EPT*Start of disclaimer
This is my first time writing a blog, and I am simply writing down my thoughts, opinions and imagination, sometimes backed by thorough research and sometimes not at all. So please excuse any statements I made in this blog that offends any parties dead or alive, past, present, and future. Oh, also forgive me for the (often) awkward language and occasional grammatical error.
*End of disclaimer
I just read the summary for the book on robotic warfare "Wired for War" by PW Singer, as well as Daniel Suarez's techno thrillers "Daemon" and "Freedom". In those books, especially Daniel's novels, highlighted the virtues of distributed systems over centralized systems in robotic and cyber warfare while Singer tried to remain neutral and made a case of combining the two systems to make a hybrid system which supposedly combines the advantages of both systems.
For those who haven't read the books, centralized systems means that there is a controller (human or otherwise) controlling a robot like a RV car. This is the system used by modern bomb squads to control and interact with the bomb disposal bot. On the other hand, distributed systems are much more exciting because they are autonomous systems and are kinda like Skynet - there is no central hub, and to destroy the system means having to destroy every single combat unit. I'll copy and paste a portion of Singer's book to explain distributed systems:
+ Show Spoiler +
As one Army colonel asks, “Obviously the birds lack published doctrine and are not receiving instructions from their flight leader, so how can they accomplish the kind of self-organization necessary for flocking?” The answer actually comes from a researcher, Craig Reynolds, who built a program for what he called “boids,” or artificial birds. As an Army report on the experience described, all the boids needed to do to organize themselves together as a flock was for each individual to follow three simple rules:
1. Separation: Don’t get too close to any object, including other boids;
2. Alignment: Try to match the speed and direction of nearby boids; and
3. Cohesion: Head for the perceived center of mass of the boids in your immediate neighborhood.
”This basic boid system worked so well that it was also used in the movie Batman Returns to create the realistic bat sequences.
1. Separation: Don’t get too close to any object, including other boids;
2. Alignment: Try to match the speed and direction of nearby boids; and
3. Cohesion: Head for the perceived center of mass of the boids in your immediate neighborhood.
”This basic boid system worked so well that it was also used in the movie Batman Returns to create the realistic bat sequences.
And more:
+ Show Spoiler +
The Santa Fe Institute carried out a study on these proliferated autonomous weapons (PRAWNS), which shows how this concept might work in robotic warfare (Lockheed Martin has a similar program on robot swarms funded by DARPA, called the “Wolves of War”).
While each PRAWN would be very simple, and almost dumb (indeed, their artificial intelligence would be less than the systems already on the market today), the sum of their swarm would be far more effective than any single system. Why drive a single SWORDS or Packbot into a building, room by room, to see if an enemy is hiding there, when a soldier could let loose a swarm of tiny robots that would scramble out and automatically search on their own?
While each PRAWN would be very simple, and almost dumb (indeed, their artificial intelligence would be less than the systems already on the market today), the sum of their swarm would be far more effective than any single system. Why drive a single SWORDS or Packbot into a building, room by room, to see if an enemy is hiding there, when a soldier could let loose a swarm of tiny robots that would scramble out and automatically search on their own?
Meanwhile, in real life, with the rise of drones and robotics usage in recent wars, it seems that we are moving towards fighting proxy wars, where the business of war can be conducted between parties without the loss of human lives on the battlefield. Would this make wars more likely to happen? I think that is exactly what will happen. After all, violence solved more disputes than any diplomatic efforts. Its a quote I found in Sun Tzu's Art Of War. I think.
Now, there are a lot of ramifications in "outsourcing" the duty of soldiering to machines. To simplify, I will categorize said ramifications into 3 groups: Social, Economic, and Political ramifications.
Since this is my first ever blog, I won't talk about those boring, factual topics. Instead, I want to talk about this topic in a more fun manner.
Imagine that we are a defense contractor in the 23rd century. We have all the funding, political leverage and technological expertise we need to design a machine army from scratch, presumably to defend against a Protoss or Zerg invasion. So, what design philosophy shall we pursue?
Basic Land Based Fighting Units
There are two schools of thought that I encountered when searching the Internet - the basic fighting unit either is a humanoid, using contemporary weapons and tactics like a marine bot; or it could take the form of a vehicle or insect, like a hellion or stalker or zergling bot.
On another tangent, Scientific American reports that "soft bodied, shape-shifing" robots will be soon developed to bypass clunky gears, wheels, treads and components that use up a lot of energy to operate.
URL:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=shape-shifting-robot-shows-spine
According to Daniel H Wilson, he has 5 good reasons why humanoid robots will be the main fighting units on the battlefield of the future.
1. There is a one-to-one mapping between the human and the humanoid body.
2. Humanoid robots take advantage of human environments and equipment.
3. Humanoid robots are easier to train.
4. Teamwork is easier between humans and humanoids.
5. The locals could potentially interact with humanoid robots
Personally, I disagree with most of Daniel's reasons.
Reason number one,
I don't think that the human body allows for effective movement. A leonine body will allow faster travel across almost all types of terrain, although a valid argument is that the human body is built for endurance running, and can provide more mileage per unit energy. I wonder, will you rather build a zergling (4 legged leonine) or a marine (bipedal humanoid) or a hellion (wheeled) as your primary land based robotic fighting unit?
Reason number two.
I partially agree with this point. Guns are good to have in a war. The ability to kill your enemy at range and quickly had always been the key to victory for most wars. The invention of the bow and arrow allowed Gengis Khan and his Mongols to conquer and build the largest medieval empire known to man. Improvements in gun technology allowed the American settlers to defeat and drive out American Indians. However, in a war where the combatants don't really stop fighting when they were maimed by bullets, will guns be as effective?
If a marine bot shot a charging zergling bot a few times, but failed to total the zergling bot, who will emerge the winner in the close quarters combat? Its still not safe to say that the marine bot will win. Plus, guns need ammunition, which will require more elaborate logistics to supply, compared to blades.
Before this gets too long, I'll stop here and continue next time. Although I write this mainly to put my thoughts to paper (as I intend to write SF novels in the far future), please feel free to provide inputs.
