless of whether you develop them. Call it a Prisoner's Dilemma if you will, but it's the reality. Besides, unlike nuclear weapons, warfare with autonomous systems is not particularly more cruel than WW1 or WW2 style warfare.
    - gumby 3y ago
      That seems like a rather limited view of the word "defense", more appropriate to football or hockey than warfare. Even for that you could have these drones patrolling the territory/shooting intruders. But the word "defense" is much wider than that. Is the US supplying offensive weapons to Ukraine contributing to the national defense? Even if you feel the US should not be doing that, I hoe you can see the logic of people who do frame it that way. And Ukraine's in a defensive war against an invader, and for that they have to go on the offense. (Of course the US renaming the Department of War to Department of Defense in 1947 was 100% propaganda, or to be more charitable, aspirational. There is no question that it has been used offensively).
      - croes 3y ago
        >But the word "defense" is much wider than that. Is the US supplying offensive weapons to Ukraine contributing to the national defense? In a war the line between offense and defense is blurred but the national security is at level zero.
      - littlestymaar 3y ago
        > Is the US supplying offensive weapons to Ukraine contributing to the national defense? It's not. It's contributing to European security, and as such is necessary for the US to reaffirm their suzerainty over Europe, but it's not really about US defense and even less about National Security. (I'm glad they do btw, because we European powers would have left Ukraine fall after deciding it would be too expensive to help them…)
        golol 3y ago
        European security is national security via geopolitics. Being a global superpower has many benefits for US citizens.
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        > European security is national security via geopolitics. If you consider “national security” to be a meaningless buzzword and not an actual concept, you can say that. It's as accurate as saying “US sports results at the Olympics is a national security issue via soft power”. Pretty much everything is “national security” by that standards. > Being a global superpower has many benefits for US citizens. Sure, but most of them don't have anything to do with national security.
    - Prickle 3y ago
      How does it not? Consider terrain such as the mountain ranges along the side of California. Or the entirety of Japan. Wheeled and tracked vehicles generally have problems in that terrain. Legged robots don't. Suddenly your troops intended to operate in mountainous terrain have a reliable robot donkey to use as a packmule. Many countries (US, Germany, France, Italy, etc) still use horses and donkeys for transport in bad terrain.
      - ChatGTP 3y ago
        There is certain terrain legged robot will struggle with too
    - golol 3y ago
      There is little difference between offensive and defensive capabilities. It's all about destroying your opponent. This helps national security because it is an additional and advanced means of destruction that the enemy might not have.
roenxi 3y ago
This tech is the stuff of nightmares. People are going to see this unfeeling little chitinous bug-dog-thing crawling in with them, then they die. And it is making it cheaper to kill people in exotic foreign lands. This is the tragedy of the commons. I'd rather see nobody making these advances, but if someone has to it'd better be people on my side. Can't stop progress :(
- blacksmith_tb 3y ago
  Maybe there's a glimmer of hope that someday both sides can send their robots to destroy one another, instead of their sons and daughters? I agree that initially there's an advantage to richer nations, but it's not like a $30M jet fighter, there could be parity.
  - saulpw 3y ago
    That's not how it's going to work. There's no point in taking out a relatively cheap robot that can be replaced in a day, when you can take out a person that will take 20 years to be replaced.
    - littlestymaar 3y ago
      But the person you're gonna take out is more likely to be a senior officer, rather than a 18 years old private.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dclowd9901 3y ago
What a naive statement. Do you really believe no other nation is capable of making such a thing? This doesn’t improve our national security at all. Just ups the ante for robotic infantry, whatever the hell that ends up meaning. Like advancements in war technology has ever been a positive in the world.
- nico 3y ago
  This topic is somehow explored in the movie The Creator There’s a lot of wholes in the plot, but the overall premise and scenario seem eerily plausible
- golol 3y ago
  > This doesn’t improve our national security at all. You said yourself that other nations can and will make this too. Avoiding a decrease of national security is the same as improving national security.
- BWStearns 3y ago
  > Like advancements in war technology has ever been a positive in the world Yeah, screw GPS, trauma surgery improvements and better prosthetics, IFF systems, radar/sonar, Internet, ToR, Epipens, and duct tape. /s Really, I get having a generally anti-war position and wanting to spend money on other shit but pretending like there are no positive externalities to defense spending is childish.
- presidentender 3y ago
  Unfortunately war is kind of a Red Queen scenario where the technology advances everywhere.

Glad to see our universities making progress in this important area of national security.

croes 3y ago

How does this improve national security?

gumby 3y ago
They are vehicles that can navigate terrain a wheeled vehicle cannot. So they could do anything from operate as pack "animals" for infiltration teams to be armed drones that creep along the ground, harder to detect than a flying one.
- croes 3y ago
  Once again, how does this improve national security? That's offense not defense. It worsens the national security of your opponent but doesn't strengthen your own.
  - XorNot 3y ago
    What do you think defense actually is in the current technological era? You don't defend territory with static defense's or force fields or walls.
    - croes 3y ago
      Yeah, but do you think these technology can't be copied by others? Drones and robots made attacks easier, did that help national security? Countries like Russia or China won't attack because of nuclear weapons but groups like ISIS don't care.
      - Prickle 3y ago
        > Drones and robots made attacks easier, did that help national security? Large flying drones make patrolling a border easier. You don't have to worry about the pilot's fatigue level. Only fuel/battery. The war in Ukraine clearly shows that smaller drones also help in attacking and defending. Attacking, by dropping bombs or spotting targets. And defending, via spotting incoming enemy forces; spotting enemy artillery that is shooting at you, etc
      - golol 3y ago
        > Drones and robots made attacks easier, did that help national security? Yes because the enemy will have them eventually regardless of whether you develop them. Call it a Prisoner's Dilemma if you will, but it's the reality. Besides, unlike nuclear weapons, warfare with autonomous systems is not particularly more cruel than WW1 or WW2 style warfare.
  - gumby 3y ago
    That seems like a rather limited view of the word "defense", more appropriate to football or hockey than warfare. Even for that you could have these drones patrolling the territory/shooting intruders. But the word "defense" is much wider than that. Is the US supplying offensive weapons to Ukraine contributing to the national defense? Even if you feel the US should not be doing that, I hoe you can see the logic of people who do frame it that way. And Ukraine's in a defensive war against an invader, and for that they have to go on the offense. (Of course the US renaming the Department of War to Department of Defense in 1947 was 100% propaganda, or to be more charitable, aspirational. There is no question that it has been used offensively).
    - croes 3y ago
      >But the word "defense" is much wider than that. Is the US supplying offensive weapons to Ukraine contributing to the national defense? In a war the line between offense and defense is blurred but the national security is at level zero.
    - littlestymaar 3y ago
      > Is the US supplying offensive weapons to Ukraine contributing to the national defense? It's not. It's contributing to European security, and as such is necessary for the US to reaffirm their suzerainty over Europe, but it's not really about US defense and even less about National Security. (I'm glad they do btw, because we European powers would have left Ukraine fall after deciding it would be too expensive to help them…)
      - golol 3y ago
        European security is national security via geopolitics. Being a global superpower has many benefits for US citizens.
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        > European security is national security via geopolitics. If you consider “national security” to be a meaningless buzzword and not an actual concept, you can say that. It's as accurate as saying “US sports results at the Olympics is a national security issue via soft power”. Pretty much everything is “national security” by that standards. > Being a global superpower has many benefits for US citizens. Sure, but most of them don't have anything to do with national security.
  - Prickle 3y ago
    How does it not? Consider terrain such as the mountain ranges along the side of California. Or the entirety of Japan. Wheeled and tracked vehicles generally have problems in that terrain. Legged robots don't. Suddenly your troops intended to operate in mountainous terrain have a reliable robot donkey to use as a packmule. Many countries (US, Germany, France, Italy, etc) still use horses and donkeys for transport in bad terrain.
    - ChatGTP 3y ago
      There is certain terrain legged robot will struggle with too
  - golol 3y ago
    There is little difference between offensive and defensive capabilities. It's all about destroying your opponent. This helps national security because it is an additional and advanced means of destruction that the enemy might not have.

roenxi 3y ago

This tech is the stuff of nightmares. People are going to see this unfeeling little chitinous bug-dog-thing crawling in with them, then they die. And it is making it cheaper to kill people in exotic foreign lands. This is the tragedy of the commons. I'd rather see nobody making these advances, but if someone has to it'd better be people on my side. Can't stop progress :(

blacksmith_tb 3y ago
Maybe there's a glimmer of hope that someday both sides can send their robots to destroy one another, instead of their sons and daughters? I agree that initially there's an advantage to richer nations, but it's not like a $30M jet fighter, there could be parity.
- saulpw 3y ago
  That's not how it's going to work. There's no point in taking out a relatively cheap robot that can be replaced in a day, when you can take out a person that will take 20 years to be replaced.
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    But the person you're gonna take out is more likely to be a senior officer, rather than a 18 years old private.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dclowd9901 3y ago

What a naive statement. Do you really believe no other nation is capable of making such a thing? This doesn’t improve our national security at all. Just ups the ante for robotic infantry, whatever the hell that ends up meaning. Like advancements in war technology has ever been a positive in the world.

nico 3y ago
This topic is somehow explored in the movie The Creator There’s a lot of wholes in the plot, but the overall premise and scenario seem eerily plausible
golol 3y ago
> This doesn’t improve our national security at all. You said yourself that other nations can and will make this too. Avoiding a decrease of national security is the same as improving national security.
BWStearns 3y ago
> Like advancements in war technology has ever been a positive in the world Yeah, screw GPS, trauma surgery improvements and better prosthetics, IFF systems, radar/sonar, Internet, ToR, Epipens, and duct tape. /s Really, I get having a generally anti-war position and wanting to spend money on other shit but pretending like there are no positive externalities to defense spending is childish.
presidentender 3y ago
Unfortunately war is kind of a Red Queen scenario where the technology advances everywhere.