Talk:Military robot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Fiction section

in the televison section of the fiction part, battlebots and robot wars should not be there because they shouldn't be considered fiction. --Nick Scratch 20:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some thoughts on work required

  1. Article could be subdivided into air, land and sea. Explain how environmental differences affect these areas, i.e. air less complex than sea, which is less complex than land. Air would mainly link to the unmanned aerial vehicle article as it does now, others need much expanding:
    • sea could include remotely operated vehicles and torpedoes -- notably the CAPTOR mine, currently TTBMK the only armed robot which operates a weapon autonomously;
    • land needs to greatly beef up bomb disposal robots -- the grandaddy of them all, and overwhelmingly the most common type, yet currently get just one line.
  2. More information on differences between remotely operated vehicles, ROVs with autonomous modes, and truly autonomous vehicles (TTBMK CAPTOR is the only example of the latter, although one could draw a long bow at missiles and torpedoes being rather single-minded autonomous vehicles);
  3. Control systems for remotely operated vehicles;
  4. The developments section needs serious rework, and referencing. Unless someone can show me refs, I remain to be convinced that Defense contractors in the USA are hard at work developing autonomous "robot soldiers". Certainly none of the given refs indicate any such thing, and the current state of the art in machine intelligence is a long way from reliable locomotion in random terrain, never mind reliable target identification. Current armed robots may have autonomous motion (although rarely, and even then only on restricted terrain types), but they all have human controlled weapons. On the other hand, apart from this pie-in-the-sky autonomous weapons control, no other developments are mentioned.

-- Securiger 06:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Submission Question

I am new to Wikipedia and would like to understand why a link I submitted (http://www.studysphere.com/Site/Sphere_11677.html) to the "External Links" section was deleted? This directory has over 3,000 human selected articles and Military Robotics resources in it. Thank you for any assistance.Bbowenjr 12:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a hint: studysphere.com links have been campaign-spammed to Wikipedia; see 29 November 2006 discussion at WT:WPSPAM. Bbowenjr added them to a wide range of articles from Dental implants to Military robots. There's been a misconception among some spamdexers that if they get a link deleted they can question the deletion on the talk page and still get the page rank benefit; this is wrong since all Wikipedia talk and user page links are automatically coded with the html tag rel="nofollow"; search engine bots don't follow these links. --A. B. 23:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issues needs editing

In the issues section, the following text is found:

"In literature, a play published in 1921, 'Rossum's Universal Robots' by Czech writer Karel Capek, tells the story of how people built better and better robots until they finally built robots to fight wars. In the end, the robots decide that fighting is crazy, and take over the world. This idea has since become a common staple of fiction in books, films and television and is entirely possible given current technological advancement."

Imho, the "is entirely possible" comment either needs to be given a foundation in fact or a source, or it needs to be removed. Without that, it is mere speculation and thus should not be in wikipedia. -- Mercury271 09:00 31-10-2006 (UTC)

This issue was adressed and the "entirely possible" part was removed -- Mercury271 08:00 2-10-2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fiction section

  1. Really, Asimov's stories include some examples of military robots. But he was the main opponent of theirs in literuture! His mention here is mitakenely.
  2. Film fiction section isn't correct: for example, I've never seen any military robots in AI film. There was no robots in 2001 Odyssey — HAL 9000 was a supercompeter. — 217.106.171.43 12:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] picture under fiction

would it be a good idea to add a picture to the picture section (such as that of a b-1 battle droid)? 67.35.181.167 06:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The statement about the "mechanical super-fighter" doesn't seam right

I have strong doubts about the factual accuracy of the statement that MT is "looking into building a mechanical super-fighter" that will be able to "heal his own wounds, leap buildings, deflect bullets and even become invisible." Although citation was provided, and the ten years of developement would give some time for technological advances, many of the claims just seem implauseable. I don't think that we will be seeing robots that can regenerate themselves anytime soon. Also, it would be a big challenge to create a bipedal robot that can move quickly by 2012, (that was when the article used as citation was posted online.) when the fastest bipedal robot so far can only go as fast as someone jogging. (at most) Besides, I couldn't find any other websites mentioned such a project.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/l/Talk%7EMilitary_robot_c169.html"