×

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!

India To Develop Military Robots For Warfare

samzenpus posted about 10 months ago | from the robot-wars dept.

Robotics 169

WoodenKnight writes "Indian DRDO chief Avinash Chander has told reporters that development of robotic soldiers would be one of his 'priority thrust areas', saying that 'unmanned warfare in land and air is the future of warfare.' He foresees robotic soldiers assisting human soldiers initially but, he hinted at forward-position deployment of such robots. He gave a timeline of at least a decade for the project to see any practical use but said a number of labs in India are now working on this."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

169 comments

Oblig (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43961505)

Well I for one....

Re: Oblig (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43961617)

...wish my own government was as forward-thinking

instead our fearless leaders have chosen paths such as plunging billions into the toilet marked "F-35"

Re: Oblig (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43961701)

...wish my own government was as forward-thinking

instead our fearless leaders have chosen paths such as plunging billions into the toilet marked "F-35"

Hey, you've still got to get these 'bots to the battle field. We'll just drop them from out F-35s. India doesn't have this problem because they share a border with their bigest enemy.

Re: Oblig (2)

Thud457 (234763) | about 10 months ago | (#43962103)

The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots.

Re: Oblig (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 10 months ago | (#43963795)

And instead plunged billions into the toilet marked "robots on the front line". Because, to a great extent, it's the process that's the problem, not necessarily the product.

seems a bit specialized for the current state (3, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about 10 months ago | (#43961535)

If you have well-developed robotics expertise already, you're in a much better position to develop more specialized robots, like robot soldiers. India doesn't really: both its robotics industry and its research are relatively small sectors at the moment, far behind the state of the art in countries like Japan, China, Germany, South Korea, or the USA. They're going to have to fix that before robot soldiers are going to emerge out of it.

Of course, this might just be a way of selling robotics funding, so maybe that's the goal.

Re:seems a bit specialized for the current state (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43961581)

How to get good at something: Try doing it.

Re:seems a bit specialized for the current state (2)

Trepidity (597) | about 10 months ago | (#43961747)

Yes, but in this case the useful "it" to try doing is "robotics". Attaching weapons to them is something that's useful to do once you have the basics down.

Re:seems a bit specialized for the current state (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 10 months ago | (#43961871)

On the other hand, if you are trying to get funding for basic research approved, attaching weapons to your grant proposal can be very helpful indeed...

Since actually getting a robot to kill somebody(in a manner more sophisticated than a land mine) requires all sorts of other capabilities to be worked out first, you can just write "Killer Robots OMG National Security" on your application and then spend a decade doing the basic research you actually wanted to do anyway.

Re:seems a bit specialized for the current state (4, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | about 10 months ago | (#43962369)

Robots killing people is fairly easy, simple motion activated systems combined with range finding and ballistics algorithms will do the trick. Add facial/body type/gait recognition to keep it from going after so many shadows.

Getting them to do that while also not killing the right people is the hard part.

Re:seems a bit specialized for the current state (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 10 months ago | (#43962509)

Automated fire control, with either the assumption that all targets are valid targets or with a human Yes/No step is indeed the (relatively) easy part. If you want the robot to be anything but a static turret, ideally plugged in to the electrical grid, you fall into the morass of hard robotics problems once again.

Re:seems a bit specialized for the current state (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 10 months ago | (#43962573)

Seriously,

I'm sure some of those robot gladiators wouldn't be too pleasant to run into in a dark ally.

1. Create chassis w wheels.
2. Mount weapons.
3. ??? Develop AI. or... use a remote control.

Re:seems a bit specialized for the current state (-1, Offtopic)

tippe (1136385) | about 10 months ago | (#43963289)

Killer Robots OMG National Security

That's a little insensitive, don't you think? This is an article about the *Indian* military, so wouldn't a more accurate abbreviation be OMS (Oh My Shiva) or possibly OMV (Oh My Vishnu)? Just sayin'...

Re:seems a bit specialized for the current state (0)

Xeleema (453073) | about 10 months ago | (#43963829)

That's a little insensitive, don't you think? This is an article about the *Indian* military, so wouldn't a more accurate abbreviation be OMS (Oh My Shiva) or possibly OMV (Oh My Vishnu)? Just sayin'...

No, it would be "Robot of Killing. Fund Where; Pls do the needful"

Re:seems a bit specialized for the current state (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 10 months ago | (#43963787)

It really depends how indiscriminate you are. A robot that just shoots at any moving IR target isn't particularly complex but as long as you point it at no-man's land it can be quite effective.

Don't underestimate Indian weapons tech. They already have some pretty high end stuff like the fastest cruise missiles in the world, for which no-one has any realistic defence yet. A drone that attacks anything moving in a designated kill-zone could be assembled out of existing technology and some glue.

Re:seems a bit specialized for the current state (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 10 months ago | (#43962549)

And I quote:

He said many new technologies have to be developed such as "miniature communication, materials, cognitive technologies, self-learning processes and interaction with human."

All in the span of a decade... they have no idea.

Maybe this project can serve as a funding guise for stabilizing their electrical grid, can't imagine it could take the toll of charging a robot army, much less powering a space heater at present.

Re:seems a bit specialized for the current state (1)

cusco (717999) | about 10 months ago | (#43963195)

It's not like they have to develop everything from scratch the way the Pentagon does it. They can use COTS hardware, research current state of the art, hire away talented researchers, and contract with experienced companies. If it was being done by Boeing or Lockheed they'd probably insist on reinventing the wheel first, and then the electric motor, and integrated circuits, before even starting to build a robot. India's military is also not going to insist on perfection, but a product that is "good enough". I'd be surprised if they don't have something workable in five years, and devices deployed well before the end of this decade.

Re:seems a bit specialized for the current state (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 10 months ago | (#43963319)

Whether they use existing technology or not, cognitive abilities, and self-learning (AI) have been tried and side-lined by far more developed countries.

If they create a robot army in 5 years... my money's on it'd get picked apart by the most basic of current drone technology.

Re:seems a bit specialized for the current state (1)

Aguazul2 (2591049) | about 10 months ago | (#43961753)

Note: Drones are robots. Perhaps everyone is imagining 3 Laws humanoids.

Re:seems a bit specialized for the current state (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43962361)

Indian teams always do shitty in international robotics competitions, but not for lack of effort or talent. Their shoe string budgets are usually propped up by ingenuity & hard work where a significant portion of their labor ends up invested in DIY shit which better capitalized teams were able to just buy CoTs. It will be interesting to see if government financing of the field will end up in their hands or if it will be plundered by corruption.

If the faculty supervising the team exercises authority to blow the team budget on useless bullshit in exchange for kickbacks then it will not.

This is in contrast to "First World" countries where college textbooks are never written by the professor requiring them, and PRISM refers to optics.

I for one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43961539)

Welcome our new robo........

Robots... (3, Funny)

kryliss (72493) | about 10 months ago | (#43961567)

Will the robots be able to handle their own tech support should they have an issue?

Re:Robots... (0)

c (8461) | about 10 months ago | (#43962115)

Will the robots be able to handle their own tech support should they have an issue?

Nope. It'll be an Indian call center.

I imagine the call drop-off statistics will be quite high at the "please try rebooting" step of the script.

Re:Robots... (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43962139)

No; but a terminator with a Dr. Apu Nahasapeemapetilon Indian accent may change the feel of the film.

Re:Robots... (1)

locofungus (179280) | about 10 months ago | (#43962881)

Vicious, Independent, Replicating, Unswerving, Sacrificial robots.

I think we need a special word for them...

hmmm .... VIRUS robots

oblig. Simpsons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43963007)

The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea.
They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain.
In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots.
And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots.

First (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43961569)

Before the Machines kill us all

Inevitable... (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 10 months ago | (#43961607)

"Hello, this is Fred who-is-definitely-not-from-Hyderabad, thank you for calling killbot technical support, how can I help you today?"

"Hi Fred, I'm afraid my killbot has been refusing all targeting instructions and attempting to kill me."

"Ah, let me check with my supervisor, one moment please."

"Thank you for your patience. Please try turning it off and never turning it on again."

Re:Inevitable... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43961681)

Luckily there is an ocean that separates them from us when the killbots run amok.

Re:Inevitable... (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43961963)

Indian here. Find that offensive and stereotyped.
Not everyone here is a snake charmer or a BPO worker call center, nor that majority of people are involved with that kinda job.

Re:Inevitable... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43962493)

Great, so you're the odd one out. It must be hard for you being unable to fit in.

Re:Inevitable... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43962609)

Indian here.

How is that fire water treating you, Chief?

Re:Inevitable... (2)

jma05 (897351) | about 10 months ago | (#43963223)

Also Indian here. Relax. They all know that... at least on this site.
I for one am looking for some original, good-natured call center jokes in a robot apocalypse.
We can do Japanese Mecha jokes or Foxconn robot jokes next week.

Re:Inevitable... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43963575)

Really? You mean there aren't 1.2 billion snake charmers and / or call center employees?
Wow, it's like real life doesn't resemble jokes at all.

Re:Inevitable... (0)

Xeleema (453073) | about 10 months ago | (#43963865)

American here. They're called 'stereotypes' because the majority fit a given description. Live with it or go home.

Re:Inevitable... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 10 months ago | (#43963889)

"We have communicated to the vendor, and there needs to being a patch to OS, and being an update to the number three logic board. We will be doing that now.

"Wait, we need to do updates after hours..."

"I am reminding you that it is after hours."

"It's after hours *there*. It's still ten in the morning here! Wait, the lights on the robot have gone out."

(a long time later)

"We are very sorry to be reporting that the logic board has failed after the update. The vendor has been contacted. We are expect the replacement being onsite in three weeks."

"You've bricked my robot."

"The logic board has failed. The vendor is being sending a replacement...."

"Ok ok ok. At least it's not trying to kill me anymore."

India? Robots in the front line? (3, Interesting)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 10 months ago | (#43961619)

Very surprised. Though no country wants to risk the lives of their soldiers, only in the USA soldiers in body bags have such a heavy political price. India being a Democracy it too would pay a higher political price than, may be Pakistan and China. But still it is a highly populated country without draft. In fact, even in the USA, after the draft has been removed and it became an all volunteer armed forces, the political cost of returning body bags have dropped a lot. So why robots in the forward firing lines? May be it is posturing, goading Pakistan into spending its money on robots instead of supplying terrorists with cheap AK-47s.

Re:India? Robots in the front line? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43961855)

A few reasons, which apply to us as well. One, they share a border with a hostile nation, not unlike our position on the Korean peninsula. It's a stand off weapon, that can monitor a position without fatigue so long as power is available. Two: storm trooper-itis. There are reports that show unmotivated (drafted) troops put in a position to open fire will not be as accurate. A robot can target and shoot quite accurately, and without any pangs of regret or remorse. Which brings up three, PTSD is a very real issue for our troops repeatedly deployed in harms way.

Opinion wise, we've seen nation building fail repeatedly over the years. At some point we will likely swing back to simply striking enemy countries. There is something to be said about being able to drop an area denial robot into a location rather than attempting to occupy. Sort of imagining something like the USRobotics trucks in I, Will Smith. Air drop one into an area and walk away.

Re:India? Robots in the front line? (1)

Njovich (553857) | about 10 months ago | (#43962359)

only in the USA soldiers in body bags have such a heavy political price

The fact that the US is one of the few countries to start foreign wars in the past decade, and that the president responsible got re-elected makes me doubt that. Hell, even in a bunch countries just supporting the US in Iraq and Afghanistan the political fallout was bigger. Not sure about India though.

Re:India? Robots in the front line? (2)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 10 months ago | (#43962571)

Yes, the soldiers in body bags have lost a lot of the political cost in the recent Iraq/Afghanistan war. Gulf War I was remarkable for its low causalities. But I think it is wrong to attribute it to some post 9-11 change of mind of the American public. The earlier high political cost came in when the draft was in place and many solid middle class affluent families actually faced the law: all men are created equal. They had resources to dodge it, going to college, becoming a missionary, becoming a Rhodes Scholar etc etc. But now that draft is gone and the military has become one of the tickets out of poverty for the "lower" classes, the political costs have abated. Still almost all the politicians were very strung up about it. Look at the media ban Bush had about pictures of coffins being unloaded.

I think the political cost of images of dead soldiers is slightly, but just slightly, less in India than in USA. In both countries the martial middle class families get into the Officer Corps and not the enlisted ranks.

What a Simple World You Live In (1, Informative)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | about 10 months ago | (#43962853)

only in the USA soldiers in body bags have such a heavy political price

The fact that the US is one of the few countries to start foreign wars in the past decade,

The only one foreign war that the USA has started since the Cold War is the 2nd Gulf War. Every other war has been legitimate (the war in Afghanistan), the invasion of Panama (which even the majority of Panamanians welcomed it), UN sanctioned to prevent genocide (as in the Balkans) or ill-prepared, ill-advise attempts to provide support to desperately needed UN-sanctioned peacekeeping/humanitarian work (the Somali War and the "Black Hawk Down" incident.).

and that the president responsible got re-elected makes me doubt that.

Junior (that's how I call Bush Jr.) got re-elected once due to not having a viable non-flip-flopping opposition candidate. Kerry at the time was not such a candidate. Opposing without providing clear alternatives is not a viable opposition alternative at all.

We were still recoiling fresh from 9/11 with a fresh 2nd conflict in Iraq. We needed a viable alternative to Junior, and Kerry only opposed, but didn't provide a clear, workable alternative either (and no, an immediate withdrawal at that time was not practical.)

Many people, myself included wanted someone other than Junior. There was none. Ergo, you know the rest of this tragedy. Obviously, hindsight is always 20/20, and there were certainly some jingoistic elements in the US who rooted for Junior. But to pretend that him getting re-elected is solely the result of the population not giving a shit about body bags, that's overly simplistic.

Such a theory makes for excellent rhetoric, I grant you that.

Hell, even in a bunch countries just supporting the US in Iraq and Afghanistan the political fallout was bigger.

Is that surprising? Why should it have not been a greater fallout in the other countries? For those governments, the 2nd Gulf War was not their war, so of course the fallout would be greater. I'm not sure what is so surprising about it, or how one can derive logical or moral conclusions from the fallouts or lack thereof in US politics.

Not sure about India though.

India has a lot of reasons (not necessarily valid or practical in the absolute sense of the word, however.) They have a continuous border dispute with Pakistan, a lot of it with unique hardships and challenges posed of high-altitude, mountain warfare. There might or will be eventual border disputes with China (also under mountain warfare conditions.) The is an asymetric terror warfare going on in India.

Robotics, drones and the like, I can see why India would push this. Whether they have the technical wherewithal to do so now, that's a different question. True that India has a lot of problems in terms of quality control, but so did the Japanese. And while here in the US people used to dismiss the Japanese as "makers of cheap cameras", they rose up to the challenge and almost ate our lunch.

All those quality control and process problems, those are implementation details that countries like India will eventually work out. There is nothing other than time from preventing that from happening.

Re:What a Simple World You Live In (1)

Njovich (553857) | about 10 months ago | (#43963723)

The only one foreign war that the USA has started since the Cold War is the 2nd Gulf War.

Yes, because Afghanistan is in the US? I love the meaning you give to the word 'foreign' :). With the whole 'Prism is not a big deal, we just spy on the rest of the world' stuff, I guess you are not the only one using that meaning. However, I stated nothing about things being legitimate or not.

But to pretend that him getting re-elected is solely the result of the population not giving a shit about body bags, that's overly simplistic.

Well, it was about political impact of bodybags of soldiers in the US being the highest in the world, that was the statement I was responding to. I would say there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, the re-election of the president being pretty notable. How that matters? Well apparently people didn't care enough about it to prevent it from voting for him. Is that proof? no. You don't have to believe me, I'm just saying I doubt the statement. Also wasn't the whole controversy in the US about the total lack of political impact? So what exactly was the political impact?

the 2nd Gulf War was not their war, so of course the fallout would be greater.

The fallout would be greater because they had less casualties and didn't start a war? For most countries starting a war is a bit more influential than helping an ally.

India has a lot of reasons

It wasn't about reasons to create weapons, it was about political impact of bodybags. Also, your opinions on India are a hilarious compilation of what you might find in typical 2 paragraph uninformed journalist newsitems.

Re:India? Robots in the front line? (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 10 months ago | (#43962427)

No, when there is no political cost to body bags, you develop a strategy similar to China's Korean war strategy. Send waves of unarmed soldiers towards the enemy until the enemy runs out of bullets, then send in the soldiers with bullets. That's a zero political cost for body bags offensive. India has never done that. But they could, with robots!

Re:India? Robots in the front line? (1)

rMortyH (40227) | about 10 months ago | (#43962687)

A killer robot costs way more than a human soldier, and is much harder to replace.
It will be very interesting when this comes into the equation. Are these really to protect the soldiers?
Who will end up protecting whom, and who is more 'expendable'?

Re:India? Robots in the front line? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43962793)

only in the USA soldiers in body bags have such a heavy political price.

You're very ignorant.

Re:India? Robots in the front line? (1)

ubersoldat2k7 (1557119) | about 10 months ago | (#43963773)

instead of supplying terrorists with cheap AK-47s.

There you have it, the "cheapest robot possible" TM. Simply program someone to think that their way of life, freedom, lands, traditions, religion is being threatened by something else (the broader and more abstract the better) and you have a pretty cheap killing machine which doesn't need any nuclear power plant to move around but an AK47, some bullets and some rice.

Re:India? Robots in the front line? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 10 months ago | (#43963837)

India wants to be taken seriously as a major military force. They actually have some very advanced weapons, including the fastest cruise missiles in the world and modern, high end fighter aircraft. Built with Russian help, but still...

They also want to export that stuff to other countries for profit.

In the words of Kent Brockman (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43961667)

Every day thousands of young men are given weapons and trained to kill.

The government calls it the "army," but a more alarmist name would be... THE KILLBOT FACTORY.

Those who ignore science fiction ... (4, Funny)

Liambp (1565081) | about 10 months ago | (#43961669)

..are doomed to repeat it.

Re:Those who ignore science fiction ... (1)

dpilot (134227) | about 10 months ago | (#43962415)

They/We already do that with history, despite similar warnings being given frequently and extensively. History is given much better lip-service than science fiction, so why should science fiction fare any better?

Re:Those who ignore science fiction ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43962591)

It's not repetition if it wasn't actually done in the real world.

Your phrase should end in "are doomed to implement it".

Re:Those who ignore science fiction ... (2)

jellomizer (103300) | about 10 months ago | (#43963657)

Except for that Fiction element.
Science fiction tends to have that one little thing that makes the robots go off their programming, without a Safe Default mode. You know to make it a good story, that people will want to read.

No one wants to hear about the little boy who got killed for crossing a zone labeled you will be shot if entered, because he crossed the area. Or in case of a major malfunction where they will not power down. You just kinda shoot them down from the air, or just send in a new batch battle droids to dismantle the other.

Science Fiction is fiction so to make it a good story you need a real plot. Real life is often more boring. And those problems that come with technology we kinda learn to deal with them.

Metal Gear (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43961685)

"War has changed. It's no longer about nations, ideologies or ethnicity. It's an endless series of proxy battles, fought by mercenaries and machines." -- Snake

Re:Metal Gear (2)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about 10 months ago | (#43962163)

Almost true. It's about resources. Machines get to fight for their own oil, for example. Too bad there are probably humans in the way.

Re:Metal Gear (3, Interesting)

dpilot (134227) | about 10 months ago | (#43962479)

I disagree. IMHO war has generally been about egos, and resources are frequently the excuse. Assuming we managed to come up with efficient and logical machines, they would most likely come up with some more efficient way to get their resources than war.

However if they were to decide that war was the most efficient way, watch out!

India? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43961707)

India is one of the most overpopulated countries on this planet. They need to have people serve - and they need a good war with Pakistan, China, Indonesia to thin the heard.

Reducing their population can only help their and the World's situation.

The way I see it going down... (1)

Kookus (653170) | about 10 months ago | (#43961805)

When wars ultimately get to robots fighting each other, the most common sense approach to countering that type of engagement is to attack the people controlling them.
India is heavily dependent on wireless communications as their land-line infrastructure is very poor. So it would make sense to decentralize their command centers and instead rely on ad-hoc wireless networks to distribute instructions. Then people will be targeting enemy combatants that are literally sitting in their living rooms in the midst of civilians. You can't target communications networks as it's wireless with no central point of attack. I think that will lead to a change in warfare where the term civilian is a moot point. It will be basically changed into a if it moves, kill it mentality.

I'm sure people will argue we're already there, but we still have statistics that represent non-enemy combatant deaths. I'm thinking that no one will bat an eye or even raise the question when those statistics are no longer gathered, as you can't even start to figure out what they mean.

Then we'll have our autonomous robot death machines when we don't have enough people to control the first generation robots :)

Re:The way I see it going down... (1)

DocSavage64109 (799754) | about 10 months ago | (#43962791)

You can't target communications networks as it's wireless with no central point of attack.

Your experience with the robustness of wifi is very different from mine. I have enough wifi problems without military communication jammers making it even worse.

Reality TV (3, Funny)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about 10 months ago | (#43961831)

Ok so this will likely lead to robot vs robot warfare with no real human casualties... So, I say we put that shit on TV and enjoy :) /joke
Nah, I don't see any way for this to escalate badly /sarcasm

--
I wish I didn't have to put tags for people who don't get humour.

Re:Reality TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43963361)

As long as joe rogan is the commentator

Re:Reality TV (2)

ubersoldat2k7 (1557119) | about 10 months ago | (#43963895)

Ok so this will likely lead to robot vs robot warfare with no real human casualties... So, I say we put that shit on TV and enjoy :) /joke

Why the joke? In WWII people bought war bonds. In WWIII you'll crowdfund armies and those who contribute more will get the chance to lead them into battle. Those who contribute a smaller fee will get full access to the robot statistics on real time!

Wow, I gotta go get my lawyer and patent this shit.

Ban it before it gets out of hand! (1)

Misagon (1135) | about 10 months ago | (#43961939)

We need to get an International treaty in place against these kinds of weapons before everyone has their own.

Re:Ban it before it gets out of hand! (3, Insightful)

AmazingRuss (555076) | about 10 months ago | (#43961969)

...so only those that abide by the treaty won't have them.

Like it or not, this is the future.

Re:Ban it before it gets out of hand! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43963143)

...so only those that abide by the treaty won't have them.

Like it or not, this is the future.

Yeah, awesome. For added bonus, you have to make all the robots autonomous because otherwise they would be easily disabled by jamming centralized control. So we are one buffer overflow away from fucking ourselves over.

The future is now clear. One crazed asshole commanding botnet of 10,000,000 android "defenses" that are going on a rampage in cities. Perhaps the future has no need for humans after all.

India shamefull (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43962031)

Ghandi must be rolling in his grave...

Terrific (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43962127)

This from a country that can't provide the majority of its inhabitants even with basic sanitation. By all means, develop your ridiculous robots.

Re:Terrific (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43962545)

Keep in mind that according to its actions, the US aspires to the same status - except substitute "won't" for "can't", at least in the short-medium term. In the long term those policies will make it "can't", too.,

human is cheaper (2)

beefoot (2250164) | about 10 months ago | (#43962233)

The India population is 1.241 billion according to google. It would be hard press to find a cheaper alternative other than human soldier.

Re:human is cheaper (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43962529)

Kinda yeah. There's no much use for this thing in India. This seems likely to be more of a prestige project/dickwaving exercise directed probably at Pakistan.

Re:human is cheaper (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43962897)

This, isn't, assuming you respect the lives of other fellow humans.

too close to the US (1)

neither_geek_nor_ner (1002460) | about 10 months ago | (#43962597)

It seems India's govt officials have finally learnt a trick or two from their American counterparts - how to announce grandiose defence research with a huge budget!

Three Simpsons ref's so far (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 10 months ago | (#43962601)

Jeez slashdot, three Simpsons references so far and no one's mentioned:

The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.

Easier route to escalation (4, Insightful)

Lazarian (906722) | about 10 months ago | (#43962603)

I've always thought that a lot of people don't realize that having lives in harms way on -either- side of a is a deterrent in itself to using weapons that would be horribly beyond all conscience (that in itself, well, depends on who's pushing the buttons). India and Pakistan say, have nuclear weapons. If Pakistan had a few infantry and tank divisions, along with a couple border villages wiped out by robotic troops, I'd think that the bar would be lowered as to them responding with a tactical nuclear strike to eliminate the robot threat. Then things would snowball from there. The situation wouldn't go from escalating from conventional to chemical in between at all. War is about killing people. When one side has troops that are machines, the other side does not have to restrain themselves to the moral restraints that have kept whatever tenuous leash on us throughout our history. Just a thought.

Poor Path (1)

b4upoo (166390) | about 10 months ago | (#43962641)

As much as I love robotics I just can't see how the leaders in India could exist with the guilt of spending the sums involved in building a modern military. Too much poverty, suffering and need to go down this road. Maybe building useful robots for export in order to raise funds to help the suffering would be a better goal. What would Ghandi have done?

Re:Poor Path (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43963555)

They don't seem to have suffered with very much guilt up to now! The Indian Government is spending HUGE sums of money or arming itself despite millions of its people living in filth and poverty. The UK still spends hundreds of Millions of Pounds on aid to India, doing the job their OWN Government SHOULD be prioritising.

It's time we all reigned in spending on creating new ways to kill each other!

Re:Poor Path (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43963917)

You can always tell a dirty commie by the idiot stench. What do you think brought the rest of the world out of poverty like this? That is right industry. Which in case you can't tell is building things, not like in America where all they do is write code and wait tables and pretend to be capitalist.

Pre-emptive expert remarks.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43962713)

Let me save you folks some typing effort by saying what you wish to say:

India is a poor country that can't feed its people. It has not right to work on these technologies. Leave science and tech to the advanced nations. Put bread before your people first.

Now, the formalities having been completed, let's discuss the technological aspects of the program.

Re:Pre-emptive expert remarks.... (1)

gatkinso (15975) | about 10 months ago | (#43963239)

You didn't mention the open sewers in the streets, and that more toilets are needed.

It's COMPLETE nonsense (3, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | about 10 months ago | (#43963025)

...honestly, not even worth reporting.

1) India has trouble building tanks, airplanes, ships, and subs...far more 'pedestrian' tools of warfare. Their programs are bloated and rife with corruption, delays, technical failures, overpromises, etc. such that they are only capable of producing inferior equipment at ridiculous costs.

2) India is the second most populous country in the world. If there's anything they DON'T need it's to replace the dirt-cheap organic, self-replicating, minimally-functional dubious cannon fodder they currently have with hideously expensive, fragile, dubious cannon fodder made out of plastic and metal that they don't have and likely will never be able to build for the foreseeable future.

What? No obligatory? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43963039)

Johnny 5 is ALIVE!!!

They don't need drones! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43963117)

India has a much more powerful weapon for warfare and it isn't even modern warfare.... it's THEMSELVES! The smell would kill ANYONE. Seriously, get close enough to your enemies without getting shot and you're sure to take them all out when your stench of BO/curry.....

Relax... (1)

bayankaran (446245) | about 10 months ago | (#43963395)

Indian weapons are a joke. I am more worried about one of our missiles targeted for Karachi landing in Karnataka. 'No one knows anything' is applicable to Indian films and Indian weapons.
The robot soldier idea is a non-starter vanity project, like the $10 tablet, auto-mobiles powered by water and air and so on. No need to worry. But like Russel Peter's would say, playing with these robots 'someone is going to get hurt real bad'.
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...