10 ms·
'Guaranteed hit' tech could be added to army’s next-gen squad weapon
- narrator 7y agoIt's so funny how sci-fi gets so many things wrong. In the future every infantry level soldier will never miss, yet we have Star Wars.
- tachyonbeam 7y agoI think you could argue that Star Wars is more fantasy than sci-fi. It has concepts like destiny, an unexplainable magical force, etc. Not to mention ridiculously slow "laser" weapons. It's unconcerned with scientific plausibility, and more with storytelling. I mean, jedis look like they would fare poorly again WWII-era weapons such as machineguns, RPGs, fragmentation grenades, chemical weapons (corrosive gas that burns skin and lungs) and napalm. As far as infantry soldiers never missing, maybe. It's also likely that soon there won't be much human infantry. We might still be far useful autonomous robots, but I don't think we're that far from remote controlled humanoid robots with guns on them.
- teawrecks 7y agoIMO sci-fi has to ask philosophical questions that arise with sufficiently advanced technology. Star wars mostly doesn't do that. There are a few things in the lore, like how androids have to be reset regularly or they gain sentience. But it's not really explored. Star wars is fantasy.
- soulofmischief 7y agoAsimov's three types of sci-fi: * Adventure Fiction/Space Opera - The technology and science are secondary to the plot, which is often very grandiose, much like operas and horse operas that were popular at the time (the root of the latter name). * Gadget Fiction - The technology/science and the struggle of the inventor to create/discover/explain it are the source of the conflict in the story. * Social Science Fiction - The effect of the technology/science on society is the source of the conflict in the story. Star Wars is a 1 and 3 type of story, though you could hone in a bit more and say, for example, that Episode IV is also gadget fiction given the focus on the Death Star.
- ed 7y agoTo be fair, Star Wars takes place thousands of years before Guaranteed Hit tech was invented.
- baybal2 7y agoEven "realistic" WWII movies got near everything wrong. War wouldn't look glamorous if 4 out of 5 soldiers die a "glorious" death from artillery fire from 20 kilometres away. Analogously, WWIII will likely be about thousands of soldiers being vaporised by atomic weapons, and blown to pieces by drones flown by men sitting in comfy bunkers on the other side of the globe
- ajmurmann 7y agoOr maybe for WWIII weapons will be so destructive that we instead will fight it through propaganda, surveillance and trade. Maybe a country will build some militarized, new island, but nobody would date to touch those because weapons are already to scary. Even if one country managed to install a puppet president in another, no military action would ever result because escalation to nuclear weapons is too frightening of a possible consequence.
- ISL 7y agoI think this outcome is a reasonable prediction, but it requires three key assumptions -- that those people making the decisions actually understand how terrible these weapons are, that mutual destruction is actually assured, and that those people actually care about losing.
- dredmorbius 7y agoIt's not prediction. It's history.
- verdverm 7y agoThere's an original Star Trek where war is fought in simulation and people are euthanized if they die in simulated nukes.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- jacquesm 7y ago> Analogously, WWIII will likely be about thousands of soldiers being vaporised by atomic weapons Analogously, WWIII will likely be about hundreds of millions of civilians being vaporized by atomic weapons.
- philipkglass 7y agoThe science fiction that more correctly envisions the effects of technological development on warfare is less popular. It's particularly uncommon in TV and films. Audiences prefer certain kinds of violence to be conventional, ennobling, and heroic. It's hard to evoke that feeling if the protagonist faces no more personal risk than an exterminator spraying for ants -- even in cases where the "bad guys" really do seem to merit lethal violence. See also: movies where the final confrontation with a villain requires hand to hand combat because all the ranged weapons have been misplaced. Shooting enemy soldiers at long distance before they're even aware of the danger is great in actual warfare but audiences don't want actual warfare.
- stcredzero 7y agoThe science fiction that more correctly envisions the effects of technological development on warfare is less popular. It's particularly uncommon in TV and films Here's the big difference between actual combat footage and movies/tv. In movies/tv you have to have the actors in well-framed shots, well-lit, recognizable, and distinguishable against the background. On actual battlefields in recent times, doing this sort of thing often gets you dead in about 3 seconds. Contrast this with my impression of watching some actual outdoor combat helmet-cam footage: People start yelling they're taking fire, then take cover. The enemy is something like 150 yards away or more, and would only appear as a tiny figure or a speck on a TV screen, but only if you actually spotted them and you don't even get to poke your head up to look for too long, if at all. You might be able to distinguish smoke or flashes in the distance, though. A few minutes later, air support is called in, and there's an even bigger puff of smoke out there.
- philipkglass 7y agoI have watched a ridiculous number of combat footage videos from recent conflicts. I agree with your take on the helmet-cam perspective. There are times where you can clearly see everybody and they're well lit, not moving chaotically. That's when you watch a team operating anti-tank guided missiles against tanks or other targets. There's a lot of distance separating the attackers from their targets. You hear the missile launch and watch it close the distance to the target over a period of several seconds. The targets might start to scatter a couple of seconds before the missile arrives if they can hear it, or remain completely unawares until the explosion. It's very easy to see what is happening but it also looks very "unheroic."
- badrabbit 7y agoStar wars is a different univerde,earth or the milkyway don't exist in it. Perhaps star trek is a better comparison?
- Already__Taken 7y agoStargate did ok initially, the big bad while technologically superior is agreed with terror weapons. That excuse stops working after a series or 2
- walshemj 7y agoWell if most of the Jaffa consider the Gould Gods and the technology magic - you can see where the problem the Gould have. And of course SG never really explained why they weren't using Landies and Humvees
- kstenerud 7y agoHero shows require either very good writers, or enemies that miss all the time. And good writers are in short supply.
- clSTophEjUdRanu 7y agoI also love how space battles are portrayed as taking place up close. Space is large. You'd surely depend entirely on computers for targeting and would never see the enemy with the naked eye at those distances. Makes for a boring movie though.
- imtringued 7y agoIt has more to do with plot armor. You can't kill off your important characters. They are needed later.
- the8472 7y agoSome computer games solve this problem by making your named characters mass-produced androids/clones. You can chat with them at the base and yet send them to die.
- kbar13 7y agoso they implemented a triggerbot irl. gamers rise up.
- ISL 7y ago"Once upon a time, in the very earliest days of interplanetary exploration, an unarmed human vessel was set upon by a warship from the planet Kzin-home of the fiercest warriors in Known Space. This was a fatal mistake for the Kzinti, of course; they learned the hard way that the reason humanity had decided to study war no more was that humans were so very, very, good at it." -- from the jacket of the anthology 'Man-Kzin Wars'. The same technology that makes for beautiful eye-detection autofocus in portraits can also make for efficient slaughter of those designated to die. We must each choose the world in which we wish to live.
- fnord77 7y agoLarry Niven ! funny you mention cameras - I was thinking about "subject tracking autofocus" as I was skimming that article. A large-scale non-nuclear war (is that even possible) in modern times would be pretty nasty
- ben_w 7y ago> A large-scale non-nuclear war (is that even possible) in modern times would be pretty nasty I’m not clear where the boundary is between “war” and other events involving large numbers of deliberate fatalities where the goals involve changing governance or borders. That said, considering recent tech developments and looking at the cost of each part separately, I won’t be surprised if the next decade gives us a genocidal conspiracy where a hundred people kill a million with self-made remote controlled or autonomous weapons.
- taneq 7y agoIt's "war" if the other guys are doing it and it's "peacekeeping" if we're doing it (no matter who 'we' and 'the other guys' are).
- SlipperySlope 7y agoChina has pledged no first use of nukes. Suppose they go for Taiwan with amphibious assault. US Navy robot torpedo mines lurking offshore sink their navy for a while, but their ballistic anti ship missile swarms keep the USN carrier fleet way out of range. This sets the scene for conventional war and mass military deaths as the commies would spare the cities of Taiwan they want to occupy. Trump or his successor would be tempted to nuke mainland ports but mutual assured destruction would prevent it. Likely there is a growing motivation for Taiwan to get their own nukes as the Mainland Chinese fleet grows in size. Israel is the precedent.
- Animats 7y agoThat technology has been for sale since 2013.[1] The original version cost $22,000 and was quite bulky. This looks smaller, but still on the bulky side. It will probably be made smaller and cheaper in the future. There's less electronics than in a cell phone in there. [1] http://www.tracking-point.com/ http://www.tracking-point.com/
- allovernow 7y agoThat's pretty awesome. I wonder if it would be feasible with modern tech to build a neural net powered autotracker on a raspi (or some other cheap, compact, low power microcontroller). Mark a target with a button on the side of the rifle, have the controller lock the trigger until target it aligned. Could build in range compensation and might not even need a neural net to track simple targets. But you need a way to segment target pixels and track them as they move.
- _Microft 7y agoWe have distinctly different definitions of awesome.
- maroonblazer 7y agoAren't you just not imagining a terrific enough enemy?
- taneq 7y agoAwesome: adj inspiring awe Modern general usage aside, it's always meant 'overwhelmingly impressive' rather than 'good'.
- exdsq 7y agoI think this is the first time I can honestly say, regardless of the comp, I would never work on something like that.
- noir_lord 7y ago
- ryanmarsh 7y agoMarksmanship isn’t a problem. I don’t understand what problem this solves except for snipers. Most infantry engagements happen within 150yds. Anything further (like across a mountain valley in Afghanistan) your target is the muzzle flashes of the enemy. Is this thing going to be an aimbot for muzzle flashes? This is where crew served weapons come in handy, and snipers. This device would not have helped me getting ambushed within 100yards or being the first guy in the door on a raid.
- serioussecurity 7y agoMost fire is suppressing fire. If you could have the equivalent of suppressing fire without needing to waste bullets that'd be a huge change.
- otoburb 7y ago>>The SMASH [...] "allows the weapon to fire only when it's a guaranteed hit," he said. This "capability" sounds somewhat contrary to the purpose of suppressing fire.
- ryanmarsh 7y agoSuppressing fire is used to keep the enemy’s head down and to reduce their volume of fire even from defilade so that you can move shoot and communicate. Obviously it is preferable to kill your enemy but you can’t always see them.
- serioussecurity 7y agoIf they know there's a high probability they'll be hit they'll adapt their behavior. The uncertainty of whether or not you're painted is significant.
- swalsh 7y agoThis doesn't solve the problem of "I know the enemy is in that general direction, but I cant see them" which is more or less why you might use suppressing fire.
- isuckatcoding 7y ago“An Israeli company”-oh that’s where I stop reading.
- swalsh 7y agoThis doesn't really seem like technology that is "needed". When you can actually see the enemy a holo sight in the hands of a trained soldier is probably more than sufficient. Whether it takes one round or 3 to stop the enemy it doesn't matter. Watching this tech it seems super slow to use. Perhaps it might be useful for hitting a target at 1000 yards. But that's such a rare use case.
- pgt 7y agoVia negativa: reducing the risk of friendly fire or unintended fatalities is more valuable than a guaranteed hit.
- clktmr 7y agoJust love that on HN killing somebody is discussed as a use case.
- quotemstr 7y agoWhat's wrong with that? Not everyone is a pacifist --- far from it. There are legitimate uses for violence.
- KozmoNau7 7y agoThe only legitimate use of violence is to end violence.
- cosmodisk 7y agoI think we,humans, are quite unique on this: we are extremely good at it yet it's one of the things we can't discuss without strong emotions.
- leetcrew 7y agowhat would you call it?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- adamsea 7y agoHard not to read this with some sadness and bitterness ...
- exabrial 7y agoI hope someday humans can evolve past war. The cold unfortunate truth is there are people in the world right now that seek to gain power through whatever means they can. To that end, it would be incredibly naive to not develop these weapons systems, and police ourselves to use them for purely defensive purposes. The alternative is to face annihilation when they are developed and used against you. I'm will forever be anti-war, but in order to be peaceful, one must first be dangerous.
- wizzwizz4 7y ago> it would be incredibly naive to not develop these weapons systems, and police ourselves to use them for purely defensive purposes. What happens when the person in charge is insane? Or, worse, unethical? Or, even worse, Dunning–Kruger? How would we police ourselves then‽
- exabrial 7y ago"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
- KozmoNau7 7y agoWalk softly and carry a big stick. Unfortunately that big stick also induces a desire to use it.
- hash872 7y agoI basically agree with this, and would even go further and say that I'm a nationalist and explicitly for one country. With that being said, there's an added dimension that you left out- that this aiming technology then gets adopted by the other superpower, then by other major militaries, and eventually filters its way down to minor combatants. And the balance of power between the two superpowers, one of whom I'm a member of, stays basically as it was before- just that now the whole world is that much more lethal. Like, the term 'arms race' got popularized to describe this exact situation. I'm not even arguing against the technology described here, but just more cynical about the ultimate effects
- the_cat_kittles 7y agoif you work for a company that helps people kill, you are guilty. to address this guilt, you can quit and feel much better about yourself.
- scarejunba 7y agoDidn't tracking point have a security flaw because it worked on local wifi or something? Don't recall for sure. Looks like they just put everything on the weapon now. Interesting what modern miniaturization can do. Same tech that advances smartphones makes guntech better.
- endorphone 7y agoThere is an early window with tech like this where it feels okay because the "good guys" have it. Only soon enough everyone has it. Every dollar towards tech like that is effectively R&D for every regime on Earth.
- willvarfar 7y agoSuddenly adversarial AI becomes more than a cool tech talk and paper. It seems reasonable to imagine spies and hackers trying to acquire the models from sights so that, on the day of actual battle, their soldiers can be given carefully prepared masks that defeat the sights of the enemy etc.
- leereeves 7y agoConsidering scaling, rotation, lighting, smoke, dirt, etc, it's hard to imagine being able to effectively use an adversarial image on a battlefield. Much easier to simply obscure or mask whatever features the model detects.
- tyingq 7y agoDetails are lacking, but this seems ok-ish. It sounds like this is focused on "found my target and now I'm in the figure 8 where my sight is bouncing around because of my heartbeat or other outside physical influence". Assuming it's focused on that sort of bias, it seems fine. If it reaches beyond that it clearly needs more research.
- m3kw9 7y agoCan use this tech to train it to recognize hogs for pest control
- baybal2 7y agoAdding to that: most soldier who died in WWII didn't fire a single shot, and never seen the enemy. A lot more of who survived just spent the whole war walking and doing maneuvers.
- arkh 7y agoThe main problem for the military with those kind of electronics assisted weapons are the fucking batteries. Infantry already has a heavy load to move around. Adding battery packs does not help. Best case scenario you're tethered to some vehicle. Worst case your heavier rifle has no special system anymore because your 10lb of batteries are depleted. For militarized police which do fast action like SWAT the battery problem is not a thing anymore.
- Cpoll 7y agoWhy do they need so much power? A phone can run all day off a 200g battery and has enough processing power to do autofocusing and image processing. If it's on standby it should consume next to nothing.
- greedo 7y agoNight vision goggles, radios, flashlights. That adds up fast. Combine that weight with armor inserts, weapons, ammo, headgear, and 70lbs isn't uncommon.
- chillacy 7y agoHmm are soldiers using LiPo batteries? Given that they’re flammable when damaged, and don’t work well in extreme temperatures.
- derefr 7y agoBut on the other hand, you're already wearing body armour, so what's a little explosion? Little explosions come out the back of your rifle every minute. (LiPo batteries really don't deflagrate violently, even when shot. They just burn.)
- taneq 7y agoThe obvious solution is powered armour with integrated high capacity battery. :D
- 7y ago
- dchichkov 7y agoI remember reading somewhere that there is money to fight climate change. It is just that it is being spend on weapons, like this one. Efforts would be much better spent, trying to reduce the rate of destruction of ecological services. There are between 200 and 2,000 species extinctions occur every year. Could one be saved for a price of one rifle like this?
- CRUDite 7y agoNature has devised molecular machinery specific to our time on this earth. Want to freeze yourself for a deep space trip? There is a creature that can do that. Want to regrow limbs? Survive like a tardigrade? Not get cancer? Everything we need is out there. Some of it will be key to the future. In some cases it took many millions of years to evolve. Vancomycin came from soil, what else lies in wait for bio-prospectors and molecule hunters? Nothing if its all dead. There should be a prime directive and it should be for life on this planet
- SturgeonsLaw 7y agoIt's truly criminal that we're potentially losing out on gamechanging biotech in order to facilitate archaic profit generating schemes like chopping down trees for lumber or digging up coal to burn. Our future is getting mortgaged in more ways than one.
- growlist 7y agoIf we don't defend ourselves, we might accidentally cede the world to people that have no regard for the environment whatsoever.
- ridgeguy 7y agoI suppose you could equip a team with these and bluetooth an AND function. Every team member could pick a different target, all weapons would fire simultaneously when every weapon met 'guaranteed hit' criteria, not before. Should make for a highly effective one-shot tactic against multiple targets.