Replacing manned guard towers....

[Psyche]

...with weaponised guard towers where one person's attention is spread over the area normally watched by *five* people, with remote control automatic weapons in each.

Yeah, what could possibly go wrong?

Rick Owens' Bizarre Fashion Show Had Models Wearing Other Models, But What's The Meaning Behind It All? (PHOTOS) : Entertainment : Headlines & Global News

 

[SLTE]

I could see this working wonders if they removed the weapons. Perhaps set up a quick response team somewhere nearby. As it is... yeah, every little thing that walks into range is toast, innocently or otherwise. Eesh.

 

[silentwarfare]

Didn't they try this at the border between North and South Korea already in a more primitive form? They're going to have fresh-out-of-high-school kids running these things with chips and soda in one hand, and a joystick in the other thinking they're playing a video game when people could get shot or worse, slip through knowing how lax it's going to get without a real human being up there guarding the tower. It's just insane to try and do that remotely for one, but then lets say that they actually do their job right and control 5 of these towers at once. What happens if someone jams the signal between the spec operator and the towers? Who is going to be responsible when one of the towers malfunctions or is exploited, and someone is able to get past them that shouldn't?

This is a bad move, unless they're trying to make it to where they want someone to get through them that shouldn't. And as SLTE said up there, it's going to shoot at cats and goats and anything that crosses its path between a human operator not seeing what's moving and the computer responding on its own to what it thinks might be a threat. This is no bueno guys. Not at all.

 

[Corzhens]

Manned guard tower is the traditional style of sentries. It was popular in the second world war. When you mention Japanese soldiers, what comes to mind is the tower of the sentry with 2 guards, one with a binoculars and the other with a machine gun. In the movies, that sentry tower had killed so many enemies as if it was invincible. With the technology, I think it is wiser to use CCTV in place of those manned towers. It is safer that way.

 

[crimsonghost747]

As long as the weapon system is remotely operated by a qualified guys.. ie the same guy who would be operating a rifle if he was standing there... I think it's a pretty good system. Keeps the soldiers safe and increases detection range if proper electronics (thermal cameras, motion sensors etc) are used.

 

[Diane Lane]

It's also important to use good quality equipment and maintain it properly. That doesn't always happen, even under the best of circumstances. It would be great if people didn't have to be in harm's way, but I think it should perhaps be tested out in a limited fashion first, to determine how effective it could/would be, before enacting it on a wide scale basis.

 

[ipm_zipedia]

I don't know why everyone thinks this is a problem. This is an immensely advantageous tool when fighting against gorilla warfare, especially with the death rates of American soldiers being killed by vehicle-based IEDs. Setting up a perimeter with these as the last line of defense could be a good way to reduce VBIED attacks and to ultimately deter suicide attacks on bases or roadblocks.

 

[explorerx7]

That is a workable idea, however, I don't see that much advantage would be gained in this instance. Someone will have to monitor the cameras from all angles. And what if the camera system should malfunction? I don't believe there would be a great enough opportunity cost to really warrant a widescale implementation of this strategy.

 

[vash]

Didn't they try this at the border between North and South Korea already in a more primitive form? They're going to have fresh-out-of-high-school kids running these things with chips and soda in one hand, and a joystick in the other thinking they're playing a video game when people could get shot or worse, slip through knowing how lax it's going to get without a real human being up there guarding the tower. It's just insane to try and do that remotely for one, but then lets say that they actually do their job right and control 5 of these towers at once. What happens if someone jams the signal between the spec operator and the towers? Who is going to be responsible when one of the towers malfunctions or is exploited, and someone is able to get past them that shouldn't?

This is a bad move, unless they're trying to make it to where they want someone to get through them that shouldn't. And as SLTE said up there, it's going to shoot at cats and goats and anything that crosses its path between a human operator not seeing what's moving and the computer responding on its own to what it thinks might be a threat. This is no bueno guys. Not at all.

Don't they already do it with unmanned drones? People from within the US are controlling the drones on the other side of the world with joysticks and some other buttons. It is like a video game to them when people on the ground are getting killed with a push of a button from thousands miles away.

While I do not believe a single person can effective control 5 guard towers, I still think it is more effective and safer than putting actual human beings on the tower. People on the guard towers can get killed really easy. If you do not put anyone on there, there is no one from your side to get killed ... at least not before the first sign of trouble.

The better solution is to have at least one person controlling each guard tower. Maybe for every 5 towers, there should be a supervisor. There should be s respond team of real human soldiers nearby just in case.

 

[xTinx]

Well if you ever play Clash of Clans, I suppose you're referring to an Archer Tower type of Guard Tower, right? There are people stationed at strategically placed towers but instead of people manning it, you'd use weapons remotely controlled from afar (perhaps a location only military personnel are privy to). Anyway, this would probably work but it would depend on a number of things: the quality of the remote technology being used (the battery could run out or it'd easily be shot down by enemies or whatever), the integrity and diligence of the personnel monitoring/operating the weapons from a remote area and natural calamities that may destroy the tower.

 

[vash]

You can totally use underground wires to control the towers' systems instead of using wireless remote control. Wireless can be jammed or even taking full control of if they are hacked. Think about that unmanned drone over Iran, it was hacked and landed as a "gift" lol...

Unless you use some kind of fail-safe... in case the remote control link was lost, it will turn to self-control instead. But then again, you are just asking for trouble again lol... Self-controlled machines will more likely just shoot anything that is moving.

Anyway, just use wired links, and keep them deep underground. So no one can damage them easily. I am not talking about having the control center hundreds miles away... Just a few miles away is the max it should be. Just in case something happens, it can be fixed as soon as possible.