Japan seriously considers building real-life Gundam mechas for Defense

I understand how an actual full scale Gundam would be impractical given the laws of physics and such but could this work if they shrunk it down? Instead of something several dozen feet tall what if they went with something about ten feet tall? It would probably be able to move a lot faster and be cheaper to build which should increase effectiveness in combat scenarios.

Good point, a ten-foot Gundam would be actually practical.

Ah, the smell of a world that is growing more awesome.

If you want any of my avatars, just Pm me I'd truly appreciate any avatar of a reptile sleeping in a Nice Hat Read Elmer Kelton books

That would be more like an Iron Man suit, but yeah. That's probably is what's actually being proposed.

Why the heck would one want a pilot inside those things? Remote control is best control, in absence of Minovski Particle.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Remote control works best with robots that are smaller than a person. Usually they are limited to dangerous tasks (bomb disposal) and recon, though UAV have been used offensively. The obvious problem is that any form of communication can potentially be jammed.

Powered armour of some sort has the advantage that the person inside can make up to some extent any shortcomings in the machinery. There is in fact the potential to implant some of the power into the user's body, blurring the difference between the pilot and the armour.

A blog that gets updated on a geological timescale.

"Man and machine! Power extreme!"

ATC: Assuming Gundam is just another word for Mech in general then that's very likely.

The Handle: I can understand why that would be the case for spy drones and such but this is something that's likely going to be deployed alongside human soldiers and could even be expected to execute tasks that require a certain manual dexterity if no humans are around. Making it remote controlled runs the risk of it malfunctioning and targeting allies or breaking down and leaving it open to seizure by the enemy. At least with someone actually inside the thing the risk of this is somewhat mitigated.

And that's the reason why we still deploy actual troops as opposed to remote control a tank, for example.

Remotely operated tanks are coming. DARPA is all over that like white on rice. Why else do you think they are sponsoring all those autonomous motor cars?

Fair enough.

It's just that "why not use remote control and go without a pilot" is a comment that can be applied to anything, not just humanoid machines (big or small).

I think that as was said, remote control is too easy to jam. Especially by a faction who doesn't use remote-controlled war machines.

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

Exactly. If the enemy find out what you're using to control your toys...er...drones...and jam it, you're fucked.

'All he needs is for somebody to throw handgrenades at him for the rest of his life...'

Artificial intelligence is clearly the way to do. Really, what possible drawbacks could there be in developing an army of entirely autonomous murderbots?

Alternatively, we might investigate the possibility of techniques of conflict resolution which do not involve blowing people up. But this is just crazy talk

edited 3rd Jul '12 1:23:26 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Do you think we'd still have war if we honestly didn't want to?

'All he needs is for somebody to throw handgrenades at him for the rest of his life...'

Reminds me, I've seen this recently: Researchers use spoofing to 'hack' into a flying drone: It was a Dare, mind you, and it worked...

Keep Rolling On

On some level, yeah. But on some level, I want to eat five kg of donuts: and that does not mean I'm going to do that.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Yes, but as a species we don't secretly long for 5 kilos of doughnuts.

Well, actually, maybe we do.

It would explain a lot.

'All he needs is for somebody to throw handgrenades at him for the rest of his life...'

Yes, we seriously do want 5 kilos of doughnuts. Because doughnuts are a great source of carbs and fat. Which are essential to survival. Too much of it is bad, but there was a time where 'too much of it' was a near impossible concept.

Now, warfare, on the other hand, not quite as much.

edited 3rd Jul '12 3:15:17 AM by Kayeka

But similarly to our hunger for fat, warfare is a consequence of partly innate, partly culturally mandated forms of aggressiveness and inter-tribe conflict that sort of made sense when we were roving bands of hunters-gatherers.

Now, on the other hand, these behaviours are far more trouble than they are worth. Hence, we should strive to discard them.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Nah, we have to keep our numbers down some how. What we need is less efficient war.

Less logistical interdiction, more frenzied clubbing.

'All he needs is for somebody to throw handgrenades at him for the rest of his life...'

I heard that a new version of Dungeons And Dragons is about to come out?

But really, that's not much of a concern. First-world nations' population is more or less stationary as it is; and it seems that once people have access to contraceptives and a standard of life such that you don't need to have dozens of children working in the fields in order to survive, they simply don't have as many children, generally. Fancy that.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Well, that'll be really neat in thirty years but we'll be completely banjaxed by then thanks to China and India churning out both pollution and people with alarming speed.

'All he needs is for somebody to throw handgrenades at him for the rest of his life...'

I cannot find a reference: but I am quite sure I read somewhere that statistically, birthrates increase whenever the perceived threat of a war increases. Something about people wanting more to get some if they think they might die soon, I suppose

So actually, if you want to decrease birthrates, you should aim for universal peace and safety. Plus welfare and easily available contraceptives, of course.

And on the topic of overpopulation and insane megaprojects, may I mention my favourite toy idea? As of now, we are only occupying the surface of Earth. This is pathetic: it's a tiny amount of the room that we have at disposal. Is there any reason why we shouldn't start colonizing the underground? It will be tricky and expensive, sure; but nowhere as much as space colonization...

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Morlocs.

'All he needs is for somebody to throw handgrenades at him for the rest of his life...'

The only feasible uses for humanoid mecha that would pay off in any way would be in a low-gravity setting——say, space, or the Moon...

*disturbing thought*

Oh sweet Jesus, the LDP want to colonise the Moon, don't they?

Normally I would pothole that question to Insane Troll Logic so as to give the impression that I'm 100% joking, but the Liberal Democratic Party runs on Insane Troll Logic, so I honestly can't put it past them.

edited 3rd Jul '12 4:06:47 AM by JHM

I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.