Anyone else a bit concerned with autonomized weapons?

[HAYAO]

Thank you berkeman, and I apologize for talking about politics and sometimes getting a bit overboard.Once again, I strongly stress that we should be talking about the realistic issues.

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.

gleem, I first have to apologize that I am somewhat restricted by rules with what I can say, so I cannot respond to every points you said here. I'll try my best though. Thus I am going to have to skip this point, but I am going to tell you that you are underestimating the easiness of improvising existing technology usable for IEDs. That is why they are being used as one of the main tactics by the terrorists and insurgents.

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

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.

Then I assume that using the drones are the main tactics that the terrorists are using right now. No one has to die. No one needs technical knowledge. And they should be very very well funded so have no problem buying tons of those. How come they aren't mainstream tactics?

Trained to use HAROP but not modify its capability.

HAROP are also designed to be remotely controlled. Why do you need a bus to emit radio waves or radar wave?

I also still don't understand why you are talking about military of a country, when we were supposed to be talking about terrorists? Perhaps, I am misunderstanding you or something but were we talking about something else?

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.

You are underestimating the technicality of running and using a tank. I am saying they can't run it effectively. It is not useful to them at all.

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?

Making an improvised bomb is somewhat easy. I only need myself to do it and deliver it to some destination. Or better yet, I can make a lot of IEDs and have my followers (don't have any) deliver it somewhere, which is one of the main tactics used by the terrorists today. However, as soon as the technicality of the issue increases, all of the sudden things becomes more impractical. I need an auto-driving car that I have to steal or buy, which is going to be certainly much more expensive than conventional vehicles. Most of the suicide bombing by cars are done with really old and cheap cars that can be easily bought, rented, or stolen. No one uses Porsche for suicide bombing, even though they might be good for running away from police if they are found out. Sure it can be done, and maybe we'll see it happen once or twice, but it's very unwise to do so especially from the perspective of an actual large-scale terrorist organization. So then why not just stick to a more simpler but an effective solution?

If you are talking about possibilities, then I will say that nothing is impossible. But whether that is relevant to how one actually use that to a large-scale common tactics in an effective way is a completely different discussion. Personally, I wouldn't be concerned about autonomous robotics no more than cellphones.

 

[Rive]

...six Abram M1 tank ended up in ISIS hands ... 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.

I tends to recognize both case as warfare, not terrorism. I do know that ISIS has the well deserved title of terrorist organization, but when some neighboring countries has similar standards, then I think it's better to focus on the actual events involved.

Similar events are pretty common in that area. However, what's common is that since military hardware is hard to get, it is commonly used against other military hardware/targets. Closest case to the discussed 'military hardware against civilians' scenario might be some bombings of hospitals in Syria, but that is quite hard and inconvenient to be easily categorized.

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.

Yes. And I find it quite disturbing that we expected to discuss the usage of second grade of nonexistent military hardware for terrorism in a manner that a Bruce Willis might pop up any time, when we might be just a few years away from accidents (or worse) caused by misused drones and such.

 

[Stavros Kiri]

Personally, I wouldn't be concerned about autonomous robotics no more than cellphones.

Cellphones can potentially be monitored by the carrier etc. ...

 

[HAYAO]

Cellphones can potentially be monitored by the carrier etc. ...

I know, that's the point.

 

[Monsterboy]

gleem, I first have to apologize that I am somewhat restricted by rules with what I can say, so I cannot respond to every points you said here. I'll try my best though. Thus I am going to have to skip this point, but I am going to tell you that you are underestimating the easiness of improvising existing technology usable for IEDs. That is why they are being used as one of the main tactics by the terrorists and insurgents.

Can you tell me exactly what rule(s) you are going to break by responding to this particular point @gleem made ?

 

[HAYAO]

Can you tell me exactly what rule(s) you are going to break by responding to this particular point @gleem made ?

I was about to talk about why or how "special" and "technical" knowledge is not required to make IEDs, which may possibly be against the request from berkeman. But the point was important because it gives you good idea on the difference in the level of sophistication, technicality, and the cost between the high-tech IEDs gleem was concerned about and what is actually being used.

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).

 

[Monsterboy]

I was about to talk about why or how "special" and "technical" knowledge is not required to make IEDs, which may possibly be against the request from berkeman. But the point was important because it gives you good idea on the difference in the level of sophistication, technicality, and the cost between the high-tech IEDs gleem was concerned about and what is actually being used.

But...but ...you said

... but I am going to tell you that you are underestimating the easiness of improvising existing technology usable for IEDs.

 

[HAYAO]

But...but ...you said

I said the same thing. Please read carefully.

 

[Monsterboy]

I said the same thing. Please read carefully.

Hmm..don't you think the level of sophistication depends on necessity ? terrorists don't need (but don't mind if they get it for free) IEDs as advanced as government ones right ? because they serve a different purpose.

https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/role-improvised-explosive-devices-terrorism

Not only can improvised explosive devices come in a number of different shapes, they can also be designed to serve different functions.

When operating against robust security and in a hostile environment, innovation and imagination become critical traits for a bombmaker to be successful. Since the beginning of terrorism, there has been a constant arms race between terrorist planners and security forces. Every time security is changed to adapt to a particular threat, the terrorist planner must come up with a new attack plan (often involving a new type of improvised explosive device) to defeat the enhanced security measures.

 

[HAYAO]

Hmm..don't you think the level of sophistication depends on necessity ? terrorists don't need (but don't mind if they get it for free) IEDs as advanced as government ones right ? because they serve a different purpose.

Yes, I agree.

 

[Monsterboy]

I need an auto-driving car that I have to steal or buy, which is going to be certainly much more expensive than conventional vehicles. Most of the suicide bombing by cars are done with really old and cheap cars that can be easily bought, rented, or stolen.

I think gleen was talking about the future where autonomous cars are as or almost as common as today's manually driven cars. Autonomous cars are likely to come in various different sizes and capacities depending on their purpose. Perhaps they will vastly out number manually driven cars.

http://optics.org/news/7/4/14

A cheaper optical distance-sensing technology could be a significant step forward, and a team at MIT has developed just such a platform, using off-the-shelf components and exploiting the processing power now available within most smartphones.

If you are talking about possibilities, then I will say that nothing is impossible.

This whole thread is about the future and that means possibilities, none of the concerns is about now. none of the things gleen said is so far away in the future that it doesn't even matter.

 

[berkeman]

Yeah, let's not go into any detail on the construction of IEDs. Folks can do their own reading about that elsewhere on the Internet. Thanks.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

This thread has me thinking of one of my favorite old movies.

"The fools. The mad fools!"

 

[HAYAO]

I think gleen was talking about the future where autonomous cars are as or almost as common as today's manually driven cars. Autonomous cars are likely to come in various different sizes and capacities depending on their purpose. Perhaps they will vastly out number manually driven cars.

This whole thread is about the future and that means possibilities, none of the concerns is about now. none of the things gleen said is so far away in the future that it doesn't even matter.

Well I am talking about a probable future, not a barely possible future. I can imagine about some terrorist bombing my house, which is in Japan, but that is so improbable that I am not concerned. I am concerned about terrorism, but not like that.

If I was some special operation forces operative on some clandestine mission, I will be concerned about even the tiniest possibility. This is simply because I am not allowed to fail, and I am given as much resources as I need to get the job done.

On the other hand, if I was some boss of a terrorist group, then given the restricted amount of resources, I must resort to more efficient tactics. None of the tactics you or gleen mentioned are efficient enough to be practical. If autonomous cars vastly out number manually driven cars, then manually driven cars are going to be significantly cheaper that it is even more practical to use conventional cars.I am once again emphasizing that we should be concerned about more realistic issues.

 

[Monsterboy]

Well I am talking about a probable future, not a barely possible future.

Nobody here is talking about barely possible future.

 

[HAYAO]

Nobody here is talking about barely possible future.

You are.

 

[Monsterboy]

You are.

Nope. You are just refusing to see a few steps ahead in the future. Actually you are talking about the future at all, you are stuck in the present.

If autonomous cars vastly out number manually driven cars, then manually driven cars are going to be significantly cheaper that it is even more practical to use conventional cars.

No, because of the reduced costs and it becomes even more easier for a terrorist to use a car bomb and not kill himself/herself along with it. It doesn't have to be an SUV sized car just a small two seater will do.

Maybe something like this.
https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/www....8/nuro-self-driving-delivery-last-mile-google

 

[HAYAO]

Nope. You are just refusing to see a few steps ahead in the future.

No, because of the reduced costs and it becomes even more easier for a terrorist to use a car bomb and not kill himself/herself along with it. It doesn't have to be an SUV sized car just a small two seater will do.

Maybe something like this.
https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/www....8/nuro-self-driving-delivery-last-mile-google

Well I don't believe in science fiction war games like you do, and I understand you don't like talking about realistic issues. So this discussion is effectively over, I guess?

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed again for Moderation...

 

[berkeman]

We've strayed a bit from the OP question:

Saw this video today on facebook.



I wonder how soon it will be before one of these is fitted with a machine gun. What if one of these was built or stolen for use in terrorism? In a densely populated city, how long could one of these roam freely gunning people down before police or military could stop it?

That might seem paranoid, but in an age where human beings are already gunning people down en mass on a fairly regular basis, it seems highly plausible that if this technology were to proliferate, they'll use machines to accomplish the same goals, but probably with much greater effects.

Overall the discussion has been interesting. Thank you all for participating, the thread will now stay closed.