Fair dinkum...

Erm, yes, more robots.

Australia is launching a competition for war robots.

I've already covered this thing here a lot, so I'm just putting down a marker to note how things are moving, we've gone from the realm of the speculative to practical aspirational political policy - and if Australia is doing it, then every tech savvy industrial power will be thinking about it.

The government wants to develop an "intelligent and fully autonomous system" capable of carrying out dangerous surveillance missions.

Senior officials in Canberra have said they hope that unarmed robotic vehicles will do some of the army's "dirty work" in such hazardous theatres.

The ultimate plan is for groups of these sophisticated machines to be sent into battle to help neutralise the enemy.

Heh, unarmed eh? Unarmed neutralising, what, by guiding unmanned drones to targets? Hmmm, nice.

Anyway, below, a small picture of the future...

Old film reviewed

So, I recently bought the Aliens DVD, and watched it for the first time in a long while.

Some random thoughts, which I maintain are (sort of) relevant to contemporary issues.

Obviously, the cries of fandom went up - the Alien from the original movie had fought unarmed civilians - surely, if someone sent in THE MARINES! things would be different. Lo, they went.

I think, I have already commented here on how popular genre movies structurally provide a narrative for militarism, the enjoyment of the pure right to exterminate your foes, with unlimited self defence justification are the preparatory ideological trappings for the military mindset. We fear the monster, and enjoy the justified extermination of it.

The Marines in aliens, though, to make it interesting, are hamstrung - they go into a reactor room, in which firing high explosive 10 mm rounds would be dangerous - they are disarmed by industrial processes (a process the evil corporate Burke points out has a big Dollar value). That is, capital, and the need to preserve it (and, importantly, its literal power to reproduce itself) sets the limits of the unlimited use of destructive fire power. Of course, in the end, the plant is destroyed, and thus the jouissance laden violence allows the nest of Alien eggs to be fried.

What of the Aliens themselves? They are biological, Ripley's threat to their eggs threatens their reproduction, and they cannot attack her when she rescues Newt. Their chest bursting is explicitly compared with birth giving in the dialogue, they come from us. They do not "fuck each other over for a dollar." And, of course, they co-operate, like a hive mind. Obviously, generically, the movie is actually a zombie movie, the colonists have become aliens, overtaken by biological pure need. That is, use values - consumerists in the mall.

Hence the centrality of Newt - Ripley risks all to go back for Newt, because she is an individual, and a value worth fighting for. In the end, she calls Ripley "Mommy", and traditional family values are restored (minus the father - although the hints at Romance with Hicks may be there to leave an impression of a future attachment/family). Ripley, the voice of pure extermination prevails and wipes the enemy out, establishing this new order.

Symbollicly, she battles the Alien queen in a powered lifted suite - open, but high tech, a visible meld of human and machine. Ultimately, the film is a Carlylian repudiation of finance capitalism and collectivism in favour of individual values.

Who's a clever boy then?

Remember this post, about Robots at war?

Well, earlier this week Robotics professor Noel Sharkey (see an article he wrote back in August here) gave a speech in which he discussed the proliferation of robotic military equipment:

Over 4,000 robots are currently deployed on the ground in Iraq and by October 2006 unmanned aircraft had flown 400,000 flight hours.

At the moment, humans can make the decision whether to attack or not but a recent policy shift in the U.S means that 'intelligent' autonomous attack robots will soon be given the power to decide who and when to kill.

(Appologies for linking to the Daily Mail)

Significantly, though, his concern is the falling cost of robotics manufacture - precisely the point I made about capitalism cheapening the means of production, including the production of death. AP report him saying

"How long is it going to be before the terrorists get in on the act? With the current prices of robot construction falling dramatically and the availability of ready-made components for the amateur market, it wouldn't require a lot of skill to make autonomous robot weapons."

Sharkey said a small GPS-guided drone with autopilot could be made for about 250 pounds.

Another report of this speech notes:

In December 2007, the DOD published an “Unmanned systems roadmap” proposing to spend about $4 billion by 2010 on robotic weapons, a figure that will later rise to about $24 billion.

Sharkey suggests a code of ethics for robots - I'd have thought calling for development of electronic counter measures to fritz the robot brains would be a wiser bet, a drone with GPS deprived of its GPS isn't very useful.

Finally, the Official Propaganda - see, there is a career in videogames. They're not people, their mooks!

Human resources

Tribune strikes again - this time with a story about remnants of the British Empire.

Apparently, military collaboration continues with the racist military dictatorship in Fiji (ruddy fine rugger players, those chaps, wot?). This engagement with tyrants apparently enables the British army to recruit Fijians (fine sturdy types, wot?).

So, the US has to go to its poor communities to dredge up recruits, whereas Britain continues to use its old empire to draw up human cannon fodder to prop up unpopular wars while recruitment dries up at home. The some two thousand or so Fijians in the British army must give a hell of a shot to the strained manpower of the forces fighting under the butchers apron.


According to the CIA world factbook Fiji has a population of 918,675 (July 2007 est.) The UK has a population of 60,776,238 (July 2007 est.) The British Army is reckoned to have 107,730 regular troops.

Luke the Nuke rides again.

Cold warriors never die, they just hibernate, and wait for the moment to begin their deluded blood thirsty cries of antagonism, opposition and rearmament.

Luke the Nuke is back

Well, it seems that the Russian stakes are rising:

According to the BBC :

Two new RAF Typhoon jets shadowed a Russian bomber heading for Britain, the Ministry of Defence has said.
The jets were scrambled on Friday 17 August to identify the Russian aircraft, which turned back before it reached UK skies.

and:

The old firm say

Last Thursday a Russian mini-submarine descended to the seabed two-and-a-half miles under the North Pole. But this was not just a scientific expedition and achievement. The main aim was to plant a Russia flag there. In other words, to claim the sovereignty of the Russian State over the area.

Other recent stories include the Czechs discovering that their pipeline to Norway is actually pumping them Russian oil (so they are totally dependent on Russia), and of course the recent spate of murder campaigns by Russia in cutting off oil during the middle fo winters.

Cold warriors are wetting themselves about a return to the good old days, and the continuing justification it gives to massive military budgets. Of course, the fact taht NATO has continued to harrass and encircle Russia - the clear intent is to have Western military domination over former Rsussian spheres of influence.

What with the recent Radio 4 series about China's military build up: Shadow of the Dragon it does seem that the so-called peace dividend is coming to an end - that is, if we listen to, and let the cold war dingbat hawks get their way. Now is the time to start talking serious disarmament in order to put a stop to a nasty cycle - after all, if the stock market correction continues, we'll all be hearing how the Great Depression led to WWII...

It's warrrrrrrrrrr!! And we're all gonna die! pt. 2

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!!! Chinese space commies have shot down an old satellite. Not sending any messages to the US there then, are they "We can knock out your satellite systems, gner gner gneh gner gner!"

"But China stresses that it has consistently advocated the peaceful development of outer space and it opposes the arming of space and military competition in space," he told a news conference.

"China has never, and will never, participate in any form of space arms race."

I'm so glad they would never publicly and ostentatiously develop weapons to challenge their political and strategic rvals - that would make me feel worried if they did.

So, that's the news today - Queer Chinese Commies from Space are going to steal your babies and send them into orbit with the help of Bushitler Bliar.

Sleep well, don't have nightmares.

Old dog, old tricks

Apparently the US government is considering using troops to break a strike in a tyre factory, according to the Financial Times - because the tyres concerned are needed for military vehicles.

Nothing really changes. The Taft hartley Act is similar to laws we have here, only on steroids, giving the executive wide ranging powers to break strikes that harm the national interest.

Couple this with reports that the US is considering increasing the size of its armed forces and you can picture that pretty much any industry could be deemed to be afecting the military struggle and the national interest.

This, then, is apparently freedom, the freedom that soldiers are allegedly dying for in Iraq and Afghanistan - the freedom to work when the boss tells you, for pay your boss determines.

Attack of the Killer Robots

War : Technology

Interesting article in Newspartsman last week - America's coming robot army:

In just a few years, US forces will be able to deal out death, not at the squeeze of a trigger or even the push of a button, but with no human intervention whatsoever. Many fighting soldiers - those GIs in tin hats who are dying two a day in Iraq - will be replaced by machines backed up by surveillance technology so penetrating and pervasive that it is referred to as "military omniscience". Any Americans involved will be less likely to carry rifles than PlayStation-style consoles and monitors that display simulated streetscapes of the kind familiar to players of Grand Theft Auto - and they may be miles from where the killing takes place.

Now, this is interesting, if only in terms of if they can do that abroad, they can do it here - but I think the article misses something.

I'l explain. In one of his letters, I recall, uncle Charlie Marx discusses how mercenary soldiers were the first real proeltarians - people who had nothing but their ability to fight, working purely for the money. In that sense we can seen ancient war with it's overwhelming need for labour/manpower as one of the conduits for the development of capitalism.

This development has continued, as with real capitalism, to a situation in which the rewards of warfare go according to the capital invested. The US has overwhelming superiority in the means of warfare - it is a hugely capitalised firm, if you like. According to the MOD:

The UK Defence budget in 2005/06 is some £30.1Bn. In terms of monetary expenditure, this puts us second in the world on defence spending, although we are a long way behind the United States whose base Defence budget is some $400Bn.

That last figure, from other charts I've seen, is more, almost, than the rest of the world put together.

Although China is beginning to flex it's muscles, and presents a very real force with massive manpower (i.e. it's a labour intensive competitor) the US is still well ahead. The business of occupying and pacifying (rather than just destroying) urban concentrations remains a labour intensive task, though - the US can handle anyone in the world in an open shooting match, but, much like the US War of Independence, they have trouble when the buggers won't just stand and fight.

These robots would be a qualitative breakthrough that would mean the US could wage war anywhere on Earth - out of its pocket change.

Except, and here I return to my point - this is capitalism - the price and availability of such military hardware means competitors can buy in - imagine a terrorist getting their hands on a killer remote robot. New lines proliferate, driving the rate of rpofit down, and the faster the organic composition of capital falls, the harder and harder it is to stay ahead in the game.

On the one hand, this could be a good thing - restoring a rough equivilance of force to the world (see Frank Herbert's Committee of the Whole short story for a take on such a contingency) - on the other hand, it could lead to catastrophic waves of destruction from nukes in your bedroom.

PS Stross has a fun take on this (also see his more recent post on Guantanamo suicides).