Robots

>>31379125
>humanoid robot
Pleb please

Robotic dogs from DARPA loaded with c4 playing mexican music is the answer.

>>31379125
What is the point? If you are willing to try to cease control of an area through long rage human free means why not level it and send in troops to squat in the rubble? They woul djust come it to squat in the rubble these guys leave behind anyway.

>>31379148
ayy

>>31379148
I don't get this reference if there was one

>>31379148
Someone post the greentext

>>31379125
i know op said infantry robots but in the interests of provoking more dialog, tanks drones anyone?

along the lines of infantry shit i'm inclined to think we'll end up with somewhat insectile/arachnoid drones with a turret style weapons platform, most likely on top. if i were designing it it'd be about the height of a man with slender armored legs and a well armored core with angles to the plates to deflect some of the impact energy. each limb would have its own self contained hydrolic system so a lucky shot wouldn't cause a total loss of mobility, just cripple a limb. legs would be tipped with wide rubber grippy "toes" in a triangular distribution with actuators to bring to bear catlike claws to bear for extra traction or to assist in climbing. i'd keep the weapons light but effective, 45 ACP/.308/12 gauge, aiming for stopping power and ammo economy as internal space will be limited. have external mounting brackets to add mission specific equipment like plasma cutters, grenade launchers or small rocket pods as needed.

obvious issues are obviously, power, near AI level of intelligence needed to match human adversaries in the field and the likely insane cost of each unit. they'd still die like bitches to RPGs or any other anti-LAV weapons.

assuming these issues could be addressed we'd have a skittering hoard of death spiders removing kebabs and mudslimes while we sit back and watch their vid feeds from arm chairs, directing them as needed and laughing a lot.

all that said i forsee drones being largely aerial. ground pounders just have so many technical issues to overcome before we can get something even half as nimble as a human and that isnt setting the bar very high.

File: Screenshot_2016-08-08-15-07-18.png (393KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 1080x1920px

>>31379148
>>31379192
>>31379228
>>31380079

>>31379125
>infantry robots

they're stupid and you're stupid.

>>31380150
Good talk. Now report to the ham planet thread.

>>31380131
sucked

File: image.png (42KB, 283x211px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 283x211px

We'll see four legged bots long before bipeds.

I'm waiting for the spider bot myself.

>>31379125
probably 10-20 years from now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf7IEVTDjng
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY

It would cost more than you pay a grunt in a year.

Maybe one day we will see power armor but I doubt the military will trust AI. Just the chance of hacking makes them unfeasible.

Why are we alone? Why haven't we been invaded by aliens or visited by self replicating robots yet? Are humans the only intelligent life in the galaxy?

>>31382812
Cost wouldn't be an issue if you had mass production set up.

As far as AI goes, as long as it can IFF it would be worth it. You could field 100 dog sized bots for the cost of feeding and arming a platoon of humans.

Arm them with a grenade sized explosive and habib wil be reluctant to mess with it.

Life is cheap. Robots that exceed the killing potential of horde of conscripts aren't.

File: cryingjordan.jpg (5KB, 279x180px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 279x180px

>>31380131
I was op on that thread.
>My Heart is Soaring.

By the time we have robot infantry we will also have automated industry, which means millions of unemployed and desperate people looking for a job. And it turns out the human body is a pretty good killing machine.

What I'm saying is by the time we have infantry robots, it'll be more cost effective to send in the humans anyway. Especially if you just give them exosuits or something.

File: 1383422550375.jpg (168KB, 1600x1236px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1600x1236px

>>31383465
>>31379125

If you can purchase an Elysium-style drone that can perform all the basic infantry functions at as high as twice the cost of training a professional human solider, you'll do it in a heartbeat unless you're a broke 3rd world dictator.

1)Robots don't just follow orders, they can't not follow orders, it would be like not breathing in sleep for them. Even if the order is suicidal and amoral, a robot will follow it and perform with 100% available speed and efficiency. That means high efficiency and gigantic ease of platoon, company and battalion level control on unprecedented scale, lack of need in highly motivated platoon and company leaders, etc.
2)Robot is ready to fight immediately after production and programming, while a human needs at the very least 1 year of rigorous, costly and persistent training to be any good at all on the modern battlefield. While he trains he will need training facilities, medical facilities, a bunk, food, at least a little entertainment, motivation and likely pay to fight. Even after then, he's unreliable compared to robot. He can have doubts, question orders, get scared and panic, freeze, hesitate, etc. Robots don't hesitate any more than a milling tool would.
3)Using robots means you don't have to remove people from your population to get peppered with shrapnel on first day and drain benefits forever. Robots being killed in the millions won't affect public opinion on their leaders in the least. Robots don't get PTSD, don't write bestsellers, don't riot and revolt, and can be stored in a broom closet in between wars only to jump out, ready to fight after like three hours of maintenance and reprogramming.

Sure, robots have unique flaws like being affected by EMP or potentially being hackable. But all this is nothing compared to the gigantic edge in efficiency they give to their user.

>>31384105
> Potentially hackable
Only if you're an ass retard. Guided missiles are also "Potentially hackable".

Then again, this is the military we're talking about

>>31384118
Just hide the passcode in the folder with all the "Remember not to rape civilians" powerpoints.

>>31382998
>Cost wouldn't be an issue if you had mass production set up.
So this is why computer components are so cheap?

>>31379125
Reality

>>31384105
OP here. This is what I'm thinking.

You tell a squad of robots to take a town its gonna get done or none of them are coming back. No questions, no morality issues.

File: Military Robot.jpg (130KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1000x750px

Well these already exist, sure they dont have any AI, but technically its a robot, heck even drones can be considered robots

>>31384230
For the cost of a new sell phone or two?

You wouldn't need it to compose music. Just move and target enemies.

What does it cost to raise a person from birth to 18 yrs? Then to train and outfit them? Feed and transport them?

Even at 100,000 thousand a robot. They're still cheaper than a person.

And they're repairable!

>>31379125
I have a better idea. Like, what if, like duuude, what if each country get to build ONE and only ONE battle robot that's 100 feet tall and like fhewwww settle all disputes in ROBOT ARENA GLADIATOR BATTLES!

>>31379125
Lower class citizens are still willing to do it for less than minimum wage so its still cheaper to use humans.

>>31379125
Soon brother.
https://youtu.be/jOJwkvihYtc