U.S. Army considers replacing thousands of troops with robots- what are your views on this?

2014-01-21T16:39:52-05:00

This is from the U.K. Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10587820/US-Army-considers-replacing-thousands-of-troops-with-robots.html

What are you views on this? Discuss.

US Army considers replacing thousands of troops with robots - Telegraph

The US Army is studying whether robots could take the place of thousands of soldiers

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 21 at 2014 5:01 PM

2014-01-21T17:01:28-05:00

It could be a good idea to stem the attacks by snipers and other terrorists.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 21 at 2014 5:02 PM

2014-01-21T17:02:44-05:00

I'm not sure you can do this effectively. Machines make decisions based on hard, calculating logic. There is no empathy and sometimes, we must use empathy to bring all points of view before making a decision. This topic definitely warrants much further discussion.

Response by Lt Col Luis A. Rojas made Jan 21 at 2014 8:16 PM

2014-01-21T20:16:39-05:00

I like the idea of Unmanned Vehicles for use in convoys that transport supplies, etc.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 21 at 2014 8:43 PM

2014-01-21T20:43:42-05:00

I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords. In all seriousness though I think a more mechanized future is not too far fetched. Look at the USAF, most of the new airframes being tabled right now will either be completely remotely piloted, or have the option.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 21 at 2014 10:08 PM

2014-01-21T22:08:55-05:00

I'm not sure, based on the responses, how many actually read the article, but it sounds to me like they're simply referring to personnel being replaced by automation/unmanned vehicles, much like in the industrial/manufacturing sector. The wording of the article's headline is unnecessarily dramatic.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 21 at 2014 10:21 PM

2014-01-21T22:21:00-05:00

Every branch of service have their 'eyes' and 'hands' in this topic in one way or another.

Unmanned weapons platforms, transport devices and/or IED defeaters are more cost effective - the loss of any of these items is nothing compared to the loss of an experienced human warfighter.

Getting our personnel out of harms way all the while inflicting heavy losses to the enemy is the main objective of remotely controlled items.

As long as we keep the 'human' element in the 'loop' this type of thinking is a good thing in the long run. But if they think they can run things without the human element - I would hope the American public would go against this - there is no unhackable system in existence so the consequences of taking the human factor out would lead to disaster.

Response by SFC Stephen P. made Jan 24 at 2014 5:14 PM

2014-01-24T17:14:21-05:00

So long as it does not engage the enemy, it shouldn't be an issue.

Were it to change to a direct firing asset (remember the original Predator drones were unarmed) this would likely lead increased animosity toward U.S. forces.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 31 at 2014 7:22 PM

2014-01-31T19:22:18-05:00

Latest update:

The U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) has recently conducted a Capabilities Advancement Demonstration on Ft. Hood. Here's the video:
http://youtu.be/HseUNLP6q24

Note that in 1:10 in the video that the mannequin is not wearing a PT Belt.

2014 Autonomous Mobility Appliqué System -- Capabilities Advancement Demonstration (AMAS CAD)

The 2014 AMAS CAD was held at Boaz Military Operations and Urban Terrain Site in Fort Hood, Texas. The demonstration was a collaborative effort between the U...