A Soldier’s Eye in the Sky | Hacker News Reader

A Soldier’s Eye in the Sky

nytimes.com

14 pointsrobg7 comments

Having seen combat and being exposed to some of these bots as a soldier in the recent past, I can confidently say that the mobility and situational awareness provided by some of these bots superlatively increases the operating effectiveness of a platoon. There was an instance when we were handed "maps" of an AO before an operation and to my surprise the maps were nothing more than hand drawn topo details, with rather miniscule details of the area itself. All this when the bad guys were using google maps to coordinate their own operations!

Months later, we inducted a mobile UAV into the platoon and I still, to this day think about the number of times it saved us from certain trouble.

Today, as I work on autonomous military bots as an engineer I can only appreciate the effort that goes into building these things. Occupancy grid mapping in a noisy environment of a battlefield being one the most challenging aspects of making these bots.

Thanks for sharing that. I'm intrigued by your wording "we inducated a mobile UAV into the platoon". I've long thought that battlefield robots (especially those that have some sort of autonomy) would be considered almost humans by the flesh and blood troops along with them.

Sounds very cool to be working on military bots.

I know this article isn't specifically about this, but it's something I've been thinking about for a while now.

I strongly disagree with the use UAVs like the Predator and the Reaper. They detach the operators from the very traumatic act of killing another human being. Military Brass will argue that it makes war safer. That's a fucking insane statement to make.

I'm not sure where I'm even going with this, but I wish more people would really consider the repercussions of such technologies.

> Military Brass will argue that it makes war safer. That's a fucking insane statement to make.

No, really, it isn't. To wish for the maximal trauma of soldiers is, on the other hand.

"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his."

Then you can go on the debate war it self -- but there are just and necessary wars. Had it not been for the allied forces to come to that conclusion 65 years ago, I'd be speaking German and be forbidden to marry anyone outside my pure, arian race. I'm pretty thankful that someone didn't make the argument then, that it is insane to make war safer by having soldiers advance inside armoured vehicles.

A lot of bomber pilots feel the weight of their actions, even though they are also physically detached from the killing area.

Even squeezing the trigger on a gun and seeing a guy fall to the ground is a detached experience.

Any weapon besides a knife provides detachment, because you don't see the face and pain of the person you're killing.

There were terrible, bloody wars where the majority of the killing was with axes, knives, and swords. Not having weapons that allowed detachment didn't stop them.

Feeling the weight of your actions is about the man, not the weapon, I think.

But even in a bomber you are still in the situation. You out there flying. With a UAV, you can get up go to the bathroom or walk down the hall and grab a Coke out of the vending machine.

I fail to see your point. I assume you feel that since the soldier is not physically inconvenienced or in personal danger, that he is more likely to make inappropriate kill decisions. In my opinion, exhaustion and fear are the enemies of good decision making. Your guy with the can of coke doesn't fire blindly because he's terrified. He doesn't fire on his own men because he's too tired to see they're friendly.

Whether he "gets off" on firing on random targets, is a problem with the man, not the technology. Such a man would be a menace anywhere he was, even without the can of coke.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com