Posted on Jan 21, 2014
U.S. Army considers replacing thousands of troops with robots- what are your views on this?
2.79K
34
14
1
1
0
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.
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.
The US Army is studying whether robots could take the place of thousands of soldiers
Posted in these groups: 
Army
Army
Edited >1 y ago
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 8
4
4
0
I like the idea of Unmanned Vehicles for use in convoys that transport supplies, etc.
(4)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Lt Col Rojas,
Looks like that U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) has already demonstrated this technology recently:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2014/01/driverless/
Looks like that U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) has already demonstrated this technology recently:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2014/01/driverless/
U.S. Army convoys will soon be able to roll into even the roughest of unfriendly foreign urban areas and combat zones without the worry of loss of life, thanks to new technology that will make large v...
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SSG B.
I agree that it takes out the human factor. Implementation of this most likely won't occur for at least another 5-10 years.
I agree that it takes out the human factor. Implementation of this most likely won't occur for at least another 5-10 years.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
It could be a good idea to stem the attacks by snipers and other terrorists.
(4)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
It does reduce the number of those Soldiers who are exposed to possible direct fire/ IED's.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
TSgt D.,
Our Commander-in-Chief has already welcomed our new Robot Overlords as shown in the link below:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/04/24/Obama-Bows-to-Japanese-Robot
Our Commander-in-Chief has already welcomed our new Robot Overlords as shown in the link below:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/04/24/Obama-Bows-to-Japanese-Robot
ASIMO, an acronym for Advanced Step in Innovative Mobility, exchanged bows with the president before demonstrating that it could kick a soccer ball.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
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...
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google