Robots? Or remote control?

Korea Times: Robot to Take Over Border Guard Mission

The Korean Defense Ministry says it will have robotic guards along the DMZ by 2011. One option is to upgrade the current Aegis robot (currently in use by Korean troops in Iraq) for the mission. Other options are also being looked at.

It’s hard for me to see if this is a real robot or just a remote controlled weapons and surveillance station like the CROWS or RWS. Does anyone know more about this Aegis robot?

Either way, it sounds like a logical way to augment (though not completely replace) human sentries.

Seems to me that remote-controlled systems like the CROWS or RWS (no motion-stabilization needed for fixed positions on the DMZ) would be fine. 24/7/365 all-weather no-fatigue sentries. Korean video game jocks could take six-hour shifts and OD on Jolt Cola while keeping the homeland secure.

Speaking of securing the homeland, there’s another nasty border where this sort of thing would come in quite handy. And the nation in question already has working systems that can do the job. (via ACE)


  1. Call me old fashioned, Murdoc, but I don’t think I’ll live long enough to see stationary, remote-controlled robots which live soldiers will not figure out how to outsmart, by blowing them up or sneaking around them. It sounds like a modern Maginot Line to me. Now, a combinaton of stationary, track-mounted, and tracked remote-controlled armed robts with armed UAVs might be enough to discourage an invasion, or at least slow it down enough until the F/A-22s and A-10s get there.

  2. And, don’t forget land mines. How about autonomous robot land mines that can unbury themselves, move, then rebury themselves at random times. If you fire a bangalore torpedo or some newer system to clear a lane, the mines could be programmed to move to the sound of the blast, rapidly closing off the lane. I’m off to a baseball game — 30 minutes late already. Will check for comments here this evening.

  3. Generally, defense is a loser’s form of war. The attacker decides how to attack, and when to attack. The defender has to defend everywhere, and always. That strategic advantage overwhelms the tactical advantage of the defense. On the other hand, even a minimal defense (called a screen) equiped for and authorized to use deadly force, would force the attacker to concentrate his forces to prepare for his attack, and to thus warn the defender. It would be interesting to develop a screen along our borders. Yes, it could be outsmarted, out fought, and beaten, but to accomplish this, the attacker would consume time, reveal his intent, and open himself to counterattack.