Unmanned Machines in the Military

Posts: 1,413
I've been thinking of what types of unmanned machines would be safe to operate, such that they don't pose a major threat if they malfunction or get hacked.
This is what I've come up with.
1) Civilian or Law Enforcement unmanned machines - These simply don't possess extreme lethality. These could be designed for surveillance, construction, transport, medical support, repairs, use of non-lethal weapons, etc.
Note: Military versions of these could be upgraded with enhanced protection and abilities such as loading ammunition into a manned machine.
2) Anti-missile/anti-micro-UAV systems, minesweepers, etc. - These only target ammunition too small to be manned.
3) Ammunition / Subsystems - These machines do not operate independently for extended periods of time, and they are activated by a manned system. For those of you who have seen the movie "Battleship", the ball grinder tanks launched by the alien destroyers were an example of highly intelligent ammunition. An example from Starcraft is Spider Mines.
My idea of this third type is an Aircraft Carrier Sending Out an attack wave of UCAVs (Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles) on a known enemy location. If they misidentify targets then it's simply collateral damage and not a robot uprising. If their remote command is hacked they won't attack their parent fleet because pre-flight they were given a fire zone around the predicted enemy locations along with a command to return to the carrier within a certain time, and where the carrier might be after that time, and the remote command cannot override this, so hacking will only save the enemy, it will not allow them to retaliate with the UCAVs unless it's a close air support mission, in which case with each wave of UCAVs the carrier would have to take the calculated risk of how likely they are to get hacked.
Note: Optionally-manned machines also fall into this category since you decide when to operate it without a person and could have some sort of restrictions to its operation similarly to as described above.

Have thoughts/comments/questions on the classifications?
Do you think this is all irrelevant because wireless remote control of unmanned combat systems is secure?
Edited by Engineer on 5/26/2014 2:38 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,851
05/25/2014 09:32 PMPosted by Engineer
If they misidentify targets then it's simply collateral damage and not a robot uprising.


That is a very careless way to look at things my dear sir. We are not barbarians who don't give a !@#$ whether or not civilians die, we are the U.S.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,413
05/27/2014 03:59 AMPosted by Luftwaffe
05/25/2014 09:32 PMPosted by Engineer
If they misidentify targets then it's simply collateral damage and not a robot uprising.


That is a very careless way to look at things my dear sir. We are not barbarians who don't give a !@#$ whether or not civilians die, we are the U.S.

I never said the AI would be likely to misidentify targets, but it's always possible whether with man or machine at the trigger. You can't really think there hasn't been any civilian casualties caused by U.S. forces can you?
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,851
05/27/2014 06:48 AMPosted by Engineer
05/27/2014 03:59 AMPosted by Luftwaffe
...

That is a very careless way to look at things my dear sir. We are not barbarians who don't give a !@#$ whether or not civilians die, we are the U.S.

I never said the AI would be likely to misidentify targets, but it's always possible whether with man or machine at the trigger. You can't really think there hasn't been any civilian casualties caused by U.S. forces can you?


I don't think things like that, maybe it was the way you worded it, but you gave off the impression of "Who gives a !@#$ if civs die."
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,413
05/27/2014 03:05 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
...
I never said the AI would be likely to misidentify targets, but it's always possible whether with man or machine at the trigger. You can't really think there hasn't been any civilian casualties caused by U.S. forces can you?


I don't think things like that, maybe it was the way you worded it, but you gave off the impression of "Who gives a !@#$ if civs die."

That's because the whole premise was discussing a worst case scenario and how to prevent it. That scenario being where your own equipment becomes your enemy.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,851
Ah, so in that case nevermind everything. But yeah, artificial intelligence wouldn't need any sort of internet communication during the mission right? We can just input instructions of what to do before the mission and then it gets back to base. I have this gut feeling that any sort of network system is able to be hacked. Maybe I watch to many movies, can you back me up there on that point?
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,413
05/29/2014 04:01 AMPosted by Luftwaffe
We can just input instructions of what to do before the mission and then it gets back to base.

That would be category 3 "doesn't operate independently for extended periods of time"

05/29/2014 04:01 AMPosted by Luftwaffe
I have this gut feeling that any sort of network system is able to be hacked.

Well voice your opinion. The military is ALREADY using heavily armed remote controlled machines, the most famous of which is MQ-9 Reaper, which costs about twice as much per unit as a main battle tank.
Edited by Engineer on 5/29/2014 2:26 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,851
05/29/2014 02:20 PMPosted by Engineer
05/29/2014 04:01 AMPosted by Luftwaffe
We can just input instructions of what to do before the mission and then it gets back to base.

That would be category 3 "doesn't operate independently for extended periods of time"

05/29/2014 04:01 AMPosted by Luftwaffe
I have this gut feeling that any sort of network system is able to be hacked.

Well voice your opinion. The military is ALREADY using heavily armed remote controlled machines, the most famous of which is MQ-9 Reaper, which costs about twice as much per unit as a main battle tank.


I love the MQ-9, it's more expensive than a tank sure but compare its cost to America's current day bombers...

Some like stealth bombers cost a freaking outrageous amount of money (I believe our B2-spirit is somewhere in the 300 millions of dollars per unit).

Drones if anything seem to be the MUCH cheaper alternative to anything we have.

I'm not sure how one can hack a remote controller though, so I guess I shouldn't be worked up too much. It'd be like trying to hack an RC car, is that even possible?
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,413
05/30/2014 05:27 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
I'm not sure how one can hack a remote controller though, so I guess I shouldn't be worked up too much. It'd be like trying to hack an RC car, is that even possible?

Yes RC cars are extremely easy to hack, you just imitate and overpower the original signal.
05/29/2014 04:01 AMPosted by Luftwaffe
I have this gut feeling that any sort of network system is able to be hacked.

This is true, of course some are easier than others. A remote control device is simply a wireless network. There's no difference. Wireless networks could be said to be easier to hack because it's always tapped, it's just a matter of encryption. Encryption is not fool proof, we saw somewhat of an example of this with the NSA leak that they're tapping everybody.
Edited by Engineer on 5/31/2014 9:40 AM PDT
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]