Anyone else a bit concerned with autonomized weapons?

[HAYAO]

If I was a terrorist, I wouldn't be stupid enough to do terror attacks on civilians using smuggled/stolen autonomous military robots. For one, it would be easy to be countered by law enforcements and counter-terrorist military units, because they basically have the same, or even better. And two, it is not worth the effort and money for smuggling such thing, only to be destroyed for sure by counter-terrorist.

Sure, you can probably kill more with autonomous military robots than spraying your assault rifle with your friends, but bomb attacks are more efficient, simple, can be hidden well, and cheaper (and can be self-made).

 

[Monsterboy]

I wouldn't be stupid enough to do terror attacks on civilians using smuggled/stolen autonomous military robots. For one, it would be easy to be countered by law enforcements and counter-terrorist military units, because they basically have the same, or even better.

Then you are not an ambitious terrorist, look at the Taliban, the US and Afghan military are better equipped in every way but still it has proven to be quite difficult to eliminate the Taliban. Why is that ? Because such terrorists are not just thinking of blowing up buildings or cars, that is just their way of "sending a message" or "spreading fear", their real goal is to occupy territory and enforce their rules over other people. Combat robot can be a good tool to use for a guerrilla army, they can attack where they are least expected cause a lot of damage and run away i.e hit and run tactics, before being taken down by the "superior" counter-terrorist forces, even if they are "beaten" by counter terrorist forces, it wouldn't matter for them, why would it ? Robots can be sent on suicidal missions just like humans.

 

[HAYAO]

Then you are not an ambitious terrorist, look at the Taliban, the US and Afghan military are better equipped in every way but still it has proven to be quite difficult to eliminate the Taliban. Why is that ? Because such terrorists are not just thinking of blowing up buildings or cars, that is just their way of "sending a message" or "spreading fear", their real goal is to occupy territory and enforce their rules over other people. Combat robots can be a good tool to use for a guerrilla army, they can attack where they are least expected cause a lot of damage and run away i.e hit and run tactics, before being taken down by the "superior" counter-terrorist forces, even if they are "beaten" by counter terrorist forces, it wouldn't matter for them, why would it ? Robots can be sent on suicidal missions just like humans.

This misses my point. I am talking about terrorist attacks on civilians. Insurgents attacks are different. But if you want to argue this, then fine.

I am by no means a military personnel, but it's not that hard to imagine the difficulties in fighting Talibans and insurgents from the military perspective, unless you are ready for genocide (like in some countries).

The reason why it is difficult to wipe out Taliban is because of the rule of engagement. One cannot be certain whether one is an insurgent or not unless they either engage you first or you have good proof and intelligence that they are. This is especially true when firearms can be hidden rather easily in real combat, and people can camouflage like a normal civilian. But military robots? No, once you see a military robots in a place they aren't supposed to, then it's safe to judge they are enemies.

 

[gleem]

In the near term say next 10 years it is very unlikely to have an autonomous anthropomorphic robot engaging humans or one another. AI is and will continue to be applied to weapon systems as ships, plane-drones, vehicles or as perimeter defense systems for surveillance , reconnaissance and probably used offensively autonomously until it engages the enemy.after which humans will probably pull the trigger. I can see in the near term the possibility of using truly autonomous weapons where because of the situation as a forward attacking force in which only enemy forces should be present there is a reduced need to verify the identity of a target. Sending a drone into a cave containing possible combatants. or enforcing curfews with "non lethal" force. In fact a Texas company called Chaotic Moon sells an autonomous surveillance drone (CUPID) that can taser a trespasser who refuses to leave. The company Taser is looking into developing similar devices for law enforcement.

 

[Monsterboy]

This misses my point. I am talking about terrorist attacks on civilians. Insurgents attacks are different. But if you want to argue this, then fine.

I was talking about attacks on civilians as well.

I am by no means a military personnel, but it's not that hard to imagine the difficulties in fighting Talibans and insurgents from the military perspective, unless you are ready for genocide (like in some countries).

That's exactly why Terrorists + autonomous robots = even more trouble.

The reason why it is difficult to wipe out Taliban is because of the rule of engagement. One cannot be certain whether one is an insurgent or not unless they either engage you first or you have good proof and intelligence that they are. This is especially true when firearms can be hidden rather easily in real combat, and people can camouflage like a normal civilian. But military robots? No, once you see a military robots in a place they aren't supposed to, then it's safe to judge they are enemies.

What makes you think camouflaging military robots is going to be so difficult ?

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/scientists-build-robot-that-can-crawl-camouflage-itself-and-hide/news-story/4987d2f99fa111e5745f6aaba12513d9?sv=b493f1dd644fef0aec46f0527704f228

 

[HAYAO]

I was talking about attacks on civilians as well.

That's exactly why Terrorists + autonomous robots = even more trouble.What makes you think camouflaging military robots is going to be so difficult ?

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/scientists-build-robot-that-can-crawl-camouflage-itself-and-hide/news-story/4987d2f99fa111e5745f6aaba12513d9?sv=b493f1dd644fef0aec46f0527704f228

First, I think you are watching way too much movies and games. Second, you underestimate so many things.

These type of weapons are extremely pricey, especially if you are going to use camouglaging technologies. We are talking about millions of dollars each unit. Realistically speaking, how are they going to smuggle such weapon? How many times have terrorists smuggled fighter/attacker jets and effectively used it? How many times have terrorists smuggled humvees and effectively used it? Tanks? Can they maintain it? Can they utilize their full potential?

Smuggling weapons can only be done for things that are small enough, easily and well produced, and cheap enough for third-world nations to manufacture it. Rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, light and heavy machineguns are basically the limit in size and price for smuggling with reasonable amount of numbers. If you are thinking one single good weapon can change the entire tide of a battle, you are terribly mistaken. You need tens and hundreds, sometimes even thousands to make it work.

You said they can be used for suicide missions. Do you really think terrorists are going to just send a machine to a suicide mission that they had such a hard time smuggling even one unit? That would be a very unwise decision to make and certainly not worth the cost.

Meanwhile you have bombs that can be hand-made. You have rifles that are available in a lot of places in the world. You have people that you can use for suicide missions. All of these don't cost much, and is practically much more useful than smuggling mil-spec military weapons.
AIs are much better decision makers than human. As russ_waters said in his posts, a lot of military errors during combat occur from poor-decision making on the human part. As such, AIs are better combatant in terms of identifying enemy and deciding whether or not to engage them. Using autonomous robots in guerrilla warfare where they have become widely available is going to be much less effective than when without them. Guerrilla warfare works because there is huge gap in preparation between one utilizing guerrilla warfare and one being engaged. They utilize the downside of human combatant: the inability to detect enemy presence in complex terrain and environment, poor-decision making, and lack of ability in parallel thinking and analyzing especially under stress. However, autonomous robots/AIs can significantly close this gap because the defender has more ways to detect and analyze an enemy before and after being engaged.

 

[Monsterboy]

First, I think you are watching way too much movies and games. Second, you underestimate so many things.

I wish i had enough time to do that. If you read my previous response to russ and contemplate on that you will find that I underestimate nothing. In fact you and others underestimate, misunderstand what terrorists are and what they aim for and their relationship with nation states.

These type of weapons are extremely pricey, especially if you are going to use camouglaging technologies. We are talking about millions of dollars each unit. Realistically speaking, how are they going to smuggle such weapon? How many times have terrorists smuggled fighter/attacker jets and effectively used it? How many times have terrorists smuggled humvees and effectively used it? Tanks? Can they maintain it? Can they utilize their full potential?

I repeat again terrorists are not just about blowing up cars and buildings. There is a complicated relationship between nation states and terrorist groups, there are nations which are known to share technologies and money with terrorists. For example the rebels in Ukraine are financed and armed by Russia, that is how they managed to bring down a passenger plane, remember that ?

Pakistan is believed to finance and arm terrorists who attack targets in Afghanistan (while being a ally of the US) and Indian controlled disputed region called Kashmir. If you go to the Middle east, the situation is even worse, several countries and many terrorist groups are involved in the violence, many of the countries in this region are known to support and arm certain terrorist groups in order to cause trouble in other countries.

Smuggling weapons can only be done for things that are small enough, easily and well produced, and cheap enough for third-world nations to manufacture it. Rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, light and heavy machineguns are basically the limit in size and price for smuggling with reasonable amount of numbers. If you are thinking one single good weapon can change the entire tide of a battle, you are terribly mistaken. You need tens and hundreds, sometimes even thousands to make it work.

You said they can be used for suicide missions. Do you really think terrorists are going to just send a machine to a suicide mission that they had such a hard time smuggling even one unit? That would be a very unwise decision to make and certainly not worth the cost.

Meanwhile you have bombs that can be hand-made. You have rifles that are available in a lot of places in the world. You have people that you can use for suicide missions. All of these don't cost much, and is practically much more useful than smuggling mil-spec military weapons.

I am afraid all these points already covered in my previous response to russ here.

The threat of terrorists using such robots is not an immediate one nor is it in the near future, I agree. Right now even major powers are yet use fully autonomous robots. My point is that only after autonomous military robots become a regular thing that terrorists can get their hands on it. If you think about it building a nuclear weapon will harder than building a robot because they won't need any "hard to get" materials that are required to build nukes.

AIs are much better decision makers than human. As russ_waters said in his posts, a lot of military errors during combat occur from poor-decision making on the human part. As such, AIs are better combatant in terms of identifying enemy and deciding whether or not to engage them.

What makes you think these robots will be concerned about their own survival ? They can choose to attack even if they won't make it out alive and in one piece. Robots can be made suicidal if cornered or damaged beyond recovery. Why is this hard to understand ?

Did the gunmen who attacked Paris and Mumbai planned to get out alive ? No, they wanted to cause as much damage as possible. Robots are capable of doing the same.

Guerrilla warfare works because there is huge gap in preparation between one utilizing guerrilla warfare and one being engaged. They utilize the downside of human combatant:

Yes, i know what guerrilla warfare means.
That's why they are good weapons to attack civilian targets and relatively weak military ones.

 

[Rive]

My point is that only after autonomous military robots become a regular thing that terrorists can get their hands on it.

I think you has some misconceptions regarding the realistic issues.

The price tag on the supposed 'military grade autonomous robots' will be quite high, since such stuff is expected to met the standards of military, at least on the level of a common soldier. All terrain, all weather, durable, low maintenance, long operation time, and what is the most important these times: able to satisfy all the armchair-generals, journalists and human right fighters of the world at the same time.

But practically none of that matters for a terrorists and/or for the neglected category of 'idiots'. So, the debate here actually should have two different questions.

• what's it with autonomous weapons which can be accepted into the military?
• What's it with cheap, crude homemade replicas/experiments/attempts of half- or full autonomized weapons and weapon platforms?

 

[Monsterboy]

The price tag on the supposed 'military grade autonomous robots' will be quite high, since such stuff is expected to met the standards of military, at least on the level of a common soldier. All terrain, all weather, durable, low maintenance, long operation time, and what is the most important these times: able to satisfy all the armchair-generals, journalists and human right fighters of the world at the same time.

Yes, the idea in this thread of the people who support LAWS is that we can completely remove humans from the battleground and also avoid civilian causalities i.e it will be a safe war, this means mass manufacturing of these robots, even if a single robot can replace 2 or 3 soldiers ,we are going to have a lot a robots. If the price tag doesn't allow this to happen then the whole point of a safe war is eliminated and we are going to have humans on the battleground.

I assumed that a "safe war" is only going to happen when or if the world's military powers find it affordable to replace all their human soldiers with autonomous robots, am i wrong ? That means the cost of maintaining an army,navy and airforce of autonomous robots has reduced to or is lesser than the cost of maintaining a human military force, when this happens why would it be impossible for terrorists who don't even maintain a regular army to acquire these weapon systems even if they are not the best available with/without state support ?

You yourself say that

...practically none of that matters for terrorists and/or for the neglected category of 'idiots'.

This means at some point in the future when a "safe war" can happen, terrorists who don't have to satisfy all the requirements you stated are going to spend much less money on their robots than what major military powers spend on theirs.

So, the debate here actually should have two different questions.

• what's it with autonomous weapons which can be accepted into the military?
• What's it with cheap, crude homemade replicas/experiments/attempts of half- or full autonomized weapons and weapon platforms?

At first they might appear to be two different questions but they are not entirely different because of the points i have mentioned above. Yes, terrorists are mostly going to use weapon systems which are primitive to the ones used by governments (just like now), that will be enough for them to attack civilians targets and weakly defended military ones, just like they are doing now.

 

[Rive]

That means the cost of maintaining an army,navy and airforce of autonomous robots has reduced to or is lesser than the cost of maintaining a human military force

No. The motive behind the migration toward robots is not about unit price, but about the acceptability of unit loss.
It's a shrug to accept the loss of a robot: however, it takes plenty of tears, loss of political support and many inconvenient questions to lose a soldier.

And there is nothing in progress what would suggest the required endless drop in unit manufacturing costs of advanced military hardware just due the mass production.

At first they might appear to be two different questions

Till somebody manages to smuggle some armed T72's (or anything comparable) from Iraq to USA (or, in general: to the West) they ARE two different questions.

 

[Monsterboy]

No. The motive behind the migration toward robots is not about unit price, but about the acceptability of unit loss.
It's a shrug to accept the loss of a robot: however, it takes plenty of tears, loss of political support and many inconvenient questions to lose a soldier.

And there is nothing in progress what would suggest the required endless drop in unit manufacturing costs of advanced military hardware just due the mass production.

If robots can do soldiers' work equally well or better, then they will be preferred over humans for the reason you stated. However, if the robots are much too expensive to develop, mass produce and maintain and/or are not good enough to replace humans on the ground, most countries will prefer to have humans as soldiers (maybe along with some robots) and the concept of a safe war will remain in fiction.

The consequence of the above will lead to only the most advanced and rich countries possessing a fully autonomous military force and other countries will continue to have a very significant human presence in the battlefield, this will lead to a huge imbalance of power where the advanced countries don't mind replacing their robots in case of loss and other countries will be totally at their mercy. This will justify banning of autonomous military robots.

Till somebody manages to smuggle some armed T72's (or anything comparable) from Iraq to USA (or, in general: to the West) they ARE two different questions.

Terrorists don't need tanks irrespective of whether they can smuggle them, because they are into guerrilla tactics, they don't maintain a regular army. There is no reason to think that autonomous military robots are going to be so big and bulky.

 

[kent davidge]

Terrorists/Robbers/criminals have low resource, frequently have no cash to sustain themselves and their goal. So they are going to use the less expensive tools to get to what they want. They are not going to use anything sophisticated like these robots (only if they are being funded by the government, but that's another story). If not true, then we would have nuclear bombs exploding out by the current terrorist groups.

 

[Monsterboy]

Terrorists/Robbers/criminals have low resource, frequently have no cash to sustain themselves and their goal.

The concern is not about local thugs and pick-pockets. The concern is about organised crime units and terrorist networks that spread across the globe and get a lot of money from people in many countries and sometimes state-funded. This concern, as mentioned earlier several times in this thread is not an immediate one.

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry for the late reply and I only have a bit of time, but wanted to respond to one thing:

Ok, let's talk about point 1. Safer war

You are saying that robots attack robots and all the humans will be completely out of the battleground right ?

Well, this will only happen when all the countries possesses this technology to a roughly same degree...

This simply isn't true and isn't at all close to what I said. Having only robot-on-robot combat is a utopian ultimate endpoint, but every step along the way including steps already taken reduces the deadliness of wars.

 

[Monsterboy]

This simply isn't true and isn't at all close to what I said. Having only robot-on-robot combat is a utopian ultimate endpoint...

Well, i have quoted a few of your posts that made me think that robot-on-robot combat is the aim behind your support for LAWS, even if it is not possible in the immediate future.

Heck, I can forsee a future where we send robots to fight other robots and humans aren't even put at risk.

If there are no humans in the warzone, the robots cannot kill any humans. We're already doing our half: our drone pilots are often halfway around the world from the battles they are fighting in. There is no possibility of them being killed in the battles they are fighting. We are not far from drone vs drone combat and the next step would be robot vs robot combat.

But, maybe you feel I should have paid more attention to this...

You can count civilian deaths or military deaths vs size of forces employed and durations. It is safer to participate in a war on either side where smart weapons are used than it was 50 years ago to participate in a war on either side where smart weapons were not used.

but every step along the way including steps already taken reduces the deadliness of wars.

Smart weapons need not be fully autonomous to get the advantages that you have mentioned.

There is another thing I missed out, perhaps more important than other concerns.

The problem with fully autonomous weapons is that it is difficult to know who is really in control of them. Can you have one head of the air-force and a hand full subordinates who control an entire airforce consisting of perhaps hundreds or thousands of drones ? similarly in the army and the navy ? Can you trust a few individuals with that kind of power ? Individual human soldiers can get to decide where their loyalty lies. LAWS simply do what they are told to do.

For example in Turkey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Turkish_coup_d'état_attempt

During the coup, over 300 people were killed[38] and more than 2,100 were injured. Many government buildings, including the Turkish Parliament and the Presidential Palace, were bombed from the air.[59] Mass arrests followed, with at least 40,000 detained,[38][60] including at least 10,000 soldiers

Let's fast forward to a future where, the human element in the military is reduced a number around the ones mentioned above or even less than that. How do you think a coup attempt would end ?

I think this is addressed in the below quote quite well.

Another issue: suppose you have a wobbly dictatorship and civil strife. Some dictators clamp down on protesters by ordering the army to shoot them down. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't -- a lot of soldiers have qualms about slaughtering their own people. Machines (Terminators?) have no such qualms and simply execute orders. There are similar issues during coups -- failed and successful ones.

As usual, machines allow you to scale things in a way that humans don't. This should be very spooky stuff

 

[gleem]

The problem with fully autonomous weapons is that it is difficult to know who is really in control of them. Can you have one head of the air-force and a hand full subordinates who control an entire airforce consisting of perhaps hundreds or thousands of drones ? similarly in the army and the navy ? Can you trust a few individuals with that kind of power ? Individual human soldiers can get decide where their loyalty lies. LAWS simply do what they are told to do.

One could envision that the use of autonomous weapons could accelerate the tempo of a war to the extent that only a military AI system can orchestrate the strategies and tactics. I am sure as I write this that such systems are under development in anticipation of this.

 

[HAYAO]

Monsterboy, first there is a bigger issue here. I want to make an official complaint that you are misreading and misinterpreting people's words to your advantage. You keep accusing others of something they have not said, and then respond based on that false accusations. You also tend to argue passed them without accounting for the actual point that the other side is saying. I feel that this is not a very fair thing to do.

For example,

Terrorists don't need tanks irrespective of whether they can smuggle them, because they are into guerrilla tactics, they don't maintain a regular army. There is no reason to think that autonomous military robots are going to be so big and bulky.

That is not what Rive is saying. In fact, you just proved him right. He is asking the realistic aspect of the issue. T72 is a great war machine, but like you said, terrorists don't need it. It's not practical for the specific role that the terrorists often use a weapon for. Similarly, autonomous military robots for a military role will be of no use for the terrorists because they will likely not be built for that specific role. Even if they really do need one, they won't be able to build even the most primitive ones because autonomous military robots are certainly going to be technologically demanding both in the principle of operation and the production precision. Even the US military still can't make practical autonomous military robots of infantry level yet. That is the kind of technology we are talking about. So their only option is to smuggle one or hope for some party to provide them one, which is also very impractical. This was also my point in my first post in this thread.

We are not in some science fiction war movie right now. Please talk about the realistic issues.
As a side note, the downing of a civilian aircraft by Ukraine rebels cannot easily be classified as terrorism because they most likely had no intention of shooting down a civilian aircraft. They likely mistook the plane for Ukrainian military aircraft (they have shot down Ukrainian military aircraft several times). And of course the Ukrainian government is considering the rebels as terrorists (and the only government to officially designate them as so), but it is not very easy to designate these rebels (or militia or whatever you want to call it) as terrorists.

 

[Monsterboy]

Monsterboy, first there is a bigger issue here. I want to make an official complaint that you are misreading and misinterpreting people's words to your advantage.

Lol, go ahead with the complaint, let's see how that works out. I am not afraid of false accusations.

That is not what Rive is saying. In fact, you just proved him right. He is asking the realistic aspect of the issue. T72 is a great war machine, but like you said, terrorists don't need it. It's not practical for the specific role that the terrorists often use a weapon for.

I just pointed out that Rive gave me a wrong example, let's discuss...

The realistic issues of smuggling a T72s are

1. A T72 doesn't even into fit a truck, let alone a car or a suitcase. It is very big and bulky hence very difficult or impossible to move it under the nose of authorities.

2. Even after assuming the above issue is solved. A T72 cannot easily be hidden inside an urban area, it takes too much space, a small mistake will make it detectable from air. They cannot be hidden easily hidden in areas where the guerrilla fighters lurk around.

Read this answer about why tanks aren't a weapon of choice for terrorists.
https://www.quora.com/Do-guerrilla-fighters-fear-tanks-AFVs

My question to Rive was, what makes him think that in the future in which LAWS become a common thing they are going to have the same disadvantages of today's tanks ?

As a side note, the downing of a civilian aircraft by Ukraine rebels cannot easily be classified as terrorism because they most likely had no intention of shooting down a civilian aircraft. They likely mistook the plane for Ukrainian military aircraft (they have shot down Ukrainian military aircraft several times).

My point here was not about whether they wanted to do it, it's about them getting their hands on such weapon systems which they could not have developed themselves. In a future where LAWS become a common thing rouge states can share their equipment with "non-state actors" just like this.

And of course the Ukrainian government is considering the rebels as terrorists (and the only government to officially designate them as so), but it is not very easy to designate these rebels (or militia or whatever you want to call it) as terrorists.

Whether a group is considered as "terrorists" or "rebels" or "freedom fighters" etc depends a lot on the which country you are in.

For example: Israel may consider Hamas as "terrorists", Palestine might consider them as "freedom fighters". The soviets may have considered the Mujaheddin as "terrorists", but for ordinary afghans and Americans they were "freedom fighters". In India government considers the people who cause violence in Kashmir as "terrorists" but some of the locals and Pakistanis call them as "rebels" or "freedom fighters". So, it all depends on who you ask.

What they are called as is the not at all the issue here.

 

[HAYAO]

Lol, go ahead with the complaint, let's see how that works out. I am not afraid of false accusations.

That is a very bad attitude and an arrogant stance to have, especially when you are quick to respond in a way I accused you of, right after I accused you.

I just pointed out that Rive gave me a wrong example, let's discuss...

The realistic issues of smuggling a T72s are

1. A T72 doesn't even into fit a truck, let alone a car or a suitcase. It is very big and bulky hence very difficult or impossible to move it under the nose of authorities.

2. Even after assuming the above issue is solved. A T72 cannot easily be hidden inside an urban area, it takes too much space, a small mistake will make it detectable from air. They cannot be hidden easily hidden in areas where the guerrilla fighters lurk around.

Read this answer about why tanks aren't a weapon of choice for terrorists.
https://www.quora.com/Do-guerrilla-fighters-fear-tanks-AFVs

My question to Rive was, what makes him think that in the future in which LAWS become a common thing they are going to have the same disadvantages of today's tanks ?My point here was not about whether they wanted to do it, it's about them getting their hands on such weapon systems which they could not have developed themselves. In a future where LAWS become a common thing rouge states can share their equipment with "non-state actors" just like this.

Please read and comprehend correctly what other people wrote. No one is using any poetry form of writing, so it's shouldn't be so hard to comprehend what people are saying here.

Here is what Rive is saying in his post in simple English:
1) What kind of autonomous military robots are going to be used in a military?
2) What kind of autonomous military robots can terrorists improvise?

These are rhetorical questions, if you haven't figured it out yet. He was being sarcastic when he mentioned T72s. You are welcome.

Whether a group is considered as "terrorists" or "rebels" or "freedom fighters" etc depends a lot on the which country you are in.

For example: Israel may consider Hamas as "terrorists", Palestine might consider them as "freedom fighters". The soviets may have considered the Mujaheddin as "terrorists", but for ordinary afghans and Americans they were "freedom fighters". In India government considers the people who cause violence in Kashmir as "terrorists" but some of the locals and Pakistanis call them as "rebels" or "freedom fighters". So, it all depends on who you ask.

What they are called as is the not at all the issue here.

Well you are the one who mentioned how Russia was funding rebel militias in Ukraine, so it is not hard to tell that you consider them a terrorist group. Hence, I had to provide you the insight because you seems to be making very fatal errors in your arguments.

 

[Monsterboy]

In the interest of this thread which addresses an important topic, I refuse to participate in a muck fest by responding to certain ill-conceived posts.

I am waiting for @russ_watters to respond to post #75. I am done with other people here.

 

[Rive]

He was being sarcastic when he mentioned T72s

Just partially. T72, as a no-longer-top 'hot military hardware' is a great example - it is exactly that kind of stuff what we supposed (??!) to find at hands of terrorists (here).

There are other possible examples, especially since plenty of military hardware ended in hands of groups associated with terrorism in Middle East. But practically none of them made it back to 'West'.

 

[Monsterboy]

Sorry, couldn't resist.

T72, as a no-longer-top 'hot military hardware' is a great example

It may not top notched for the US or NATO but a lot of countries still use them and even older versions like T-55 are still in use in some countries. But their very design is not suited for non-state actors.

- it is exactly that kind of stuff what we supposed (??!) to find at hands of terrorists (here).

Like I said they are not a weapon of choice for terrorists and like you said it's not something that can be smuggled.

You will find anti-tank weapons at the hands of terrorists (today).
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/te...i-tank-guided-missiles-than-ever-4c8be96ea105

Terrorist Groups Now Have More Anti-Tank Guided Missiles Than Ever
Tank killers spread throughout the Middle East

The Kornet system uses a laser beam to direct a missile toward its target at listed ranges of up to 5.5 kilometers.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...apon-of-choice-arm-it-fire-it-run-698901.html

the weapon weighs 7.5kg and can fold in half to easily fit under a coat or into the boot of a car. It is now mainly used in developing countries and would be targeted against lightly armoured vehicles.

Post #42 gives an idea of low cost, low weight autonomous vehicles that can be weaponized.

But practically none of them made it back to 'West'.

This is not just about the West.

 

[HAYAO]

Just partially. T72, as a no-longer-top 'hot military hardware' is a great example - it is exactly that kind of stuff what we supposed (??!) to find at hands of terrorists (here).

There are other possible examples, especially since plenty of military hardware ended in hands of groups associated with terrorism in Middle East. But practically none of them made it back to 'West'.

Yes, I know what you meant because of your choice talking about T72, which is a second generation main battle tank. And we are somehow supposed to see them in the hands of terrorists and be used effectively on this thread...

 

[Monsterboy]

Some members on this thread are finding it extremely difficult to understand why terrorists don't want tanks. I would like to help out here.
https://www.quora.com/Do-guerrilla-...r/Roland-Bartetzko?share=7069f96f%6&srid=E7fv

Guerrillas usually operate in very difficult terrain like mountains, swamps or dense forests. Tanks can’t operate there.

Further, tanks are designed to fight other tanks and not infantry. You can hear them coming from far away which means that you won’t be surprised by them and you have plenty of time to disappear, in case you have no anti tank weapons or you simply don’t want to engage in combat right now.

I hope this clears the issue of why we don't find terrorists who want tanks.

 

[HAYAO]

I don't know what you don't understand, but no one here is talking about how terrorists really want tanks. We are talking about how terrorists don't want tanks, and how that applies to the main part of this discussion.

 

[gleem]

Actually terrorist will use what ever they can get their hands on eg about six Abram M1 tank ended up in ISIS hands when the Iraqi army left them in retreat early in the ISIS assaults. I have stated earlier that autonomous drones are commercially available that have collision avoidance capability. About 80% of casualties in the Iraqi were where due to IED's by insurgents who surprised us by employing everything from cell phones to garage door openers. An Israeli autonomous radar seeking missile system HAROP was sold to Azerbaijan. A missile believed to be a HAROP destroyed a bus load of Armenians in a disputed territory between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Did the bus have radar? Was it re-engineered for a new purpose? How easy is it to re-engineer AI systems? Maybe not too hard. Anyway, never assume what your enemy is not capable of doing.

Today weapons systems have developed to the extent that if you can see it or know where it is you can probably hit it. We even have smart bullets and to shoot at something that is Km's away is like shooting from 100 ft. Potential autonomous AI systems ( targets) must be hard, (look)small and be agile or employed in large numbers so as to overwhelm defenses which probably means small cheap drones. Soon everybody will be able to get some form of AI weapon probably sooner than we think.

 

[HAYAO]

Actually terrorist will use what ever they can get their hands on eg about six Abram M1 tank ended up in ISIS hands when the Iraqi army left them in retreat early in the ISIS assaults. I have stated earlier that autonomous drones are commercially available that have collision avoidance capability. About 80% of casualties in the Iraqi were where due to IED's by insurgents who surprised us by employing everything from cell phones to garage door openers. An Israeli autonomous radar seeking missile system HAROP was sold to Azerbaijan. A missile believed to be a HAROP destroyed a bus load of Armenians in a disputed territory between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Did the bus have radar? Was it re-engineered for a new purpose? How easy is it to re-engineer AI systems? Maybe not too hard. Anyway, never assume what your enemy is not capable of doing.

Today weapons systems have developed to the extent that if you can see it or know where it is you can probably hit it. We even have smart bullets and to shoot at something that is Km's away is like shooting from 100 ft. Potential autonomous AI systems ( targets) must be hard, (look)small and be agile or employed in large numbers so as to overwhelm defenses which probably means small cheap drones. Soon everybody will be able to get some form of AI weapon probably sooner than we think.

Okay, but this seems to disprove your point. 80% of causalities in Iraq were by improvised explosive devices. Believe it or not, you don't need to be a brainiac to make IEDs. Even I can make them, only except I won't because it's illegal in Japan and I don't need them.

For a built-from-scratch weapons to be worth using for the terrorists, it needs to be 1) easy to manufacture, 2) made with easily accessible parts, 3) cheap, and 4) practical for the purpose. Any weapon that does not meet this criteria will not be the priority for the terrorists. In this sense, Monsterboy is right that terrorists will likely not be able to improvise an autonomous military robots, and instead one should fear those robots being obtained from a military or secondary parties.As a side note, you should not get confused between a country and terrorist groups as they have significantly different levels in the financial/economic/military/man power. Azerbaijan is a country where their army was trained to use HAROP.

Also you should not get confused about the "purpose" of attacking Iraqi Army. You seem fast to interpret that ISIS attacked Iraqi Army to obtain the M1 tanks. This is a poor speculation. The much better explanation is that they just wanted to destroy or harass the military, and as a result, the tanks were left abandoned for them to get their hands on. Can they use the M1 Abrams tank? Maybe. But can they use them effectively? Very likely not. Heck, even the trained Iraqi couldn't properly handle the tanks. Why do you expect that the untrained terrorists can? M1 Abrams require tremendous amount of maintenance and you need have very good idea about what you are doing in order to operate them effectively.

Generally speaking, the more the technology become sophisticated, the more one needs good training to use them. Do you think if the terrorists by any chance get their hands on an Aegis equipped destroyer, they can use them against us? I know this is an extreme example, but this is the sort of scale in complexity we are talking about, and thus the discussion needs to be focused on the realistic aspect.

 

[gleem]

Okay, but this seems to disprove your point. 80% of causalities in Iraq were by improvised explosive devices. Believe it or not, you don't need to be a brainiac to make IEDs. Even I can make them, only except I won't because it's illegal in Japan and I don't need them.

True, but the point is that they modified existing technology to serve a different purpose and it did require some significant technical knowledge. Do not underestimate your enemy.

For a built-from-scratch weapons to be worth using for the terrorists, it needs to be 1) easy to manufacture, 2) made with easily accessible parts, 3) cheap, and 4) practical for the purpose. Any weapon that does not meet this criteria will not be the priority for the terrorists. In this sense, Monsterboy is right that terrorists will likely not be able to improvise an autonomous military robots, and instead one should fear those robots being obtained from a military or secondary parties.

No not built from scratch but modified to suit their purpose, Commercial drones are cheap enough and have sufficient capability to be of use.

As a side note, you should not get confused between a country and terrorist groups as they have significantly different levels in the financial/economic/military/man power. Azerbaijan is a country where their army was trained to use HAROP.

Trained to use HAROP but not modify its capability.

As a side note, you should not get confused between a country and terrorist groups as they have significantly different levels in the financial/economic/military/man power. Azerbaijan is a country where their army was trained to use HAROP.

ISIS had(has) the financial/military and man power. If they need quick cash just kidnap a holder of significant bitcoins until he transfer them to the terrorist wallet and bingo . I has already occurred.

Also you should not get confused about the "purpose" of attacking Iraqi Army. You seem fast to interpret that ISIS attacked Iraqi Army to obtain the M1 tanks. This is a poor speculation. The much better explanation is that they just wanted to destroy or harass the military, and as a result, the tanks were left abandoned for them to get their hands on. Can they use the M1 Abrams tank? Maybe. But can they use them effectively? Very likely not. Heck, even the trained Iraqi couldn't properly handle the tanks. Why do you expect that the untrained terrorists can? M1 Abrams require tremendous amount of maintenance and you need have very good idea about what you are doing in order to operate them effectively.

The tanks were a gift to ISIS from a retreating army. They are useful until they are not. So what. Run it until it doesn't.

Generally speaking, the more the technology become sophisticated, the more one needs good training to use them. Do you think if the terrorists by any chance get their hands on an Aegis equipped destroyer, they can use them against us? I know this is an extreme example, but this is the sort of scale in complexity we are talking about, and thus the discussion needs to be focused on the realistic aspect.

No. They are not looking for those types of systems. They are looking for advanced IED's. Whatever they can cobble together and effectively deploy. An autonomous car bomb for example you don't need a martyr anymore which opens the door for less dedicated terrorists. Maybe not tomorrow but soon autonomous vehicles and aircraft will be available. When you are expecting your pizza delivery one night will it be a pizza?

The expertise is becoming sufficiently ubiquitous that relatively complex systems can be duplicated or created by ordinary citizens (engineers or makers) of the right political persuasion. Look at the proficiencies of hackers. Look at the criminal that produce all manners of electronic devices to defraud people. Look up
single board computers like Arduino or Raspberry Pi capable of AI functionality. Development is done commercially just tweak it for your purpose.

 

[berkeman]

Very well said, @gleem -- Thread closed for Moderation. Hopefully we can figure out a way to keep the best parts of this discussion going.

 

[berkeman]

Okay, let's try re-opening this useful discussion, with a few ground rule reminders please:

• Let's be careful not to introduce politics into the discussion, since that is something we have said that we cannot Moderate at the PF
• Please keep in mind that we do not want to give any bad folks ideas that they have not thought of yet. We are a very strong intellectual bunch of folks, and some of the things that could get posted in this thread may be new ideas of how to use technology in terrorist activities (not with the intention of helping terrorists, but unintentionally posting something new).
  
• And as always, please keep the discussion civil and positive.

Thanks! Thread re-opened.