Robot Attack (serial killer, terrorists, etc).

This is a discussion on Robot Attack (serial killer, terrorists, etc). within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; To sum up this post: 1) Suicide bomber vs drone in 2008. The drones are starting to win the tally (I'm not sure if they ...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 43 of 43

Thread: Robot Attack (serial killer, terrorists, etc).

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,347
    To sum up this post:

    1) Suicide bomber vs drone in 2008. The drones are starting to win the tally (I'm not sure if they have yet, but it is impressive how quickly the numbers have increased vs 2007). BTW, I don't think all suicide bombers come free. Cost of materials and benefits provided to family members is something like $25,000 to $100,000. It is not just about the number of wives in the here-after. I think the cost of a good, military grade, land drone is $200,000. The ratio (lets say 8:1) is getting closer as of 2008.

    2) In 2008 there were 3 fatal bear attacks in North America. Yet that is a reasonable catalysts for endless .357 Mag vs .44 Mag threads. But drone / robot attacks in the next 5 to 10 years, in a world where already terrorist plans using drones have been uncovered, drones have been used by the military to take out 100s to 1000s (in 2008), with tech that is readly available (and being done with paint ball guns), not worth a thought?


    Quote Originally Posted by GWRedDragon View Post
    I would be very surprised if a robot with a gun on it was more effective than a suicide bomber....
    Historically suicide attacks have had some success, overall, in contrast to the few battles they win, it rarely wins the war. In addition, that is what a drone / robot is, in a way, a suicide bomber, with out loosing the bomber.

    This is not some new threat.

    FOXNews.com - Iraqi Drones May Target U.S. Cities - U.S. & World

    Quote Originally Posted by GWRedDragon View Post
    ...A robot with a gun gives people a chance to disable it or attempt escape. Someone who has a bunch of explosives under their coat and walks onto a crowded train platform does not offer any opportunity to escape or fight back, just BAM and it's over...
    How many assumptions are made in that statement. How many people "can" be taken out by a guy strapped with explosives vs how many actually are. There are many ways to stop a person from walking into a crowded train, it is prevented just as often as it works. There have been many times that a person with a gun has taken out more people then a person with a coat full of explosives.

    How does a robot / drone with guns give people any more opportunity to disable it or attempt escape? Dones are used every day as we speak, and people don't get away.

    I don't have the numbers. However I do know drones must be effective, because our military has increased their use and numbers something like 1:1000 in the last 4 years. Off hand, I think there are around 200 MQ-1 Predators (if you also count the MQ-9 Reaper) vs 180 F-22 Raptors.

    It is not a rock, paper, scissors situation where you don't need to be scared of scissors because the primatives don't have scissors. It is a matter of esculation and inevitability.

    People are concerned about nuclear weapons being used, but in reality, we might be to a point that what appears to be old tech (nuclear bomb) requires far greater planing then a home made version of Talon IIIB robots.

    U.S. Army asks for more killer robots in Iraq | Blog | Futurismic

    Cost you ask. $100,000 to $200,000. That is with top notch stuff, under a government contract. In addition, that is today. So consider 5 to 10 years. The cost of a good drone will become around the cost of a good suicide bomber.

    It is easy to state it is far fetched until it happens. But here is the question concerning what is more effective: How many more people have been killed via suicide bomber vs drone in 2008. I think the drones are starting to gain or have begun to win the tally recently in 2009. That is shocking when you consider a single suicide bombers has killed in the 30s with 200 injured.

    Now if you go back to 2007, and you did not count drones just targeting (just drones with bombs) I think the the suicide bombers would have it. Then everything changed, and again, I don't know the numbers, but in 2008 I am pretty sure drones ran at least neck and neck with the heralded suicide bomber. That is one year difference. The attack on Al Qaeda No. 2 Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri hit by a pilotless predator on Oct 30, 2006, killing 82 people, many children among them. Look it up.

    Now this might not be a fair comparison, as injuries need to also be added. In addition, I don't know the true stats. What I do know is the number of deaths by drone increase an amazing amount last year. Not a judgement of who is the GG or BG, just pointing out, it must be effective, and it is only a matter of time that once effective, it will be used as a tool. We are not dealing with high tech human looking terminators. Talking about home made versions that are more then effective (and the parts are not tracked).

    Quote Originally Posted by GWRedDragon View Post
    ...That's much more scary for me.
    Why be scared of something that has not happened yet, thats what you have summed up, and just focused on one possible users, terrorists.

    Reminds me of the emperor's reaction after the first a-bomb in WW2. He refused to believe it was not a natural disaster. By the second one, he was terrified. We did not have any others stockpiled, but the 2nd did the trick.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Distinguished Member Array GWRedDragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    1,413
    Aircraft are much easier to operate remotely than land vehicles, by far. This is part of the distinction I was making. A terrorist aircraft packed with explosives? Of course that's plausible, it's basically just a poor man's cruise missile. Remote control boats seem like another very plausible threat.

    A land vehicle is more of a stretch...it would be much more likely to be discovered and evaded or disabled before it could do a lot of damage. A robot is much more conspicuous driving around than a regular looking person. And, the history of combat-purposed land robots is much more spotty. Simply talking about remote controlled aircraft does not address the real question. Remote controlled aircraft are old technology, and well proven by GGs and BGs alike (aka, missiles, etc).

    Picture a shopping mall.

    On one hand, you have a guy walking in with a bomb under his coat and nobody is the wiser. He casually walks around the place until he finds the largest concentration of people and then hits the button.

    In the second scenario, an armored robot with either a bomb or a gun on it is sent into the building on remote control. It is immediately obvious to everyone that, at the very least, there is something unusual going on. If a similar attack has occurred before, people will immediately realize the threat and attempt to flee. The robot will not have a chance to position itself for maximum impact...it will barely have a chance to get in the door before everyone is running terrified.
    "Trust in God with hand on sword" -Inscription on my family's coat of arms from medieval England
    ---Carry options: G26/MTAC, PF9/MiniTuck, PPK/Pocket, USP40/OWB---
    ---NOTE: I am not an expert. If I ever start acting like a know-it-all, please call me on it immediately. ---

  4. #33
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,347
    Dragon,

    I hear ya, but your assumptions are based on situations where a bomber could be the right choice. Why is a land drone easier to disable or observe before it is deadly? It all depends on how it is used.

    There is a time and a place that land drones will be effective, more difficult to disable, and observe. With one added advantage. Once the drone is taken out, another can be made for the next day.

    In addition, much like 9/11, until it happens, people will react to it in a differenty way. If you went to a mall and a robot rolled in, depending on how it looked, it could attract a crowd.

    It is just a matter of time, not some long term, and someone will use a land drone or robot to do murder. Based on what I've seen, it will be in the next 20 years.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  5. #34
    Member Array Fisherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    45R
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by GWRedDragon View Post
    Aircraft are much easier to operate remotely than land vehicles, by far. This is part of the distinction I was making. A terrorist aircraft packed with explosives? Of course that's plausible, it's basically just a poor man's cruise missile. Remote control boats seem like another very plausible threat.
    Let's make the distinction that the terrorists of 9-11 used huge airliners. As far as a poor man's cruise missle, that wouldn't work either. A General Aviation aircraft can not carry enough explosives to do much damage unless you're talking about a nuke. Even a plane as large as a Lear or King Air doesn't have the useful load to do the kind of damage that will cripple a city. Big airliners were used but GA gets the extra rules and restrictions.

    Our government, always going after the wrong people.
    I ain't what I otta be, I ain't what I wanta be, I ain't what I could be,

    But thank God, I ain't what I used to be,
    And, Praise God, I ain't what I'm gonna be!

    II Cor 3:18

  6. #35
    Member Array Fisherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    45R
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    Dragon,

    I hear ya, but your assumptions are based on situations where a bomber could be the right choice. Why is a land drone easier to disable or observe before it is deadly? It all depends on how it is used.

    There is a time and a place that land drones will be effective, more difficult to disable, and observe. With one added advantage. Once the drone is taken out, another can be made for the next day.

    In addition, much like 9/11, until it happens, people will react to it in a differenty way. If you went to a mall and a robot rolled in, depending on how it looked, it could attract a crowd.

    It is just a matter of time, not some long term, and someone will use a land drone or robot to do murder. Based on what I've seen, it will be in the next 20 years.
    I think it'll be much sooner. The technology exsists and the robot doesn't have to be very sophisticated. Just look cute and flashy, attract a crowd and blow up!
    I ain't what I otta be, I ain't what I wanta be, I ain't what I could be,

    But thank God, I ain't what I used to be,
    And, Praise God, I ain't what I'm gonna be!

    II Cor 3:18

  7. #36
    Distinguished Member Array GWRedDragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
    I think it'll be much sooner. The technology exsists and the robot doesn't have to be very sophisticated. Just look cute and flashy, attract a crowd and blow up!
    Indeed, but that only works the first time, not the second time

    I'm not saying situations don't exist where a land drone would be effective. What I AM saying is that they do not represent some huge new capability that will greatly tip the balance in favor of BGs. I do not envision a future as described in the OP with rampant drone attacks and nobody able to do anything about it.
    "Trust in God with hand on sword" -Inscription on my family's coat of arms from medieval England
    ---Carry options: G26/MTAC, PF9/MiniTuck, PPK/Pocket, USP40/OWB---
    ---NOTE: I am not an expert. If I ever start acting like a know-it-all, please call me on it immediately. ---

  8. #37
    Member Array yzcrasher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by PointnClick View Post
    Runaway... with Gene Simmons as the bad guy... I remember that one...
    LOL, yea those spiders were wicked...
    ((Place funny, whitty comment here))

  9. #38
    Member Array Fisherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    45R
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by GWRedDragon View Post
    Indeed, but that only works the first time, not the second time

    I'm not saying situations don't exist where a land drone would be effective. What I AM saying is that they do not represent some huge new capability that will greatly tip the balance in favor of BGs. I do not envision a future as described in the OP with rampant drone attacks and nobody able to do anything about it.
    I agree with that.
    I ain't what I otta be, I ain't what I wanta be, I ain't what I could be,

    But thank God, I ain't what I used to be,
    And, Praise God, I ain't what I'm gonna be!

    II Cor 3:18

  10. #39
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,347
    A lot has change in the past 20, 10, 5 years concerning this possibility. Since 2006, 2007, even more has changed. Then, in 2008, we are seeing a huge shift in application. When you then apply this to 5, 10, 20 years from now, if the pace continues, it will be very interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by GWRedDragon View Post
    ...What I AM saying is that they do not represent some huge new capability that will greatly tip the balance in favor of BGs. I do not envision a future as described in the OP with rampant drone attacks and nobody able to do anything about it.
    The OP never stated there would be rampant drone attacks. I've only stated that vs the many other "firearm vs." conversations, drones / robots (even land based) are becoming more of a possibility vs many of those vs. conversations, for example vs bear attack, vs CC vs terrerorists, vs government comming to get your guns, vs heavly armored BG, etc.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  11. #40
    Senior Member Array tbrenke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    1,006
    Quote Originally Posted by GWRedDragon View Post
    Indeed, but that only works the first time, not the second time

    I'm not saying situations don't exist where a land drone would be effective. What I AM saying is that they do not represent some huge new capability that will greatly tip the balance in favor of BGs. I do not envision a future as described in the OP with rampant drone attacks and nobody able to do anything about it.
    teddy bears left on the street with a timer that starts up after it has been moved. battery and electronics $20 at most. add the explosive and that is a very scary thing. travel across the country leaving them at random location.
    "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -1792, James Madison
    There are always too many Democratic, Republican and never enough U.S. congressmen.

  12. #41
    Member Array celticredneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Amelia Virginia
    Posts
    383
    With the emergence of rogue nuclear powers such as Iran and N Korea as well as unaccounted for nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, I'm more worried about a small nuke in the back of a Chevy van than robots at the mall. They couldn't bring a gun into my local mall anyhow, it's posted as a "gun free zone".

  13. #42
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by celticredneck View Post
    With the emergence of rogue nuclear powers such as Iran and N Korea as well as unaccounted for nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, I'm more worried about a small nuke in the back of a Chevy van than robots at the mall. They couldn't bring a gun into my local mall anyhow, it's posted as a "gun free zone".
    Nuclear material can be tracked and leaves a trail. Besides, just use medical waste or material not accounted for right here in the 48.

    I'll put odds on a drone attack over a N Korea nuclear Chevy van. Heck, I think an accidental exploding battery car at the wrong place and time (like say a battery opperated medical waste van) is more of a concern then the suitcase nuclear van.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  14. #43
    Senior Member Array InspectorGadget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    536
    Upcoming Military Robot Could Feed on Dead Bodies
    Upcoming Military Robot Could Feed on Dead Bodies - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News - FOXNews.com

    It could be a combination of 19th-century mechanics, 21st-century technology and a 20th-century horror movie.

    A Maryland company under contract to the Pentagon is working on a steam-powered robot that would fuel itself by gobbling up whatever organic material it can find grass, wood, old furniture, even dead bodies.

    Robotic Technology Inc.'s Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot that's right, "EATR" "can find, ingest, and extract energy from biomass in the environment (and other organically-based energy sources), as well as use conventional and alternative fuels (such as gasoline, heavy fuel, kerosene, diesel, propane, coal, cooking oil, and solar) when suitable," reads the company's Web site.

    That "biomass" and "other organically-based energy sources" wouldn't necessarily be limited to plant material animal and human corpses contain plenty of energy, and they'd be plentiful in a war zone.

    EATR will be powered by the Waste Heat Engine developed by Cyclone Power Technology of Pompano Beach, Fla., which uses an "external combustion chamber" burning up fuel to heat up water in a closed loop, generating electricity.

    The advantages to the military are that the robot would be extremely flexible in fuel sources and could roam on its own for months, even years, without having to be refueled or serviced.

    Upon the EATR platform, the Pentagon could build all sorts of things a transport, an ambulance, a communications center, even a mobile gunship.

    In press materials, Robotic Technology presents EATR as an essentially benign artificial creature that fills its belly through "foraging," despite the obvious military purpose.
    This just seems like a perfect fit to this thread :)
    Colt 1911 New Agent, CTLaser

    You do not work for them, they work for you.
    Senators http://senate.gov/general/contact_in...nators_cfm.cfm
    Congressmen http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Good, Serial Killer Of Eleven Children Denied Parole, Again.
    By GunnyBunny in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: December 2nd, 2010, 01:25 PM
  2. Racist Serial Killer on the move from MI to VA?
    By packinnova in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: September 20th, 2010, 10:20 PM
  3. Good, Serial Killer Loses Appeal Bid For New Trial.
    By GunnyBunny in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 31st, 2010, 10:42 PM
  4. Terrorists attack on U.S. Embassy
    By buckeye .45 in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: January 12th, 2007, 07:12 PM
  5. Phoenix - Serial Killer
    By BlueLion in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: August 16th, 2006, 03:14 PM