This is the US TRAP, a remote computer controlled sniper rifle. Similar remote controlled rifle systems have been developed and used all over the world, even to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists.
These remote control weapons systems are seriously overlooked, as they allow a stealth and positioning not possible with humans, and they can be operated without risking the life or even detection of the operator. These remote weapons can also be rigged as a trap, for when the enemy comes to inspect/disable it.
Now imagine rigging up multiple guns and having multiple operators, or switching between guns as an operator. It would be possible to safely defend fortifications and set up effective ambushes. Similarly, the Korean DMZ features fully automated turret systems that are programmed to aim and fire to kill independently without human interaction or input.
I'm surprised at how primitive and ghetto it looks given TP did the basic idea a decade ago. I'd have expect the US military to use a specific designed gun and do away with trigger and stock and limits of typical rifle scope and all that. This looks like a prototype.
But yeah automated defense turrets have been something getting real attention. Heck, I think at this point it's fairly easily within grasp of a dedicated individual using open source AI and control software that's readily available and not had to learn. It's not like the basic idea is that complex. From a law point of view if it was fully automated it'd be definitely be a trap and thus illegal (also a bad idea in normal times anyway given the false positive risk). Something that has remote oversight though is more interesting, where the gun requires the operator to confirm target and activate it but takes care of the rest.
If it could fire multiple rounds per direction then that'd obviously be a machine gun, but (though undoubtedly it'd require a pricey court fight) I think a proper implementation with a dedicated hardware console, hardware secure key management and pairing, and formal verification could sufficiently reach 1 action = 1 round that it would not be an MG. And I can't think of any other particular reason the weapon itself would be illegal, though in some states using it could be if there's an imminent danger requirement for lethal force (in mine there isn't).
Interesting times though. A single person could add significant defenses to a rural home.
Yeah the current systems are much more developed, but this early version does look pretty crude. It's funny how you mention security rural homes, which seems a bit overkill, but not in a Mad Max situation. I was thinking mostly about its applications in warfare.
Human input would probably allow it to pass under international law, like a confirmation prompt for an operator monitoring multiple cameras and weapons systems. With live object tracking capabilities in modern AI image detection software, it would not be science fiction to see more turret systems like the ones in Korea.
There are smaller systems that aren't huge tripods, but they are still lower profile than a human being. As for fortifications, a permanent military base could definitely make use of computerized turrets along the perimeter, at traffic checkpoints, and physically attached to the building.
As for ambushes, you have one or fewer devices engage the enemy from one side, then deploy a larger amount of turrets at the immediate flank on in asymmetrical formation. In a real world ambush scenario, the attacking forces are often holed up in buildings or behind cover anyways. Additionally, it can be used in combination with live infantry. I just think it is useful beyond being an assassin's weapon, and a much jankier improvised remote controlled rifle with AI assistance was used in recent history to kill an Iranian nuclear scientist.
>security in rural homes
I've dealt with multiple home invasions just using a machete, but I would use a remote rifle for hunting
>you have one or fewer devices engage the enemy from one side, then deploy a larger amount of turrets at the immediate flank in* asymmetrical formation
These are pretty standard tactics, disorients and confuses the enemy, after they engage a smaller force in the opposite direction
Warfare applications certainly are a first step, but again even from might light messing about with current computer vision systems the stuff a single person can do for relatively low amounts of money is pretty wild. So it has the potential to be a big force multiplier. Of course it has the potential for pretty bad terrorism use too as prices continue to drop. There will probably be a reckoning at some point.
>Human input would probably allow it to pass under international law
Landmines are still a thing, "international law" is kind of a misnomer since there is no world government. It just means what some powers agree too and will try to back, it's a lot more fluid then real, normal "law". Compared to mines, these would arguably be vastly more in accordance with laws of war for area denial, because at the end of the day they can in fact be trivially turned off and removed, or run out of ammo. They aren't something that will inherently linger for decades after a conflict harming civilians and wildlife.
In terms of US domestic law like I said full automated would be right out, that's completely illegal and 2A has zero say there. The machine gun part would be trickier, it'd take real attention to detail in implementation, but I think it'd be feasible.
>it'd take real attention to detail in implementation
No it wouldn't, weirdly enough the ATF has been very clear on this point. One push of the button creating one bang is all it takes. Use a momentary switch to control it and voila, not a machine gun.
>No it wouldn't, weirdly enough the ATF has been very clear on this point. One push of the button creating one bang is all it takes. Use a momentary switch to control it and voila, not a machine gun.
Momentary switch though isn't really what we're talking about here, or at least not what I'm talking about, I'm not envisioning a single 1:1 cable, I'm thinking of something that can be accessed via standard ethernet network and is overall computer controlled. I'm sure the ATF would be looking a lot more carefully to make sure that it could just be scripted or something. It's still achievable, but not in a typically lazy shit IOT fashion. One would need formal verification for the firing part with a 1:1 encryption paired to a hardware console. Totally doable, but would need real engineering and design behind it.
Of course in this particular case I think that'd be a pretty vital selling point ANYWAY, even if the ATF didn't care, since obviously one of the biggest possible minuses of such a thing would be it getting turned against you lol. I'd have it on its own 100% physically isolated network myself on top of everything else.
>huge scope
still easily detectable in high-ranked vip assassination scenarios
breakthrough in these will happen when someone figures out how to separate scope from the rifle while keeping zero, preferably using a scope with a very small aperture, comparable to a webcam
>It would be possible to safely defend fortifications
soldiers won't bother taking it into cover, artillery will break it
besides, it's still susceptible to small arms fire - sure, a sniper won't kill your sniper, but he can easily disable this turret
>set up effective ambushes
you can't re-deploy it to continue engagement, so in the end it's an effective and safe first strike that ends with a waste of expensive equipment
overall, there's a niche for these turrets (e.g. they can be very good at taking down small drones), but I wouldn't expect a revolution
>scopes make you detectable
Wrong board
yeah
there are dozens of these things at every event that putin attends
when memes become reality
make you detectable
Ironic you're calling that videogames when it's 100% true, that's the entire purpose of ARDs anon. Of course by the same token
is still silly, scope reflection is a solved problem for cheap. Further, "detectable" doesn't matter so much with these, because they can be treated as expendable, and activated very quickly. It doesn't matter if it's lost after doing its job, and it'd only need seconds.
>he doesn't know about lasers being used to detect optics
This has been a thing for a decade now anon.
A killflash doesn't negate lasers for optic detection, since the emitter and detector are at the same position.
>A killflash doesn't negate lasers for optic detection
not the short ones you can buy online, but unusually long killflashes will prevent detection unless you point your scope at the detector
if you can't see it - it can't see you
Right, it's not magic, a laser doesn't curve it's perfectly LOS. If the angle of the beam to the length of killflash to the glass is such that no photons make it in and out than that's that.
Also again with a remote controlled gun, you could just have something else watching for the right moment, and then only activate the gun seconds before you want to use it, at which point it uncovers its optic, and fires shortly after. Even if noticed instantly there'd still be mere seconds of warning. Sometimes that might be enough but often not.
>if you can't see it
*at any magnification, assuming your killflash is so long that it starts to cut into your FOV
at 24x magnification, fov is 1.2 degrees, that's a 120mm or almost 5" long ass killflash
A robotic rifle that can shoot accurately through a curtain based on video provided from an adjacent window etc. sounds like a nightmare for VIP security. I don't think it would even be that hard if you precisely measured the locations of the camera(s) and the rifle. Mossad could pull it off.
>Mossad could pull it off.
they already did with a machine gun
I think that was just a single weapon with an integrated optic? I'm thinking of having a rifle hidden behind a curtain in the book repository, while there's a small video camera in another window providing video. VIP security can scan the windows all they want and they'll never see it coming.
This is precisely the kind of shit neural networks were made for. If you know in advance where you're going to position your rifle, your optic, and your target, you build up a mockup in ARMA or something and then generate a ton of synthetic training data to train the AI on.
Definitely something worth trying (in Minecraft)
>have accurate geometry
>have accurate ballistic data
>somehow MUSHIEEEN LURNING will add anything to that setup over just letting a trained sniper handle the remote
AI/ML lets you use WiFi to see through walls:
>https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/security/a42575068/scientists-use-wifi-to-see-through-walls/
seems useful
do you intend to shoot the VIP through a wall based on his cellphones wifi?
Someone does, surely. Just a matter of figuring out who (it's too late)
In all seriousness anon I could see it coming up. I unironically have seen one McMansion renovation now where they were proud of having "upgraded the security" and that included some genuinely serious stuff like steel window frames with some pretty heavy duty bullet resistant glass, real doors etc. Except I was wondering around and tapped on a wall, noticed the familiar sound, and stuck my phone inside where an electrical outlet was getting replaced and it was open as part of the final touches, and yep still stick frame and dry wall there with veneer exterior. Would absolutely be a hundred times easier to shoot right though a number of areas of wall than the windows.
This is one of the greatest weaknesses of conventional security design. So much of it relies on an assailant choosing a conventional method or route when attempting unlawful ingress. A reinforced door only slows down the speed at which an assailant gains entry. A low-quality wall might be even faster to enter through with a sledge than a reinforced door. Just requires motivation and intention.
Eh, in NORMAL circumstances though that's part of the reason to have guns and multiplies well with them, not necessarily an issue at all. If anything it actually a frustration I have with a lot of the gun community. Tons of people spend 5+figures on guns but then DON'T even have the most minimal reinforced door. Buying a few minutes of time and forcing them to use a sledgehammer doesn't keep them out like a fort sure but if you're fast asleep it's time to grab your piece, shake off a bit of grogginess, call police, and assume a good position. Whereas if someone can just kick the door in and be inside in 15 seconds that's way worse no matter how fancy your setup is.
If you're rich though to the point of contemplating bullet/shatter resistant heavy duty windows then yeah it's important to consider the least common denominator problem. Improving security in one area may not result in as much improvement as one would hope, because rather than an absolute increase it merely moves things up to the next lowest level. It'd be insanely hard (to the point of nearly being a rebuild) though to switch walls themselves to something durable if they started as American style stickframe/drywall.
I don't disagree at all, it's more on the theory side of defensive construction. Like if someone wanted to build a home from the ground up and physical security was of paramount concern and money was not an issue, someone would likely have stone or metal framing + wall material. Literal castle, weakest points being any window or doorway.
I'm operating under the assumption that the assailant in this imagined scenario doesn't care about subtlety. They're just trying to gain access to the home in this
post. With no concern for 'getting caught' an intelligent crook could take a gas operated circular saw and just cut through a stick + drywall + PVC siding faster than even attacking the hinges of a reinforced door. Time and violence of action applies.
Ultimately the best security is anonymity. Not having an address that's easily accessed by anyone. Not having your home listed as your property anywhere online, public records show it's owned by a shell company, etc/ Or it's just a crummy apartment that you can go to that's so low profile it's not even worth looting to the average zero IQ hoodrat. It all depends on situation and need.
>but what if you're dealing with a psycho who has resigned themselves to dying or spending the rest of their life in prison so they don't care what happens after the cops arrive, and they have the knowledge and finances to secure and effectively operate heavy duty tools that you normally never see outside of construction sites?
Even most people who have armed security don't have this shit in their threat model.
well they SHOULD because dare I ever turn to crime or seek vengeance on some well-protected individual, that's gonna be one of my methods. Frick em.
Somewhat related but criminals are getting extremely bold near me. I was at the dog park the other day and someone came into the park saying 'Does someone here drive a prius? Some guy just pulled into the parking lot, jacked the front of a prius up, spent 30 seconds underneath with a sawzall and left. I called the cops and they just said to leave a tip online.'
Criminals are getting bold because there are fewer and fewer serious consequences in the major cities. Seattle doesn't even bother holding carjackers overnight. They just catch and release. Some deputy I was talking to at the range told me they caught a guy twice in the same day for stealing cars. Stole one, drove around until caught at a gas station, let go because 'they don't have the capacity to hold him' and then he went and hotwired another car - caught again the same night, released for same reason. Things are quickly deteriorating.
>moron thinks a junky stealing a catalytic converter with a sawzall is at all comparable to a dedicated psycho with a heavy duty gas powered saw coming in through someone's wall to kill them
>Seattle doesn't even bother holding carjackers overnight. They just catch and release.
Imagine actually believing this shit.
Black person that's from a king county deputy directly. you stupid frick. I live here. It's real. The point about the cat thief is that they're brazen and there's no consequences or effort by authorities to even investigate. It was 1 pm on a weekday with dozens of cars in the lot and multiple witnesses and they couldn't be bothered to come and take a statement. What does that say to you? Frick you.
>dood you don't understand, things are getting so crazy that cops have don't even have the space to hold people who commit violent crimes overnight
And yet the violent crime rate in this country is still lower than it was in the mid 00s and isn't even close to what it was in the early 90s.
You're the exact same kind of person as those who say 'AR15's are the most dangerous thing in america, look at our schools'. Frick you, you have no idea what's going on.
That gated community you must be in won't stay nice forever, sadly.
How fricking moronic are you? This shit is happening now in every major city.
Lol which dog park, lemme guess it was on the South side off Rainier. Cats are getting stolen because all the fricking beaners here can't get the old manual work and everyone's budget tightened up good. Just carry your piece and went for them to steal your shit, WA state law allows protection of property with lethal force. Yes the Seattle DA will have a shit fit, no they will not be able to do anything.
>t. Live and own in Seattle
I'm also forgetting garage doors lmao. If you have a street-accessible garage without a reinforced gate, any car will be able to smash through it without a second glance. So having secondary protection with secured doors connecting a garage to the main home, and actually using the locks is important too. The more stuff you have to protect the harder it gets to do so. Still agree having a gun and being present when needing to use it is more important than hyperfixating on construction components.
>Implying any car can actually make it up my driveway
Perks of owning a one hundred year old home in the city. The garage was built up a hill and for a model T. They'll bottom out unless they have a decent lift kit, in which case most cars can't even fit up the garage cause it's so steep.
>A reinforced door only slows down the speed at which an assailant gains entry. A low-quality wall might be even faster to enter through with a sledge than a reinforced door. Just requires motivation and intention.
Except entering through the wall by demolishing it will draw tons of attention and guarantees the cops are going to be well on their way before the wall is breached if anyone is home.
>
does it have sprawl?
It's too situational and can't move on its own, that's why it's probably not useful for a war but only for specific assassinations.
Having this on a vehicle could be great.
A kid 8n 20p6 hooked up his Dell to a paintball gun and made an auto turret out of it. It's brainlet technology at this point we don't use it because there's no point, nothing is accomplished by a murder alley and mistakes are gauranteed
No need for AI, but why isn’t there some CROWS/Stugna style remotely operated MG? Seems like it’d be amazing for defending a trench like in Ukraine. Give it some earthworks to shield it from shrapnel and you’re good to go.
Because the enemy will just go around it or wait for the batteries to die, it's not able to adapt. And it will shoot Ukies, they look just like Russians until you are close enough to smell them
So power it down until you’re under attack. And have a human remotely manning the gun instead of an AI.
Yet this system was developed for American military and police. With the rise of drone use, I can see more automated weaponry like this. I might set up a 4g system for hunting or just for fun, like a trail cam. Keep it legal though.
The jackal came out in 1997 bru
>The jackal came out in 1997 bru
Heh now there's a trip down memory lane. I can still remember that scene and a few others too. Actually feels wild to see that right now, start of that movie was FBI and Russia's MVD working together in close cooperation and MVD warns the FBI of an assassination plot, though Russians are traitors later too. What a time capsule.
Really? No one? Fine then.
>TRAP