U.S. military to research 'battlefield illusions' weapons

[amused]

I'm not doubting the plausibility of it, but the effectiveness of it, plus I love all these costly hair-brained ideas that in the end would not stop wars being won by ground troops.

Ground troops?

Just a matter of time...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Just a matter of time..."

I see you haven't kept up with the latest military news.

[Audley Strange]

When the machines finally become sentient they will not be big robots, they will be viral nannites. In fact they'll probably be the infection that used corpses as hosts. The zombie apocalypse is the robot apocalypse, you mark my words.

[Atheist-Lite]

Those whom the Gods....no, I'll start again....those who themselves wish to destroy they first make mad...closer.

[Seth]

"Order them to put down their suicide belts?" Excuse me? How about order them to immediately detonate their belts, while they are around each other?

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

"Just a matter of time..."

I see you haven't kept up with the latest military news.

I'll be impressed when I see a fully autonomous humanoid robot that can even run properly (ASIMO doesn't count 'cos it "runs" like it's bursting for a crap) - let alone one capable of completing an assault course.

[eXcommunicate]

Some of it may be plausible. There were some stories a while back about certain frequencies causing nausea in crowds, causing people to feel unbearably hot, and so forth. I'm not at all sure about visual hallucinations, though. Not sure how that would be possible without introducing chemicals into the scene, which would cause a lot of controversy.

You can cause audio and visual hallucinations with ELF's yes, however they are not particularly effective in comparison to a couple of grams of dried shrooms or a dunt of DMT. I'm not doubting the plausibility of it, but the effectiveness of it, plus I love all these costly hair-brained ideas that in the end would not stop wars being won by ground troops.

Such research can have secondary benefits and make interesting, if not beneficial, discoveries. Though, a (good, convincing) argument could be made that direct research in these areas would be a more efficient use of the money instead of hoping for secondary benefits from military projects.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

I'll be impressed when I see a fully autonomous humanoid robot that can even run properly (ASIMO doesn't count 'cos it "runs" like it's bursting for a crap) - let alone one capable of completing an assault course.

I think having a battlefied robot with only 2 legs would be a waste of time - we see what happens to humans with only 1 leg damaged, let alone blown off.

I would favour something that had 8 legs (and could operate with less - 5?). But IMO absolute mobility is not that important, far more important is having them in numbers (and at low cost) so that when (not if) they get attacked by the enemy it is not a disaster. The main problem with infantry is that can't (won't!) deliberately stand in the line of fire taking hits......I would make the system remote controlled by a soldier either on the ground (hiding in cover) or from a home base. Would also integrate the ground "robot" with an aerial drone (or 2), ideally with some weapons capacity of it's own or failing that as extra eyes - relayed either to the on ground troops or the home base - or both.

Could make the weapons system customisable (whatever happened to flame throwers?) mix up a gatling gun with a sniper's rifle and a bazooka.

The key is being cheap and disposable enough to lose - so can be sent on ahead. A bonus would be if could be used to carry some kit.

To really freak the enemy out could make the top half a human form - even if it did little more than be a powered dummy

I want one .

[apophenia]

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like victory."

I don't see how this is particularly novel. Camo, decoys and psyops are essentially the same thing. In the Ardenne, the Germans would play phonograph recordings of tank sounds to confuse the Americans and disguise equipment movements.

What's always interesting is why we go to such lengths to avoid unethical military weapons. The technology they are developing to zap enemy infrantry with a heat ray is as hobbled by the desire to make it non-lethal, likely as well for potential domestic and foreign sales to police and such, as it is by technical challenges. And biological and chemical weapons are very effective, especially if deployed against a civilian population. What would happen if the U.S. used such in a so-called just war against soldiers? Against civilians? I don't think the bulk of the American public was at all alarmed that the targets of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not essentially military targets. Would they be as nonchalant today?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Take the publicly available information about autonomous battlefield 'droid and consider how long it takes the public to find out about things like the B-2 bomber.