×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A Peek At South Korea's Autonomous Robot Gun Turrets

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the next-week-at-thinkgeek dept.

The Military 298

cylonlover writes "If there's one place you don't want to be caught wandering around right now, it's the demilitarized zone that separates North and South Korea. Especially since South Korean military hardware manufacturer DoDAMM used the recent Korea Robot World 2010 expo to display its new Super aEgis 2, an automated gun turret that can detect and lock onto human targets from kilometers away, day or night and in any weather conditions, and deliver some heavy firepower."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

298 comments

Just so you know, (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34484666)

I have really bad breath right now.

Re:Just so you know, (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34485088)

Try a urinal mint.

Back on topic: These would work great along the US southern border, keeping out all those little burrito eaters trying to scurry across. Call it the RoboMinuteman Project [wikipedia.org].

But... (5, Funny)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484672)

can it detect cloaked spies carrying sappers?

No, but there's an app for that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34484982)

FTFA:

a gyroscopic stabilizer unit helps correct both the video system's aim and the direction [...] after recoil pushes them off-target.

Obviously, the legions of south-korean iPhone developers came to good use.

Re:But... (2)

kshade (914666) | more than 3 years ago | (#34485028)

can it detect cloaked spies carrying sappers?

It doesn't have to, North Korea will just scout rush it until it's out of ammo (or reached its kill limit).

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34485048)

Or, they could just wear a plastic back around, for not appearing as a human shape?

It does not have the Juche spirit (4, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484676)

The Juche spirit is indomitable. The capitalist lap dogs of the South cannot hope to win because their people are weak and unwilling to die for their country.

Re:It does not have the Juche spirit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34484700)

This is irony, right?

Re:It does not have the Juche spirit (1, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484818)

No. I am totally serious.

Re:It does not have the Juche spirit (2, Funny)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484852)

Wait, I'm confused. If the last comment was ironic then that means this is also ironic, but if it's not then neither is this.

Are you always ironic answer guy or never ironic guy. Wait. No. That doesn't answer the question. Uhm. Ah! Got it! If I asked your brother whether that was ironic then would he say it's ironic?

Re:It does not have the Juche spirit (1)

queBurro (1499731) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484932)

only if you can guarantee he and his brother disagree on the use of irony?

Re:It does not have the Juche spirit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34485278)

only if you can guarantee he and his brother disagree on the use of irony?

But BadAnalogyGuy always lies, so when he says he is not being ironic, does that mean he's really being ironic or does it negate his original post?

Oh, I hate these hard ones.

Re:It does not have the Juche spirit (5, Funny)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484872)

Amateur.

The American reactionaries and their South Korean lapdogs are becoming so brazen-faced as to distort and justify the crimes perpetrated by American imperialists against humanity in the past, kicking up a whirlwind of militarism throughout their societies. It is a legal and moral obligation and a historical task of the United States to redeem its past crimes. No matter how much water may flow under the bridge, the Korean people will never forget the American imperialists' history of criminal aggression of Korea. It has become as clear as noonday that the U.S. seeks to turn the Korean Peninsula into a sea of fire. America will pay for it without fail, today or tomorrow, the only question is when. There exists no "human rights issue" in the DPRK as all its people form a big family and live in harmony helping and leading one another forward under the man-centred socialist system. It is quite ludicrous for the U.S. to talk about human rights as it has wantonly violated the sovereignty of Afghanistan by openly mounting a military attack on it, state-sponsored terrorism, defying the un and international law and ruthlessly trampled underfoot the human rights of innocent people there. The Obama administration is massacring civilians in an organized way by use of most destructive high-tech weapons.They cannot stop the juche socialism as practiced by the DPRK. A heyday unprecedented in the history of the nation lies ahead of the brave fraternal Korean people, who are courageously rushing towards the world by tapping the inexhaustible potentials of Songun era. Socialism in the DPRK is winning a victory after victory. The Workers' Party of Korea has covered the road of victory and glory under the wise leadership of President Kim Il Sung.The recent Conference of the WPK demonstrated the iron will of the Korean people to remain faithful to the leadership of Kim Jong Il, holding him at the top post of the WPK. The might of the army and people of the DPRK united close around the great WPK serves as a source of invincibility of Korean-style socialism. World-startling events are taking place one after another in socialist Korea. This has convinced the world progressive political parties of a victory of socialism. Bright future is in store for the WPK and people holding Kim Jong Il in high esteem. Kim Jong Il is leading the campaign for the building of a great, prosperous and powerful nation to a brilliant victory as he steers the efforts to effect a great revolutionary upsurge on the strength of single-minded unity.

Re:It does not have the Juche spirit (2, Insightful)

martas (1439879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484926)

Just so no modders get confused, this is a joke. Or rather, it is a depressingly accurate imitation of typical shameless communist propaganda.

Re:It does not have the Juche spirit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34485072)

Just so no modders get confused, this is a joke. Or rather, it is a depressingly accurate imitation of typical shameless communist propaganda.

ME: Completely deflated - Takes off khakis, unloads gun, puts Lenin's and Marxist books away, and goes back to parent's basement.

Re:It does not have the Juche spirit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34485306)

Or rather, it is a depressingly accurate imitation of typical shameless communist propaganda.

Actually, I thought it sounded a lot like Right Wing talk radio comparing Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama. Specifically, it sounds a lot like Michael Medved.

Re:It does not have the Juche spirit (2)

queBurro (1499731) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484960)

Kim Jong Il, he was in 'team america' right?

Re:It does not have the Juche spirit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34485024)

Q: What did Kim Jong the Second say when asked if he wanted to write a sternly worded letter to the South about this coming turrets syndrome in the DMZ?
A: "Do you have any idea how fucking busy I am?"
--
F.A.G.

Re:It does not have the Juche spirit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34485140)

Roddung Simmon approves.

Mass auto turrets. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34484694)

North Korea is doomed.

They phased them in relatively recently (1, Interesting)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484718)

The real reason they have Autoturrets is because of the notorious Axe Murder Incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe_murder_incident)

Re:They phased them in relatively recently (4, Insightful)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484890)

So they recently phased in autoturrets because of a 1976 incident ? Talk about swift action.

There's a really useful aspect to these. (5, Interesting)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484746)

I tend not to get too excited by weapons since they are designed to kill people. Still, these are primarily defensive.

What is really great about them though is that they can be used s an alternative to landmines. There has been a strong demand for a landmine ban from a lot of the world for some time, but they have been unable to get US backing. Now, the US is pretty responsible with its landmines, but the failure of such a major nation to agree to treaties bannning mines has resulted in many less responsible nations refusing to do so either.

These autonomous sentries are a lot easier to spot and deactivate, and considerably less likely to be forgotten about. They're not exactly pleasant but far better than the alternative.

Re:There's a really useful aspect to these. (2, Interesting)

donotlizard (1260586) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484800)

Those things remind me of the robot sentry units in the Special Edition of Aliens.

Re:There's a really useful aspect to these. (1)

alfredos (1694270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484808)

I guess you're right, it's the lesser evil. Still, I find it scaring and can't understand what makes a human being work day after day to design and manufacture such an evil device. Clumsy and random, as Obi-Wan would put it.

Re:There's a really useful aspect to these. (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484886)

Most people who work on defence projects only see a small part of the systems they work on. There are a lot of technologies here. Optical processing, radar tracking. All of that has civilian applications and it is likely some of the software is commercial. Likewise the two axis mount for this device looks much like a mount for a CCTV camera or a telescope. The few people who actually know they are working on weapons probably do it for the money. Its a job like any other.

Re:There's a really useful aspect to these. (5, Insightful)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484910)

>>I guess you're right, it's the lesser evil. Still, I find it scaring and can't understand what makes a human being work day after day to design and manufacture such an evil device. Clumsy and random, as Obi-Wan would put it.

Maybe it was designed by a bunch of guys who didn't want to see their friends killed and wives raped.

Weapons aren't evil when used to defend oneself.

Re:There's a really useful aspect to these. (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34485008)

Weapons aren't evil when used to defend oneself.

They're only evil when the turret tinkering goes wrong...

Devices are not evil. (4, Insightful)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 3 years ago | (#34485074)

> Weapons aren't evil when used to defend oneself.

Weapons are not evil. To be evil requires the capacity for good, Some "evil" people are not evil because they lack this trait; they are insane.

Even the ICJ has admitted that nuclear weapons might be legitimately used in some circumstances, for example.

And enough rifles will kill as many people as died at Hiroshima, or Dresden. Or under Stalin.

A weapon is a tool, to be used or abused or destroyed or thrown away. Your point--"when used to defend oneself"--shows that It is what we do with the weapon that establishes moral worth.

Re:There's a really useful aspect to these. (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 3 years ago | (#34485112)

I am glad those South Koreans turrets can distinguish between rapists and refugees.

Sarcasm aside, what troubles me is that those defensive weapons are not about defense, it's about eliminating any (by any I mean literally 100%) risk for defender. When war becomes like this: drones and roboturrets - there is no factor of retribution holding back the application of war as one of the solutions.

War always carried a heavy price on both sides: attackers and defenders, and that is why it has been a major deterrent to it, essentially sorting it out to the very bottom list of all possible solutions to the conflict.

Re:There's a really useful aspect to these. (4, Funny)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 3 years ago | (#34485162)

Sarcasm aside, what troubles me is that those defensive weapons are not about defense, it's about eliminating any (by any I mean literally 100%) risk for defender.

Why should a defender expose himself to risk when by definition he is likely not the one at fault here? How can such a defensive solution be "applied" except by an attacker first attacking?

It's not like they're going to turret crawl to Pyonyang... Wait...

The national passtime of South Korea is StarCraft... Siege Tank crawl... My God, it suddenly makes sense! Oh hell! WE'RE FUCKED!

Re:There's a really useful aspect to these. (4, Insightful)

theheadlessrabbit (1022587) | more than 3 years ago | (#34485218)

The national passtime of South Korea is StarCraft... Siege Tank crawl... My God, it suddenly makes sense! Oh hell! WE'RE FUCKED!

North Korea has a lot of very cheap units, while the South has a lot of very powerful, but expensive units.
It's pretty much a Zerg vs Protoss battle.
All the South has to do is survive the initial rush. After that, their eventual victory is pretty much assured.

Re:There's a really useful aspect to these. (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34485270)

In an armed conflict, both sides attack and both sides defend. Assuming there is a side not at fault, it's just as likely to be the one attacking as defending.

Re:There's a really useful aspect to these. (2)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#34485234)

I'm fairly certain (I recall seeing these before?) the turret CAN run autonomously, however they are supposed to be supervised and do not engage unless an operator confirms it. The operator(s) have access to zooming cameras in the unit under both visible and infrared spectra.

Re:There's a really useful aspect to these. (1)

Aceticon (140883) | more than 3 years ago | (#34485226)

Maybe it was designed by a bunch of guys who didn't want to see their friends killed and wives raped.

Weapons aren't evil when used to defend oneself.

Pretty much all wars in History are sold to the unwashed masses as us defending ourselves against them so when it comes to war claiming "I did it to protect my family" carries a lot less weight than it would seem for those who don't really know History.

That said, I do agree that on their own weapons are neither good nor evil - its their use (or not) that maters.

 

Re:There's a really useful aspect to these. (1, Interesting)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34485250)

Weapons aren't evil when used to defend oneself.

Not so simple. What if the "oneself" is a mass-murderer in a police shootout?

Re:There's a really useful aspect to these. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34485326)

When a landmine is forgotten about, It's just waiting to have it's own judgement day

Re:There's a really useful aspect to these. (0)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 3 years ago | (#34485266)

I guess you're right, it's the lesser evil. Still, I find it scaring and can't understand what makes a human being work day after day to design and manufacture such an evil device. Clumsy and random, as Obi-Wan would put it.

Next year I'm going to do work at a plant that makes cigarettes. Is that a suitable job for me rather than building weapon systems?

Re:There's a really useful aspect to these. (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484908)

Right up until they rise and overthrow their human masters.

A landmine is not going to plot Judgement Day. :P

There are no defensive weapons (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34484970)

I tend not to get too excited by weapons since they are designed to kill people. Still, these are primarily defensive.

There are no such things as defensive or "primarily defensive" weapons. Or pehaps it would be more accurate to admit that there are such but the distinction is completely irrelevant.

Let's imagine that during the cold war one of the sides would have came up with a technology that would have given them 100% protection from the opponent's missiles. This would have been primarily defensive technology (and one that protects the civilian population!) but it obviously would have meant that the side gets a massive offensive advantage (as the other side can't retaliate). Or let's imagine that a nation occupies another nation and then uses primarily defensive weapons to hold those areas under control (to prevent the attacks of the resistance movement and such). Is that offensive or defensive? In nearly any imaginable conflict, the attacker also needs to defend itself and as such it doesn't really matter whether a weapon is defensive or not.

You could make a point that the defensive weapons help keep the current situation stable (Let's deploy those to every border of every nation and if they're efficient enough... Whoo! No war!) but that doesn't really matter unless we know that the current situation is and will be the preferred one. There are (and will be) plenty of dictatorships that will use the newest defensive technologies to prevent revolutions. I know that I'm somewhat stretching the literal meaning of the word but I'd still like to say that sometimes keeping the situation stable is equivalent to an offensive action (That a cruel dictator is equivalent to an occupying force)... Now, some entities always can defeat the newest technologies, others can't. This essentially means that every time a new (defensive) weapon is created, more power is concentrated to the entities that are already the most rich and powerful. That's the only stability that those create.

As for those being alternative to land mines... Interesting point. I bet that those are (and will be, for the foreseaable future) so much more expensive than landmines, though, that it won't be "either-or". It will probably be "landmines" or "both".

Re:There's a really useful aspect to these. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34484976)

Still, these are primarily defensive.

Yea, right. Nobody would get the idea to drop a few of these in a city, never going to happen. Everybody knows that war is such a clean, civilised and moral affair.

Re:There's a really useful aspect to these. (1)

Spaham (634471) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484978)

unfortunately, landmines are so "cheap" and so easy to deploy and forget,
that I doubt they'll replace them unless a law is passed to ban them...

Re:There's a really useful aspect to these. (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484986)

They aren't really an alternative to mines in the DMZ, but a supplement and can usefully cover mined areas.

Land mines as used on the Korean Peninsula are a Good Thing in that they can help slow sudden southward movement of the forward-deployed Nork hordes when they try for a second time to shove the southern forces into the sea. They came very close the first time, lest we forget.

Re:There's a really useful aspect to these. (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 3 years ago | (#34485058)

> ... but the failure of such a major nation to agree to treaties banning mines has resulted in many less responsible nations refusing to do so either.

Don't confuse a rationalization, excuse, or purported claim to legality with an actual cause.

They refuse to agree to treaty banning landmines because they don't want to ban land mines.

Re:There's a really useful aspect to these. (2)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34485136)

True, but there are a lot of aspect to "don't want to", and they need a better excuse than that in the face of public and international pressure. "We need to defend the DMZ/surround our camps with landmines" can be countered with "You can use these instead." "The US is still using them" can only be countered with the US no longer using them. Even less ethical arguments such as "The weapons manufacturers like the money" can be countered with "The weapons manufacturers are quite happy to sell you these instead", because I'm sure they are.

Re:There's a really useful aspect to these. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34485202)

"Being responsible" with landmines? How do you do that, except by NOT using them at all?

Re:There's a really useful aspect to these. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34485262)

They're not exactly pleasant but far better than the alternative.

So they're far better than the alternative because you will still be dead?

How does that work exactly?

Mutual destruction with conventional weapons? (2)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484752)

At some point, they have enough conventional weapons that they can guarantee each other's destruction even without the need of nukes.

Re:Mutual destruction with conventional weapons? (1)

Renraku (518261) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484934)

Step 1: Acquire a lot of these.
Step 2: Place them at borders.
Step 3: Get nervous that other countries are doing the same.
Step 4: Demand other countries withdraw theirs.
Step 5: Invade other country because they must be hiding something so awesome.

Re:Mutual destruction with conventional weapons? (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 3 years ago | (#34485086)

> At some point, they have enough conventional weapons that they can guarantee each other's destruction even without the need of nukes.

They're already there. But at that point, there's a good chance they'll use the nukes anyway, even if they don't need them.

Maintenance (5, Funny)

Nineteen-Delta (1892866) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484766)

I'd hate to be the maintenance guy: "You sure this thing's been swithced off?" "Sure thing, go right ahead...." "Okay, it's a four kilometer hike, and don't turn it back on until I've checked it, and walked back...."

Re:Maintenance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34485304)

Simple - the maintenance guy is the one flipping the switch.

Great detectors too (4, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484768)

What's really great about these turrets is that besides being able to fire missiles long range, they can also detect cloaked units up to 7 spaces away. This is especially useful for detecting ghosts and wraiths.

Tower defense, the real world version. (2)

qwerty8ytrewq (1726472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484778)

just send in cardboard cutouts on Segways until the turret runs out of ammo. I wonder if they would shoot at someone walking on their hands, or maybe you can program them to only shoot people with bad fashion/hair...hmmmm

Total Speculation (5, Informative)

gsslay (807818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484780)

If you read the "story" you will see that the entire DMZ angle is entirely speculation. The writer doesn't know if this weapon is used there or not, but that doesn't stop him waffling on about it, before admitting its all speculation at the end.

Re:Total Speculation (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34484850)

Personally I was under the impression that there were automated guns on the DMZ for as long as automated guns have been a reality, which has been quite some time.

More likely the South Korean government merely isn't sharing what weapons it has and where they are, because that would be a problem for them. Common sense would suggest that the entire reason why this company developed the weapon was due to being offered a very large sum of money to aid in defending the DMZ.

Re:Total Speculation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34485192)

Leave it to slashdot to only quote the most important part though, right?

Question (2)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484790)

Do they have limited ammo with a cool retro yellow-black interface, which ticks down to zero with appropriate warnings, is fooled by throwing an empty bucket in front of it, and which exhausts its entire ammo supply in under 30 seconds?

Either way, the Aliens:Special Edition guys probably would like to have a look at them.

Re:Question (1)

risinganger (586395) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484838)

From the article

Then it brings the pain, either with a standard 12.7mm caliber machine-gun, a 40mm automatic grenade launcher upgrade...

Probably like more than just a look with that upgrade. I would think even aliens would have to think twice at taking on a grenade launcher.

Re:Question (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484860)

But, Christ! They're wall-to-wall in there!

P.S. Also stick an automated gun turret in the false ceiling.

Spelling & Grammar (0)

shish (588640) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484806)

The article keeps referring to DoDAMM, but the photo is clearly labelled with a DoDAAM logo -- but I'm not sure whether to blame the reporter or the company, as their informational poster seems to be full of translation errors too...

I'm just glad (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484820)

I'm just glad that South Korea has learned lessons about winning the hearts and minds of the populace, and is not making itself look like an evil faceless inhuman foe to the people of the North.

Re:I'm just glad (4, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484992)

I have worked in South Korea and believe me they take security seriously. I didn't see any Security Theatre at all while I was there. There were lots of guns and fences though.

Unless they can move or be moved easily ... (3, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484826)

.... they're a sitting duck for a missile or shelling to take them out.

Re:Unless they can move or be moved easily ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34484882)

If you have bothered to read TFA you'd know that they _can_ be mounted on vehicles and thus be mobile

Re:Unless they can move or be moved easily ... (1)

Magada (741361) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484888)

Narrow-gauge light rail might work. This thing is supposed to deal primarily with infiltrators anyway. Not much discretion in blowing something up with a missile.

Re:Unless they can move or be moved easily ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34484894)

RTFA -- or at least look at the friendly pictures. It can be mounted on even light wheeled vehicles. Listed weight is 300 lbs.

That'd make.... (5, Funny)

Ynot_82 (1023749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484836)

....one hell of a Top Gear episode

We'll start off here, in Busan, South Korea
and race up the east coast into the demilitarised zone between N & S Korea
Avoiding the barrage of automatic gun fire, we'll hurtle into North Korea

Now, as many western maps have no details on the layout of North Korea, we'll all become James May for the day, and probably get lost
But by mid-afternoon we must have traversed west through North Korea, and begin our journey back south down the western coast

Again, avoiding the barrage of automatic gun fire as we pass into South Korea, we'll finish the race in a town called Gwangju for a traditional Korean evening meal (which Hammond won't eat)

Re:That'd make.... (2)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484980)

and to top it off, they all get a budget of 1000 dollars, and are only allowed to buy hyundais!

I can see it now, Clarkson welding several tons of plate steel to a 1600 pound hyundai excel to make it bullet proof

Re:That'd make.... (2)

maroberts (15852) | more than 3 years ago | (#34485006)

Forget May and Clarkson, they'd stand out too much. With a little skin/hair dye and a haircut, Richard Hammond might pass for a local ....

Terran Raven.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34484876)

auto turret

I for one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34484884)

I for one welcome out new rob... ah screw it.

Just another Remote Weapon System (RWS). (0)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484902)

Just another RWS. RWS are cool, but old news. One can mount them most anywhere, and covering the DMZ is a good use for them. This isn't "news" to anyone who follows military developments.

A common model:

http://tinyurl.com/35ap2m8 [tinyurl.com]

Targeting? (1)

bigpistol (1311191) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484950)

can find and lock onto a human sized target.

So you'll be safe if you cross the DMZ dressed as big bird or am I missing something?

Re:Targeting? (2)

indifferent children (842621) | more than 3 years ago | (#34485198)

No. In fact the US/ROK military has had a problem (at least into the 1980s) with their human-detecting radar alerting on Manchurian cranes in the DMZ. Any moving creature big enough to register at all, registers as "target".

Remember that tunnel scene from Aliens? (1)

moxsam (917470) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484964)

That's how these turrets are going to fail. They simply go out of ammo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGE_h4jBBXc

Re:Remember that tunnel scene from Aliens? (1)

Mysticalfruit (533341) | more than 3 years ago | (#34485014)

Phew, I thought I was the only one thinking that. I looked at that little ammo box and thought, that'll maybe stop the first or second human wave? My robot sentries will have ammo drum(s) attached!

Re:Remember that tunnel scene from Aliens? (1)

js3 (319268) | more than 3 years ago | (#34485190)

I think if you're going to build an automated turret at least make the gun part look bigger. That dinky thing on the south korean one won't stop jack shit

Asimov would like to know... (2)

vvpt (1077009) | more than 3 years ago | (#34485082)

...what ever happened to the Three Laws of Robotics?

Re:Asimov would like to know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34485166)

Kill all humans...kill ALL humans...must kill all humans....hey, sexy mama, wanna kill all humans?

.

Guns dont kill people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34485098)

So what's going to happen with the classic NSA saying?
Guns dont kill people. Turrets kill people?

Not autonomous... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34485164)

... remote controlled. Still requires a human to fire from a protected (remote) position. Weapon connects using Ethernet or Wireless.... (Yes, i not only did RTFA, but also read the promotional poster of the weapon itself)

autofocus Infra-Red sensor (2)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34485186)

Defeat the ability of the 'autofocus Infra-Red sensor' and the weapon is rendered useless.

Not autonomous... (2)

dss2000 (1955230) | more than 3 years ago | (#34485196)

... remote controlled. This turrets still require a human being for firing from a remote secure location. They can be connected by wire (ethernet) or wireless. Yes, i not only did RTFA, but also read the promotional poster of the weapon itself.

Zapp Branigan (2)

bigpistol (1311191) | more than 3 years ago | (#34485222)

I just sent wave after wave of men until the killbots simply reached their kill limit of 999,999 then swept them off the floor.

Isn't Technology Wonderful? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34485248)

It's about time someone developed something like this. Now I can finally keep them danged neighbor kids off of my lawn for good!

dirty deeds & they're done dirt cheap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34485282)

that's US? no, it must be the 'other guys'? is dick cheney a bigger crook than the wiki guy? (this post may be unreadable by certain folks).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...