Unconventional Strategies for Defeating a Robotic Army in Urban Warfare

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around strategies for defeating a robotic army in urban warfare, particularly from the perspective of rebel groups with access to advanced technology. Participants explore various weaknesses of robotic forces, potential tactics, and the implications of advanced robotics in combat scenarios.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that a weakness of a robotic army could be its dependence on a mainframe, making it vulnerable to hacking and electronic warfare.
  • Others suggest using decoys, such as scarecrows with fake sniper guns, to reveal the positions of drone snipers, arguing that robots may not learn from their mistakes as quickly as humans.
  • A participant introduces the idea of genetically modified wasps attacking robots, questioning the potential effectiveness of such biological tactics.
  • One viewpoint emphasizes that a robotic army would likely be a distributed system, capable of independent operation, which could complicate strategies aimed at disrupting command signals.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential shielding of robots against EMP attacks, suggesting that a powerful EMP might be necessary to disable them.
  • Some participants discuss the maintenance needs of robotic armies, with ideas about self-repairing capabilities and the redistribution of parts among damaged units.
  • There is speculation about the limitations of current robotics, with some arguing that robots are typically specialized and may not perform multiple tasks effectively.
  • One participant questions whether a robotic army could survive a nuclear war better than humans, considering factors like radiation resistance and reliance on power sources.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views on the capabilities and weaknesses of robotic armies, with no consensus reached on the effectiveness of proposed strategies or the nature of the robotic forces involved.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include assumptions about the technology available to both the rebels and the robotic army, as well as the speculative nature of biological tactics and the implications of advanced robotics in warfare.

  • #91
also their is the issue of transport
to move a large amount of human soldiers over long distance with any hope of speed requires lots of vehicles however robots do not need this as much. they do not have stamina and will go until they need to charge without a break, their feet will not hurt (assuming they have feet) they would not need to eat or sleep and so only support vehicles would be needed carrying a few spare parts and all the humans required immediately.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Drakkith said:
I believe IFF can already be picked up by everyone within range when the IFF on the target is "pinged" and sends a return signal. The point of IFF is to help in identifying friendly troops/vehicles, but it is not the only way. A good command and control unit will know where their subordinate units are to a varying degree of accuracy depending on the circumstances. Merely mimicking the IFF signal isn't a guarantee that the enemy won't shoot you.
I think a better analogy is that IFF is very similar to the sign-countersign used when ground troops encounter an unknown party and are trying to figure out if they are friendly or not. Even if you know the countersign, they're still going to shoot you the moment they see you're not wearing the same uniform as they are.

Thanks. Hmm, theese drones are designed to fight in space and use well directed laser comms, in this situation, tap into signals almost impossible.
But i try to come up with better, maybe a missile that drill inside and take over control, with a help of a supercompu? I'm wondering how magical i should become.
(Not like the only manned spacecraft there would be immune to that, but the drones need to be commanded to fire on their own)
 
  • #93
James Holland said:
to move a large amount of human soldiers over long distance with any hope of speed requires lots of vehicles however robots do not need this as much.they do not have stamina and will go until they need to charge without a break, their feet will not hurt (assuming they have feet) they would not need to eat or sleep and so only support vehicles would be needed carrying a few spare parts and all the humans required immediately.

I'm going to disagree a little. The first reason is one of power. It is usually more efficient to use one large vehicle to move a lot of thing than to use many different smaller vehicles (robots in this case). Assuming that power is a finite quantity and needs to be protected and conserved, any robot army would probably be transported around in large vehicles just like humans are.

The second reason is that robots are machines and are subject to wear and tear on their parts. It's much easier from a maintenance standpoint to have a small number of vehicles that need maintenance to save a great deal of maintenance done on the robots.

GTOM said:
But i try to come up with better, maybe a missile that drill inside and take over control, with a help of a supercompu? I'm wondering how magical i should become.

I don't know. I'm honestly not sure what you're even going for here.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: James Holland
  • #94
GTOM said:
Thanks. Hmm, theese drones are designed to fight in space and use well directed laser comms, in this situation, tap into signals almost impossible.
But i try to come up with better, maybe a missile that drill inside and take over control, with a help of a supercompu? I'm wondering how magical i should become.
(Not like the only manned spacecraft there would be immune to that, but the drones need to be commanded to fire on their own)
are they directly controlled by people on the ground or are they fully robotic?
 
  • #95
James Holland said:
are they directly controlled by people on the ground or are they fully robotic?

I assume for deep space battle, they can go fully robotic, in the final battle, someone will insist, she has to go in the asteroid shafts and control herself, I'm wondering about a situation, where a high (but not human level) AI could really fail against higher tech level enemy?
 
  • #96
Drakkith said:
I'm going to disagree a little. The first reason is one of power. It is usually more efficient to use one large vehicle to move a lot of thing than to use many different smaller vehicles (robots in this case). Assuming that power is a finite quantity and needs to be protected and conserved, any robot army would probably be transported around in large vehicles just like humans are.

The second reason is that robots are machines and are subject to wear and tear on their parts. It's much easier from a maintenance standpoint to have a small number of vehicles that need maintenance to save a great deal of maintenance done on the robots.
I don't know. I'm honestly not sure what you're even going for here.

if the humans were transported in one or a few large vehicles they would automatically become a primary target for air-strikes artillery and ambushes. plus when they stop to deploy troops if they are attacked then the men will struggle to get out.
the advantage of small vehicles is they can split up manoeuvre and have a generally increased combat ability.
if these were civilians moving about i would agree however as they are not.

i understand the robots need for maintenance hence the support vehicles.
 
  • #97
GTOM said:
I assume for deep space battle, they can go fully robotic, in the final battle, someone will insist, she has to go in the asteroid shafts and control herself, I'm wondering about a situation, where a high (but not human level) AI could really fail against higher tech level enemy?
well if i was you i would make them work in squads with one permanently human controlled acting like a sergant and the others programmed to respond
 
  • #98
James Holland said:
if the humans were transported in one or a few large vehicles they would automatically become a primary target for air-strikes artillery and ambushes. plus when they stop to deploy troops if they are attacked then the men will struggle to get out.
the advantage of small vehicles is they can split up manoeuvre and have a generally increased combat ability.
if these were civilians moving about i would agree however as they are not.

i understand the robots need for maintenance hence the support vehicles.

Well infrantry bots will also need fuel, ammo, charge, spare parts etc, the transport vehicles needs to be protected anyway.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: James Holland
  • #99
James Holland said:
well if i was you i would make them work in squads with one permanently human controlled acting like a sergant and the others programmed to respond

Yes, that is the goal. :) I just wonder, whether i could create a situation, that could make human intuition level necessary, something unprecedented for even a trained high (not human level) AI?

(Well in my world, most parties don't trust military decision to AIs as start, but the ones have a human level AI as a supermanager on their planet, don't fear.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: James Holland
  • #100
GTOM said:
Well infrantry bots will also need fuel, ammo, charge, spare parts etc, the transport vehicles needs to be protected anyway.
true abuot supply so would humans and a British redcoat from the war of 1812 (or around then) could carry 100 shots constantly so how many could a robot carry? and also for power i am sticking with my suggestion of expendable solar panels concealed by armour during battle and open when marching or encamped small A.P.C.s are already armed
warthog-all-terrain-protected-vehicle-in-afghanistan.jpg
 
  • #101
James Holland said:
if the humans were transported in one or a few large vehicles they would automatically become a primary target for air-strikes artillery and ambushes. plus when they stop to deploy troops if they are attacked then the men will struggle to get out.
the advantage of small vehicles is they can split up manoeuvre and have a generally increased combat ability.
if these were civilians moving about i would agree however as they are not.

Of course. You don't transport troops right up to the front line with these vehicles. You just get them close. Even then, this is an issue you can't away from. Transports packed full of troops are always a good target for the enemy and any military will usually go to great lengths to protect them. Note that I'm mostly talking about non-combat transports. You can't transport 150,000 soldiers any significant length of distance with jeeps or other small vehicles. Not if you want it done quickly. You must use larger, more vulnerable methods of transport.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: James Holland
  • #102
Drakkith said:
Of course. You don't transport troops right up to the front line with these vehicles. You just get them close. Even then, this is an issue you can't away from. Transports packed full of troops are always a good target for the enemy and any military will usually go to great lengths to protect them. Note that I'm mostly talking about non-combat transports. You can't transport 150,000 soldiers any significant length of distance with jeeps or other small vehicles. Not if you want it done quickly. You must use larger, more vulnerable methods of transport.
this is all true but taking in that this is a rebel force that would be probably hard pressed for safe territory with speed as a necessity and recruit hard to come by. this would make every manouver of high chance to come into contact with enemy units.
 
  • #103
mildly unrelated but what will it be called?
 
  • #104
James Holland said:
mildly unrelated but what will it be called?

Exactly what do you refer?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: James Holland
  • #105
i was under the impression this was for a book or film
sorry if i was just being thick
 
  • #106
James Holland said:
this is all true but taking in that this is a rebel force that would be probably hard pressed for safe territory with speed as a necessity and recruit hard to come by. this would make every manouver of high chance to come into contact with enemy units.

I was talking about both forces, human and robot. Also, it's not guaranteed that the rebels will be pressed for territory (if I'm understanding GTOM's setting correctly). It could be the attackers who are hard-pressed to establish "beachheads" and take over territory from the rebels.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: James Holland
  • #107
James Holland said:
i was under the impression this was for a book or film
sorry if i was just being thick

It would be great, for sure :D But at first i have to write, translate it etc...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: James Holland
  • #108
Drakkith said:
I was talking about both forces, human and robot. Also, it's not guaranteed that the rebels will be pressed for territory (if I'm understanding GTOM's setting correctly). It could be the attackers who are hard-pressed to establish "beachheads" and take over territory from the rebels.
well i merely thought that by rebel it meant their government/nation had fallen and they were just a defiant force
 
  • #109
GTOM said:
It would be great, for sure :D But at first i have to write, translate it etc...
this sounds awesome and i suggest you do it.
i would offer help but i would be of no use considering I'm 14 and dyslexic
 
  • #110
If all else fails, maybe you could have Slim Whitman sing to them.
 
  • #111
Loren said:
If all else fails, maybe you could have Slim Whitman sing to them.

This is the Physics Forum. I'm not sure physicists are allowed to know who Slim Whitman is.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: James Holland
  • #112
Khatti said:
This is the Physics Forum. I'm not sure physicists are allowed to know who Slim Whitman is.

It was a shock for me the first time I heard it. :)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: James Holland
  • #113
Khatti said:
This is the Physics Forum. I'm not sure physicists are allowed to know who Slim Whitman is.
well its a good job i don'
 
  • #114
James Holland said:
well its a good job i don'

Rut-ro! Physicist Down!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: James Holland
  • #115
:thumbup:
 
  • #116
GTOM said:
2. Use a number of scarecrows equipped by fake sniper guns to reveal to positions of drone snipers - they don't learn from their mistakes... (although their human commanders can, but still slower)
Wouldn't robots use heat signals/heart beat as well as sight so not to fire repeatedly at dead or inanimate objects that are remotely huminoid
 
  • #117
James Holland said:
Wouldn't robots use heat signals/heart beat as well as sight so not to fire repeatedly at dead or inanimate objects that are remotely huminoid

Not necessarily. It's entirely possible that the AI running them is advanced enough to tell humans from other objects/animals just using cameras.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: James Holland
  • #118
James Holland said:
Wouldn't robots use heat signals/heart beat as well as sight so not to fire repeatedly at dead or inanimate objects that are remotely huminoid
I thought those scarerows are heated. Otherwise i think even common soldiers should have IR googles, passive radars, visors showing tactical maps with teammates and enemy positions.

Whether cameras are enough or not, the company i work for, produces smart cameras read license plates, passports, etc. Programs needs lots of human input for training, and different engines are optimised for different areas of the world. I asked someone, why not do more human way, not just calibrate a function to get the right input from sets of points, but watch patterns, lines, curves. He said, someone tried it, it is too slow. Based on it, i think image processing is a pretty hard task.

Of course it is space age i write about. Although i think there will be still a conflict between how robust are the electronics, how intelligent the robot will be without remote control, and how much it costs?

At this point, i think i will describe the scene, where human command is really needed for highly advanced drones :
"Drone 4 was hit. The missile hasnt exploded, but the drone damaged. I can still use it at least as decoy. It shakes, don't reply to command. Looks like i have to abandon it. What? It is turning, the cannon points toward us! Fire! Ignore IFF, take it out!
How could they take it over? We can drill inside a computer and extract codes from the memory... *** But not in battle. They could have learned the exact construction of our fighters. There are many supercomputers nearby, the missile didnt have to do it alone. Still it is shocking. It could have destroyed all its squadron, others couldn't consider that their own turned against them, only humans can betray. It is high time to end that madness! "

*** Snowden suggested that if FBI really wants to crack Apple encryption, they should open the phone, use some beams to read UID, then with a supercompu, iterate through a number of possibilities.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: James Holland
  • #119
Very good point
 
  • #120
A large number of robots needing to perform independent functions that vary with the circumstances would require huge memory capacity. Like zombies just bash em in the head/receiver. That aside robots have no self interest. Survival instincts ought to count for something.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: James Holland