Israelis offer unmanned robo smart-missile 8-pack Israel appears to have stolen a march on America in the matter of multipack unmanned cruise missile-in-a-box packages. An Israeli maker is exhibiting its "Jumper" robo missile pack as ready for sale, while the rival US "Netfires" system is still in development. The Jumper missile system. Credit: IAI Gunners? Mortars? Close …
instead resolve disputes and conflicts by having a scalextric race, or even better a worldwide robot wars event.
they can put all their tech into one mofo that even Craig Charles would have to be impressed at.
Have to play it in the desert somewhere so as to avoid the nuke fallout when the hari-kiri mode on the robots is flicked.
going to save lives too?
I occasionally wonder if the difference between those who design, build and deploy weapons and those who design and build systems that are actually beneficial to humanity is genetic or nurtured. If it is nurtured then perhaps change is possible. It would be much more difficult to weed this kind of aptitude out of the gene pool
"Scratch one tank, pickup truck, building or whatever."
"Whatever" including:
Wedding parties, UN compounds, non-US embassies, hospitals, goat herders with goats, schools, areas marked for settlement, village elder meetings and housing blocks around which a turbaned figure giving matching criterium > 0.90 was detected.
Great job.
robot wars? that's the plan in case you hadn't noticed - unmanned portable missile silos (what this is) under the command of unmanned aircraft no doubt using automatic targeting... the only difference is they plan to do this in the disputed country, rather than some remote area - death is more profitable or something
the civilised way to resolve disputes is in a fair and unbiased court room, in the historic "who can bribe the most judges" tradition
I, for one, do NOT welcome our Skynet overlords who will co-opt our own "smart" weaponry and use it against us. Seriously, if group A deploys these or similar weapons and group B, the intended target, has access to laptops and a few truly "leet haXors" this could be problematic for group A. Or even a relatively simple JAMMING rig...
On the other hand, if group A deploys these and then has a soldier run up to it, punch in targeting coordinates, and press the big red "fire in 30 seconds" button (run away! run away!), then all's well and good.
"Platoon! Fix bayonnets and ready the charge!" Even in this age of killing-tech marvels, wars are still won with boots on the ground.
Yeah a world without war would be great, so would free beer from the tap in your house and England winning the world cup (or the All Black for that matter, I'm a kiwi).
Meanwhile in the real, I bet the US Marines are wondering if they could get something like this to the size it could be transported by an unmanned helicopter. Now that would be a battlefield revolution.
Maybe England should build factories to produce sub-standard, over priced versions for its troops just in time for the introduction of ray gun and teleportation technology.
With comments like the above I'd says you are half way there already.
Jack
the civilised way to resolve disputes is in a fair and unbiased court room, in the historic "who can bribe the most judges" tradition
I always thought he who could afford the most lawyers won in court...like most patent cases
Anyway, could you imagine the court case for WW2
The lawyers would still be arguing over it now so long as they were being paid
unlike the cases were neither plantiff or defendent has any money "ahh lets flip a coin and go back to the bar"
Aren't cruise missiles hideously expensive? I thought I read a while ago about $500k a pop.
This article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile
states $600k a pop. So that's a $4.8m box of tricks (excluding box costs). Not exactly going to replace many mortar or artillery boys with these are we?
I reckon with the cost of hi-tech weapons being used against low-tech opponents in the Middle East half these wars will end due to bankruptcy rather than victory.
This post has been deleted by its author
Usage - one assumes you parachute the (appropriately camoflaged) boxes at night into locations where they are not likely to be noticed fast, i.e. empty desert, cornfields, music festivals, etc...
Simple defense - build a 'lid' which hooks onto the frame, with bars to hold the missiles in. Or tip the thing over on it's side and park a car in front of it. But you have to find the box to defend against it...
Hmm.. A soldier with a gun and laser pointer for smart bombs isn't deadly enough, now they have to have cruise missles... Can't wait till they get mini-nukes in them.
Lots of icon possiblities here, but I'll go for Mr. Orwell :-(
As for the plaintiff or defendent with no money, they needn't resort to flipping coins. They could take one of a number of routes:
1 - Just bury yourself in debt or print money until it becomes worthless. The lawyer wants $1million? Sure, I'll pay him when $1million will be worth about a loaf of bread.
2 - Move to the UK and get legal aid. Why should I pay legal costs when HM government will pay for me?
3 - Hire Ambulance-Chasers-Direct, no-win-no-fee lawyers. If Hitler hired them, would the lawyers take a slab of the winnings, maybe France? Can you imagine a country essentially ruled by a money grabbing legal profession....... oh.... you mean like the USA.....
4 - Represent your own country in court. Now that would make great TV. Hitler vs. Stalin. 'Order...Order in the court!'....
With the range it has, and the cost of each shot, it's not going to be any where near the enemy.
And I doubt it will replace the mortars of an infantry battalion. It's too expensive a way doing the sorts of job they do. Besides, there's some issues about artillery command and control in general. It's nice having a mortar platoon that is under your control, permanently, rather than relying on getting permission to fire shots from one of thses things.
... where's the flush handle?
Seriously though, the more automated/robotic weaponry we (and in time, other countries) use, the more we distance ourselves from the human and emotional aspect of fighting... obviously, that's what the military wants - a fearless, efficient, non-emotional fighting machine...but I can't help thinking that we have already reached the stage where lives mean nothing, after all it was some robot drone plane bombing a few huts in some faraway land, who cares... 76 dead, meh, they're just numbers.
These things have a 50km range- they don't have to be in the enemy's backyard to be effective. They could easily be placed in secured locations such as FOBs or air dropped onto inaccessible mountain tops. And the weaponry needn't be cruise missiles, there are plenty of cheaper indirect-fire alternatives. Proper command and control policies (such as codes/authorization for a strike being provided by a higher HQ like for current artillery/air strikes) should be effective in preventing "grunts" (you might be surprised at the professionalism of these so called grunts-its no longer a conscription army you know) from abusing the firepower.
As a current serviceman I am all for these, if provided as described. The greatest problem would be convincing the old-school artillerymen that their role is now largely that of forward observers, much like the disgruntled USAF pilots jealously defending their turf against UAVs.
As for the politics of it all, professional soldiers are simply trained to fight the enemies of the state as defined by the state. Being in a democracy that state is defined by you the people. So belay the snarky comments about blowing away civilians haphazardly-for-oil crap and do something to make a difference. Besides whinging.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
