RADAR alone cannot determine Intelligence

[UM-Debate-Bot 0]

Evangium vs skyeagle409

This is a formal 1 vs 1 debate, full details on how the debate system works can be found in our Debates FAQ. The debate will begin with an introductory opening post from each participant followed by 4 body posts and finally a conclusion.

The computer has randomly chosen skyeagle409 to post first.

Evangium is arguing in favour of RADAR alone cannot determine Intelligence

skyeagle409 is arguing against RADAR alone cannot determine Intelligence

Once the debate is complete the thread will be open to member comments.

[skyeagle409 2,909]

I intend to prove that radar can determine an object to be intelligently controlled and I will present data and other evidence to back up my statement.

Edited November 3, 2008 by Tiggs

[Evangium 0]

Over the course of this debate, I intend to show that RADAR, either as stand alone machine, or as part of a system, cannot determine intelligent control. What I won't be debating is can RADAR prove the 'reality of extra-terrestrial visitation.

The issue of intelligent control and radar evidence seems to be presented in certain debates as if the device alone, independent of a human operator's analysis, determines the former, and this misrepresentation proves the later.

Whilst I won't be rolling out a case by case 'showreel', I will present evidence that backs my conclusion that it is in fact a determination by the very human operator that the data, presented in visual representation by the machine, depicts an intelligently controlled aircraft.

[Saru 6,750]

SkyEagle i've gone ahead and removed the surplus posts pertaining to your introduction.

Now that both sides have posted their introductions it's time for the first of the main body posts.

SkyEagle you're up first.

[skyeagle409 2,909]

The following radar data that proves an object under intelligent control

Belgian Air Force Report

8. At 00.05 2 F16 were scrambled from BEAUVECHAIN airbase and guided towards the radar contacts. A total of 9 interception attempts have been made. At 6 occasions the pilots could establish a lock-on with their air interception radar. Lock-on distances varied between 5 and 8 NM. On all occasions targets varied speed and altitude very quickly and break-locks occurred after 10 to 60 seconds. Speeds varied between 150 and 1010 kts.

{signed}

W. DE BROUWER, Belgian Air Force

_______________________________________________________________________

Now, let's take another look at the data.

***************************************************************

Seconds after Heading Speed Altitude

lock-on (degrees) (knots) (feet)

00 200 150 7000

01 200 150 7000

02 200 150 7000

03 200 150 7000

04 sharp 200 acceleration 150 6000

05 turn 270 = 22 g 560 6000

06 270 560 6000

07 270 570 6000

08 270 560 7000

09 270 550 7000

10 210 560 9000

11 210 570 10000

12 210 560 11000

13 210 570 10000

14 270 770 7000

15 270 770 6000

16 270 780 6000

17 270 790 5000

18 290 1010 4000

19 290 1000 3000

20 290 990 2000

21 290 990 1000

22 300 990 0000

22.5 300 980 0000 Break lock

***************************************************************

Now, let's tie that data with the radar imagery below that was presented at the international press conference, which was conducted by the Belgian Air Force and note 990 knots on the radar imagery.

http://www.geocities.com/area51/vault/9054/belradar.jpg

Based on the radar data information, the Belgian Air Force was convinced that the object was an intelligently controlled craft. In a video interview, General DeBrouwer stated that based on that data above, the performance of that craft cannot be related even to an experimental aircraft.

In addition, ground-based radars, which were dissimilar systems amongst themselves, had confirmed the object as the same object that was tracked by

the two F-16's.

Since the object reacted to the each of the radar lock-ons by the F-16's, that clearly indicates intelligence. In other words, the radar indicated that the object was reacting to each of its lock-ons and since both aircraft locked on to the same craft, the indications of its reactions, were not the result of any radar glitch nor misintepretation by any of the two pilots, especially since the F-16's were receiving data information on the same object from ground-based radars as well.

This video backs my statement that radar confirmed the performance of an intelligently controlled craft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcv_-OX9-WQ...feature=related

Edited November 4, 2008 by skyeagle409

[Evangium 0]

The key thing to remember is, that my opponent has stated "radar can determine an object to be intelligently controlled."

However in saying that the radar confirmed an intelligently controlled object, he makes the assertion that the conclusion (an intelligently controlled object) was based on the radar data information.

Clearly, then it was not the radar which arrived at this conclusion.

From what he has shown us, the radar provides data in the form of numerical and visual representation. I'm sure that for the average person these sequences of numbers and images look impressive, but lack any real meaning. We can reasonably conclude that in order to make any sense of this raw information, a person would need to have specialist training.

From http://www.todaysmilitary.com/careers/job-...sonar-operators we can see that this is indeed the case-

Radar and sonar operators in the military perform some or all of the following duties:

Detect and track position, direction, and speed of aircraft, ships, submarines, and missiles

Plot and record data on status charts and plotting boards...

As part of their training they learn, amongst other things-

Identification of ships, submarines, aircraft, and missiles

Computation of aircraft or missile speed, direction, and altitude

So the radar itself, is little more than a tool that enables the human operator to do his/her job.

Obviously then, the determination and confirmtion of intelligent control comes from the way in which the operator interprets the data and not that the machine tells him that it is tracking something intelligent.

Or to put it another way, every time I turn on my computer and click the internet icon, my computer isn't confirming the prescence of intelligent life on Earth, I am. I do this by basing what I see on the machine, with what I know of human behaviour and my experiences with the world around me.

The radar operator follows a similar process with his more specialised knowledge, and the same for the fighter pilot looking at his target's behaviour on the radar screen.

The only thing the radar is doing, is providing and updating data based on its transmission and reception of the radio waves it is transmitting and the object is reflecting.

[skyeagle409 2,909]

Radar and sonar can do much more than just detect other objects. Radar can actually identify a particular model of aircraft based on its propulsion system just as sonar can identify a particular ship model. In other words, identify whether an object is an artificial object or not.

Each propulsion system creates its own unique signature that radar can identify just as a person can be identified by fingerprints. In fact, some radar modes can differentiate between a Chevy van and a Dodge truck. In certain modes, radar will detect and lock-on to an object automatically and block out all other aircraft from the radar screen eventhough those aircraft are flying in formation with the designated aircraft. In other words, only the designated aircraft will be displayed on the screen and done so automatically by the radar system itself. That simply means it recognizes automatically, that the designated aircraft is an intelligently controlled aerial vehicle.

Radar can even identify a particular jet engine based on the number of blades rotating inside the nacelle, which once again, is another means of identifying the aircraft as an intelligently controlled platform.

In addition, we also have what is called; radar cross section (RCS).

http://ceta.mit.edu/PIER/pier81/07.08010206.pdf

RCS can also determine the size of an object and examples were the 1976 JAL flt 1628 UFO encounter and the 1976 Iranian UFO encounter where radar confirmed the size of the objects that were visually confirmed.

For further reading:

Introduction to Radar Target Recognition

Senior radar controller, Harry Barnes says:

"Inversion blips are always recognized by experts, we are familiar with what weather conditions, flying birds, and [other] such things can cause on radar."

http://www.spartechsoftware.com/dimensions...OWashington.htm

In other words, radar can, and does, provide data information on a particular object that is easily read by highly experienced radar controllers.

With today's radar systems, the systems will automatically notify a controller if two or more aircraft are converging toward one another, which is yet another method used to determine whether an object is an intelligently controlled vehicle or not. There have been documented cases where radar provided data information of UFOs that were maneuvering around an aircraft, which clearly, were under intelligent control.

In this video, radar was providing important information to an aircrew that their aircraft was being followed by an object that was under intelligent control, and the radar provided further maneuvering information of that UFO to the aircrew. That information is contained within the first video at timeline: 7:00 to 7:45.

http://www.hyper.net/ufo/video-documentaries.html

Edited November 4, 2008 by skyeagle409

[Evangium 0]

Yes, radar can be utilised in many ways to detect many things, but again it comes down to the human to make the determination. As my opponent has pointed out, certain types of radar systems can be set to lock on to a single target to the exclusion of all others. In order to do that the machine must have its target designated to it so it can focus on the signals from reflecting back from that target alone. How does it know when to switch modes or designate a target? Obviously the operator must 'flip the switch' and either manually designate that object or specify parameters, for example, only focus on a particular signature, eg Mig-21, an object exceeding a particular speed or flying above a certain altitude.

Some may argue that my description is overly simplisitic, but I haven't had the specialist training required to give an in depth technical description of this process (though I suspect the technical details would mean as much to the ordinary person as the radar data itself). However we can see confirmation of this with weather radar.

From the National Weather Service Forecast Office, Tallahasse, Fl, we are told that the doppler radar is sensitive enough that it can detect clouds, dust, particle, insects, birds, aircraft and ground based objects as well as being able to calculate windspeed and direction (when the raw radar data is processesed by the computer system). Whilst this sounds impressive they also tell us that-

radar alone cannot determine if precipitation is rain, sleet, hail or snow. Forecasters use other information at their disposal to make this determination.

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/tlh/tlh/wsr88d.html

So again the machine is only providing the data, and the human is making the determination.

To bring it back to a military radar, if the radar system alone was capable of determining intelligent control, then surely the operator would be redundent, since based on its own abilities it could determine a friendly jet over an enemy (eg. F-15 vs SU-30) simply by noting the differences between the signatures?

And with Identify Friend or Foe technology the system could identify between the SU-30 of a friendly nation and that of an enemy?

Technically, it could, but as the system can't distinguish intelligence, let alone intent, a human operator is still required to make the determination that behaviour of a 'friendly' is more in character with one doing something that may well be very unfriendly, and designate it as a target.

And how does the operator arrive at that conclusion?

By utilising the data and other information available to him, something that the radar system is unable to do (being a dumb, albiet incredibly sophisticated, system of machines), since the IFF transponder is telling it that the hypothetical SU-30 is friendly, and to visually represent it as such.

Intelligence is required to determine intelligent control.

edit:typo

Edited November 4, 2008 by Evangium

[skyeagle409 2,909]

In a certain mode, an air intercept radars can lock-on to another aircraft with no imput from the pilot. An Iraqi pilot found that out the hard way when his wingman's aircraft accidently shot him down, because he left his radar in an automatic mode, in effect, his aircraft shot down his leader's aircraft without any imput from the pilot.

My opponent has said that an operator must 'flip the switch' and either manually designate that object or specify parameters, for example, only focus on a particular signature, eg Mig-21, an object exceeding a particular speed or flying above a certain altitude."

Now, let's take a look at the radar of an F-16.

The AN/APG-66 Radar

"Target acquisition can be manual or automatic in the track mode."

In other words, the radar system can act upon its own to acquire a certain object.

Continue:

"Four Air Combat Maneuvering (ACM) modes are available for automatic target acquisition and tracking. In the first ACM mode, a 20 x 20-deg Field Of View (FOV) is scanned. This FOV is equal to that of the Head Up Display (HUD). Once a target is detected, the radar performs automatic lock-on."

http://www.avitop.com/interact/radar.htm

The radar can recognize another target and automatically record that aircraft's performance while conducting other automatic radar operations upon its own with no further input from the pilot.

To further add, the APG-70 radar used on the F-15 Strike Eagle, can also "produce near photo quality images of the ground by using synthetic aperture radar (SAR) technology. SAR imaging is made possible by enhancing the radar returns received from the process known as the Doppler Shift."

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/radar.htm

In such a mode the weapon systems officer (WSO) can use the radar data to designate a target based on detailed imagery from the radar.

My opponent has also said that:

"radar alone cannot determine if precipitation is rain, sleet, hail or snow. Forecasters use other information at their disposal to make this determination."

I should add that air intercept radars are not weather radar systems, and there is a big difference between the two since they are not even in the same ball park as far as capabilities are concerned. To further add, air intercept radars are all-weather radar air intercept systems, which underlines that fact.

So yes, radar can perform certain functions on its own including, target tracking and target designations, and other air intercept operations in regards to intelligently controlled objects with no further input from the aircrew.

Edited November 4, 2008 by skyeagle409

[Evangium 0]

So radar is incredibly smart and can act autonomously?

Yet, as shown in the first example my opponent refers to, can't make an intelligent determination not to shoot down a friendly aircraft.

So again it falls to the human to make the determination as to what exactly his radar is tracking, and not the machine.

Likewise, as my opponent's reference show, the machine can't decide which mode it is going to use. It is up to the operator to make that determination.

The machine itself is little more than an elaborate tool, and, depending on what it's intended application is, one of its components can be programmed to make the operators job easier by filtering out irrelevant information comming in from the transponder. Or provide visual representation in the form of 'photo-like' graphics.

The computer can only work witihin the parameters of its programs' alogorithms, though. Unlike a human, the machine will follow those sequences of instructions to the exclusion of all else.

So it is reasonable to expect that a situation outside those parameters (be it my opponents UFOs or my hypothetical SU-30) will require the input of a human operator to determine what is going on, and the most appropriate course of action to take. And from my opponent's Avitop.com reference, we see that, in the case of a jet fighter, the radar's computer can formulate solutions based on its function; in this case, as part of a fire control system in an attack aircraft -

[E]ngagement sub-mode can be used. Engagement allows the system to use the AMRAAM , Sidewinder , and Sparrow missiles. When engaging the Sidewinder , APG-66 sends slaving commands that slaves the missile's seeker head to the radar's line-of-sight for increased accuracy and missile lock-on speed.

However it cannot formulate a 'don't shoot solution', only the pilot can exercise his judgement and make the determination to either shoot or not.

If the radar lacks the ability to make distinction between friend and foe, or determine that the solution may not be appropriate to the circumstances, then it simply does not posses the capability to determine if an object (manmade or other) is under intelligent control, no matter how sophisticated or multi-role it's computer is.

[skyeagle409 2,909]

Actually, our radars, when used in our weapon systems, can make intelligent decisions based on a library of files and other means. It seems my opponent is unaware that we have had autonomous radar and weapon systems for years. My opponent has said;

"... it falls to the human to make the determination as to what exactly his radar is tracking, and not the machine."

Let's take a look at LOCASS. The LOCAAS can autonomously search for and destroy, aiming for critical mobile targets over a wide combat area. We have weapon systems that scan for only certain targets and destroy those targets, and no two weapon systems will lock-on to the same target, and they can do so without the man-in-the-loop.

The Skeet, is another example of a weapon systems that scans for certain targets and then, and autonomously, place a projectile on a certain location of a particular target.

Selectively Targeted SKEET

http://www.textrondefense.com/pdfs/datashe...s_datasheet.pdf

The Brain Of A Truly Automomous UAV

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002targets/thaler.pdf

In addition, a Global Hawk, uav, flew autonomously from the West Coast of the United States and landed in Australia.

Global Hawk Flies Autonomously To Australian

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/uav-01d.html

As my opponent has said;

"the machine can't decide which mode it is going to use,"

But as you can see, military weaponry have, and can, make their own decisions on how, where, and the method, they will use to attack a target. That kind of technology has been in use by the military for years.

Now, we are looking forward to replacing the pilot in combat aircraft.

Edited November 5, 2008 by skyeagle409

[Evangium 0]

(Obviously my opponent is aware of my weakness for unconventional aircraft, and intends to win the debate via defualt, knowing full well that I'll happily waste hours reading up on them, and may forget to post a reply )

Now, whilst all this is quite fascinating, and I dare say one day we will no longer require human-in-the-loop operators for future UAVs, this has nothing to do with the topic of the debate, "radar alone cannot determine intelligent control".

And of course all these systems require the prescence of an operator to make the decisions on how to best deal with a situation outside the machine's programming.

With LOCASS we see that an operator made the determination to attack the moving target. Sure the machine can fly patrols through an area, and quite likely attack predisiganted targets, but it still is incapable of determining that it needs to change its current course of action, in response to an unforseen event.

An Air Force flight-rated operator, serving as the operator-in-the-loop, retargeted the LOCAAS flight test vehicle to “attack” the NCCT-tracked moving vehicle. During the test vehicle’s flight, the operator monitored real-time weapon state information, as well as, the near-real time location updates of detected targets provided by NCCT. The operator interface utilized a modified version of the Air Force’s Portable Flight Planning System (PFPS) FalconView map overlay application. The FalconView application was executed on a ruggedized laptop computer and enabled the operator to relay the relevant target track information, as well as break-off and/or abort commands to the LOCAAS flight test vehicle .

http://www.gizmag.com/go/4812/

It should be noted that STS Skeet is a munition design intended for use on weaponised UAV's. And it does not employ radar to fulfill its function-

Once deployed, the STS skeet warhead uses its dual-mode active/passive sensor to detect

targets below. Its two-color passive infrared (IR) sensor searches for targets that match a

defined set of IR requirements , while the laser sensor profiles those targets for improved aim point and lethality.

And this is from my opponents own source!

Again we see that, as smart as this bomb is, it can't differentiate between a friendly T-72 tank and an enemy, since their IR profiles are identical. It would fall to a human operator to analyse the data and compare it with other information to determine determine who was who. And in all likihood, tell the UAV to drop the bomb, if that was the appropriate course of action.

Global Hawk

Whilst the Global Hawk did fly from America to Australia, it was still monitored and controlled by crews in America and Australia http://www.uspsa2.org/australia.htm

And for all the Global Hawk's sophistication, it still needs the operator to determine the best course of action for an unexpected, 'pop-up', target-

The trip also gave planners the chance to try breaking out of the black-line box: Small civilian vessels under way in the area of operations served as unplanned targets that the aircraft was able to detect, track, and image. “We got a glimpse of how to interact with a pop-up target,” says Ed Walby, Northrop Grumman’s director of Global Hawk new business.

http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/ha...?c=y&page=2

Likewise, it is only automated to a point. It still requires a 'pilot' operator to maintain situational awareness and to manage and operate some of its systems. Sure it can process and calculate faster than a human, but it lacks the sophisticated intelligence that enables a human to simultanously carry out those actions.

Though the production version of Global Hawk has a forward-looking infrared camera for takeoff and landing, the pilot relies on graphic displays to maintain situational awareness. “We’re looking at a two-dimensional math plot. The pilot has to visualize the three dimensional model. That’s where the piloting skills come in,” says Tibideau. To be sure they have the necessary air-sense, all Global Hawk pilots must have military or FAA instrument flight ratings. “The hard part with this airplane is trying to keep ahead of it. You’ve have to stay ahead of it, instead of reacting to it.”

Despite the highly automated pilot interface, the Global Hawk requires the pilot be a systems monitor and manager. “One of the hardest things for pilots to learn is the communications link management. We have up to five links available from satellites to line of sight,” Tibideau notes. “Knowing when to use what link, and what is the quality of the link adds something to the cross-check the pilots are not accustomed to monitoring.”

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/arc...efines3555.aspx

It is true that some of the systems that my opponent has introduced into his arguments utilise radar as pat of their componentry.

However we also see that even with sophisticated systems such as these, a human is required to make an assessment for anything outside the machine's 'intelligence'. If the machine can't make a shoot/don't shoot determination by itself, then clearly it is incapable of determining intelligent control. And if a sophisticated array of sensory equipment cant make that determination, then one individual component can hardly determine, by itself, intelligent control.

Despite the impressiveness of the systems, even they, as integrated systems, cannot utilise radar data to determine intelligent control. Instead they use the data to determine that an object fits a profile, is designated enemy, and moving or stationary, which is certainly not the same thing as determining that it is under control.

edit:fixed broken bold tag in Global Hawk entry

Edited November 8, 2008 by Evangium

[skyeagle409 2,909]

Some weapon systems are "launch and forget" weapon systems, and we have missiles that conduct autonomous bombing missions without any "man-in-the-loop" and some of our cruise missiles can do just that.

Self-targeting Missile Cleared

The standoff land attack missile-- expanded response automatic target acquisition (SLAM-ER ATA) capacity was declared operationally effective and suitable by the service in September. It is the only weapon of its type with an operational automatic target acquisition capability, Navy officials say. The missile also can navigate using global positioning system data or be manually directed to a target from the launch aircraft.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa54...s_/ai_n21320274

Phalanx close-in weapons systems

Phalanx is the only deployed close-in weapon system capable of autonomously performing its own search, detect, evaluation, track, engage and kill assessment functions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentry_gun

My opponent has stated that: "It still requires a 'pilot' operator to maintain situational awareness and to manage and operate some of its systems. Sure it can process and calculate faster than a human, but it lacks the sophisticated intelligence that enables a human to simultanously carry out those actions."

We have cruise missiles that conduct multiple bombing missions. in addition, we have weapon systems capable of protecting themselves.

AGM-158 Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM)

The JASSM is a conventionally armed, low observable cruise missile designed to destroy the enemy's high-value targets from aircraft that can be launched from outside the area defenses. The missile has automatic target recognition, autonomous guidance, precision accuracy, and a J-1000 warhead optimized for penetration and carrying a new high-yield explosive. These characteristics give JASSM capabilities against heavily defended hard targets such as aircraft shelters and underground command posts, as well as soft targets such as rail yards.

The JASSM Penetrator concept was a P3I to the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) to replace the baseline warhead with an advanced penetrator that meets or exceeds the objective penetration requirement specified in the JASSM Operational Requirements Document (ORD) and to add a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) seeker for adverse weather precision attack capability. The warhead concept was a 1000 pound dense or ballasted penetrator. The warhead would either be designed with a dense metal case or contain dense metal ballast for maximum penetration. The warhead would be filled with advanced insensitive explosive to compensate for the reduced charge weight. This concept used the Hard Target Smart Fuze (HTSF), an accelerometer based electronic fuze, which would allow control of the detonation point by layer counting, distance or time. The accelerometer senses G loads on the bomb due to deceleration as it penetrates through to the target. The fuze can distinguish between earth, concrete, rock and air.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/jassm.htm

My opponent has posted the following in regards to LOCAAS.

An Air Force flight-rated operator, serving as the operator-in-the-loop, retargeted the LOCAAS flight test vehicle to "attack" the NCCT-tracked moving vehicle. During the test vehicle's flight, the operator monitored real-time weapon state information, as well as, the near-real time location updates of detected targets provided by NCCT. The operator interface utilized a modified version of the Air Force's Portable Flight Planning System (PFPS) FalconView map overlay application. The FalconView application was executed on a ruggedized laptop computer and enabled the operator to relay the relevant target track information, as well as break-off and/or abort commands to the LOCAAS flight test vehicle .

http://www.gizmag.com/go/4812/

Apparently, there is a reason why I am not talking about a flight test vehicle since I was referring to an autonomous LOCAAS, not a test vehicle.

Definition:

Autonomous; self-directed; self-sufficient; self-governing; Independent

Low Cost Autonomous Attack System (LOCAAS)

Miniature Munition Capability

As of 07 January 1998 ACC approved a new acquisition strategy for the Small Bomb System (SBS) program. This strategy involves integrating the SBS on the F-22, F-22X and JSF and also includes combining the SBS and the Low Cost Autonomous Attack System (LOCAAS) efforts into a single program. This new program has been designated Miniature Munition Capability and has a planned start date for FY03. Implementation details of the new strategy are still being developed.

The system will be capable of discriminating between classes/types of targets and between targets and non-combatants.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/locaas.htm

In other words, we do have intelligent weapon systems that use radar and other means to make determinations about a particular threat or target and make decisions on what to do about them.

About Gobal Hawk

The Global Hawk will fly autonomously on a preprogrammed route all the way to Australia and land without further pilot intervention. But if the pilot wants to take unplanned photos of Hawaii en route, he can override the mission plan and send to the aircraft a new course to cover the desired targets in Hawaii. When the pilot is ready to resume his mission to Australia, he gives the aircraft a GO TO command to a waypoint on the original mission plan, and the aircraft autonomously completes the planned mission.

http://www.thirteen.org/warplane/interview.html

Operating autonomously from takeoff to landing, Global Hawk flies at altitudes up to 65,000 feet for more than 36 hours with a range of 13,500 nautical miles. Using its synthetic aperture radar and electro-optical and infrared sensors, the RQ-4 Global Hawk provides high-quality reconnaissance imagery even in adverse weather conditions, as demonstrated during sandstorms in Iraq. Its high altitude and long endurance allow it to conduct surveillance over an area equal to the size of Illinois in just 24 hours.

http://www.strategypage.com/military_photo...0691032527.aspx

In addition:

AutonomousVehicles

Third Grand Challenge - Urban Challenge Moves to the City.

DARPA press release (May 1, 2006). "The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) today announced plans to hold its third Grand Challenge competition on November 3, 2007. The DARPA Urban Challenge will feature autonomous ground vehicles executing simulated military supply missions safely and effectively in a mock urban area. Safe operation in traffic is essential to U.S. military plans to use autonomous ground vehicles to conduct important missions. DARPA will award prizes for the top three autonomous ground vehicles that compete in a final event where they must safely complete a 60-mile urban area course in fewer than six hours. First prize is $2 million, second prize is $500,000 and third prize is $250,000. To succeed, vehicles must autonomously obey traffic laws while merging into moving traffic, navigating traffic circles, negotiating busy intersections and avoiding obstacles."

To futher add:

In a Grueling Desert Race, a Winner, but Not a Driver. By John Markoff. The New York Times (October 9, 2005; registration req'd.). "The Stanford scientists who led the 18-month effort to build Stanley said they saw their victory as a significant leap forward in the field of artificial intelligence, a discipline that has long suffered from big promises that did not pan out. 'This is for people who say, "Cars can't drive themselves,"' said Sebastian Thrun, the director of the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory and co-leader of the Stanford team. 'These are the same people who said the Wright brothers wouldn't fly.' ...

http://www.aaai.org/AITopics/pmwiki/pmwiki...onomousVehicles

My opponent said:

"Despite the highly automated pilot interface, the Global Hawk requires the pilot be a systems monitor and manager."

Apparently, he is confused by the fact the Global Hawk doesn't require a man in the loop, unlike the Predator, which is the UAV he confused with the Global Hawk, which simply speaking, an indication that my opponent is not familiar at all with our weaponry nor capablities.He has also said that:

"Despite the highly automated pilot interface, the Global Hawk requires the pilot be a systems monitor and manager."

But, read the rest of the story! Does the Global Hawk require a human pilot to be in the loop?

Global Hawk and the Predator: The Difference

But unlike the Global Hawk, the Predator requires a human pilot to be in the loop.

Predator pilots sit in a remote trailer, but they have a full cockpit complete with joysticks and throttle controls. The cockpit screen shows a real-time pilot's-eye video image taken from the front of the aircraft. If the satellite link to the drone is interrupted, the Predator will circle until it re-establishes contact.

Unlike the Global Hawk, the Predator has no autonomous ability to land itself.

Not that autonomous landing is cutting-edge technology, either. Most modern passenger aircraft are equipped with autopilots that can control a flight in zero forward visibility or without any help from the human crew. Aircraft so equipped are said to be Category III certified, a technology that dates back to the 1960s. "Our landings are very similar to a commercial Category III landing," Guidry says.

Pilots use the autoland function of Category III systems far more often than conditions require, says Joseph Baranowski, a retired 30-year-veteran commercial pilot. "Sometimes you're just tired," he says, "and it's easier to let the plane do it." Airlines don't publicize the frequency of autoland, says MIT professor John Hansman, but, "I would say chances are better than even that you've already done an autoland if you fly regularly."

http://discovermagazine.com/2002/aug/featflying

My opponent has shown that he lacks knowledge on the capabilities of our exotic, and intelligently controlled weaponry as evident in his post. As shown, we have weaponry and other vehcles, some that are radar-guided, that are autonomous, which can descriminate between targets and make independent decisions on which targets to stirke and then, conduct their own assessments.

So, I will ask my opponent this question:

Do we have automonous weaponry and vehicles, including radar-assisted, with target recognition in our possession today?

Edited November 10, 2008 by skyeagle409

[Saru 6,750]

SkyEagle, this debate was actually only scheduled to have four main body posts however as you've posted a fifth we'll extend the debate slightly to give Evangium a chance to counter what you've said.

Once his post has been made SkyEagle it will be your turn first to post a conclusion.

[Evangium 0]

As we are not debating machine or artificial intelligence, I can't really see the relevance of my opponents last post in relation to the debate's topic. And we must not lose sight of the topic which is "Radar alone cannot determine intelligence"

He is providing examples of what is essentially, in simplified terminology, little more than a sytem of machines working in concert to achieve certain functions. It is, at this point in time, a ridiculous notion to suggest that they don't need the watchful eye of a human to make a determination for situations that are outside their pogramming. After all, the articles my opponent and I have referred to illustrate that these machines require human intervention for anything that 'pops up' outside the 'black-line mission' .

To say that these machines require no input at all from the human is akin to saying that an attack dog, which is organically more intelligent than our sophisticated machines, can be let loose in the street without its handler. And these machines are little more than highly sophisticated hounds, in role and function. Though it could be argued that the dog is more than capable of deciding a limited course of action on it's own.

However to answer the 'question' (though one would think that my opponent has already answered the question, since he feels that I suffer a 'lack of knowledge'), from a philosophical stand point, no we do not have autonomous systems in our inventory, we have highly automated systems.

From a purely robotics definition we do have autonomous robots. However, in relation to the debate topic, we need to apply the philosphical definition

The difference being that the machine, no matter how indepent of the human, lacks certain characteristics, that we associate with an autonomous intelligence.

The machine is not alive. It posseses no inate, organic, intelligence. It is not self aware. It does not question. It does not create. It has no concept of self. It is devoid of emotion. It cannot determine good or evil, right or wrong; and cannot pass moral judgement on its actions or those of others. It is only capable of fulfilling the functions it was built for.

The machine is a robot, a system of machines and software codes working in concert, and, unlike the human will not deviate from its function. Being able to fulfil some of its functions or sub-routines (including pre-programmed missions) without assistance from the human, this merely allows the human to devote more of his attention to determining the best course of action for those situations outside the programming.

The machine simply finds a match for an image of a tank in its database, a human looks at the image of the tank, and, in his mind builds, a mental picture that the tank was built and is controlled by humans.

And regardless of its ability to rapidly compare and match images and other data from its sensors to vast libraries, the machine is still not looking for intelligent control, nor can it determine such an abstract concept.

The ability to grasp an abstract concept requires a mind capable of reasoning and imagination.

[skyeagle409 2,909]

In conclusion,

I have stated that I intended to prove that radar can determine an object to be intelligently controlled and present data and other evidence to back up my statement.

There are air intercept radars that provide near photo-quality image of a low flying aircraft, and those same radars can differentiate between a Ford truck and a Chevy van using near photo-quality imagery, and do so from many miles away. When coupled with artificial intelligence aboard autonomous attack weaponry, it can make intelligent decisions in regards to target recognition to determine which course of action to take. I’ve added capabilities to other intelligent weaponry because the same kind of advanced AI technology is also found in our most advanced radar systems.

In addition, such radars have target recognition capabilities that can differentiate between jet aircraft, helicopters, and even propeller-driven aircraft. A publication; “Introduction to Radar Target Recognition,” covers how radar differentiates between multiple types of airborne objects,. Radar can even differentiate between multiple models of jet engines. Our latest air intercept radar provides 3-D information on a particular target that can actually be compared to a photograph.

I have shown that:

* Radar-guided systems react autonomously to protect ships and other valuable assets with no human intervention whatsoever, as in one example, the fully autonomous Navy’s Phalanx radar-directed gun system.

* Radars do have target recognition capability and can differentiate between types of helicopters, jet and propeller-driven aircraft, trucks, cars, runways, buildings, and even tractors.

* Radar weapon systems can react autonomously to a threat and evaluate multiple threats and make intelligent judgments without human intervention to determine the nature of a threat and make assessments afterwards

I would like to add that radar can also differentiate between bird species in flight and a review of Britannica Online: Radar, will prove my point.

In the air-to-air mode, the F-15 Strike Eagle's radar can provide range, altitude, airspeed, and other information on aircraft at ranges exceeding 100 miles, which will prove the objects are under intelligent control. It's radar can also produce near photo quality images of the ground by using synthetic aperture radar (SAR) technology. In fact, the radar can even provide near photo-quality of a low flying aircraft, and do so against ground clutter.

When using such radar technology in autonomous weapon systems employing artificial intelligence (AI), a UAV can make its own judgment between hostile and non-hostile objects and make a determination as to the method of attack and conduct assessment afterwards. The fact of the matter is, we have had the technology for years.

In closing, it has been clearly demonstrated that radar does in fact, have the capability to determine whether an object is intelligently controlled or not as evident by its autonomous target recognizing capabilities. which has been in use for many years.

I have added such advanced technology in my own design of an autonomous triangular UAV, which I submitted years ago under an Air Force program for proposals for advanced aerial platforms and advanced technological weapons systems. Additionally, I have designed other equipment in use today by the Air Force and for a well-known defense contractor.

Thank you very much, and have a nice day.

Sky

[Evangium 0]

Over the course of this debate, we have been given examples of wonderous and deadly machines; whose sophistication creates the illusion that they are capable of distinguishing the type of abstract concepts that we humans apply to objects.

Essentially the simplist description for how these various systems do this can be found in Wikipeia's description of the Phalanx CIWS contact target identification Link -

The CIWS does not recognize identification friend or foe, also known as IFF. The CIWS has only the data it collects in real time from the radars to decide if the target is a threat and to engage it. A contact has to meet multiple criteria for it to be considered a target; some of the criteria are listed below.

1.Is the range of the target increasing or decreasing in relation to the ship? The CIWS search radar will see contacts that are out-bound and discard them. The CIWS will only engage a target if it is approaching the ship.

2.Is the contact capable of making a maneuver to hit the ship? If a contact is not heading directly at the ship, the CIWS looks at its heading in relation to the ship and its velocity. It then decides if the contact can still perform a maneuver to hit the ship.

3.Is the contact traveling between the minimum and maximum velocities? The CIWS has the ability to engage targets that travel in a wide range of speeds; however it is not an infinitely wide range. The system has a target maximum velocity limit; if a target exceeds this velocity, the CIWS will not engage it. It also has a minimum target velocity, meaning any contact going below that velocity will not be engaged by the CIWS. The operator also has the option to adjust the minimum and maximum limits within the limits of the system.

What is described above are the basics of how the CIWS works. There are many other subsystems that run in the background to ensure proper operation, such as environmental control, transmitter, mount movement control, power control and distribution and so on. It takes 6 to 8 months to train a technician to maintain, operate, and repair the CIWS.

This is basically true for all systems, the only differences being sophistication, range of functions performed, and types of targets that can be engaged. As we have seen, certain UAVs are capable of conducting surveillience as well as attacking stationary or moving targets. Some systems can make use of IFF to distinguish between friend and enemy, either to attack/defend or plot the appropriate symbol on the screen.

However, we have also seen that, no matter how remote or autonomous (in the robotics sense), all these systems still have the trained eyes of a human operator monitoring them, making adjustments to their operating parameters and making the determination for any situation that arises outside the machines capability to determine an appropriate course of action.

As we have seen,either in the case of the Iraqi jet my opponent mentioned or Wikipedia's Phalanx Incidents in combat, the machine does not discriminate, nor apply moral judgement to, its actions whether they are against friend or foe.

The machine's detemination of an object is little more than image matching, be it shape or signature, or signal locating. It has no need to determine if the object is under intelligent control, as its programming determines how it is to handle the object that has matched its programmed criteria.

Its human operator, on the other hand, looks at the images and other data and determines whether or not an object is under intelligent control or not. Where the machine sees a moving vehicle or a building, the human operator infers that the vehicle is moving because another human is controlling it; or the location of the building, coupled with imagery of armed men moving in and around, it makes it a potential enemy strong point as opposed to a childcare centre.

The human operator can make these specialised distinctions, because he is cabaple of comprehending abstact concepts and determining how they apply to the situation. The machine only comprehends a match between image/signature and the criteria that determine its course of action (which may not neccessarily be appropriate for the acual situation).

So if the machine, being a complex system of other machines and software, cannot detemine a concept such as intelligence, it stands to reason then that one individual part of the system (be it a radar transponder or a radar fire control system) cannot make that determination by itself either.

Throughout this debate it has been consistantly shown, in the references from both sides of the debate, that a human operator, using radar and other data, makes the determinations as to the precise nature of an object. The machine's computer systems may be able to tell him what type of object he is looking at (right down to make and model), and what its speed, altitude and course is, but it can't tell him that it is under the direct control of a human pilot, or under remote control by a human operator.

And if it is unable to make those determinations, then a an intangible quality such as intelligence is well out of reach of the machines sensors.

In conclusion, I say that the debate has shown that the determination of intelligent control is made not by the radar, but by the human interpretting the data alongside all other information available to him.

The radar data merely shows that something, known or otherwise, is being detected.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my opponent, Skyeagle, for accepting the challange and providing all of us with an informative and civilised debate.

[Saru 6,750]

This debate is now complete, thank you to Skyeagle and Evangium for taking part.

This thread is now open for other members to comment.

[eqgumby 10]

Radar, of all types is not infallible.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-27-radar_x.htm

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/busi...tacradar10.html

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/119594.html

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/...r_radar_errors/

The older it is, the worse it can be. The above examples are newer radar systems that experienced issues. Imagine the radar being used in the 50's and 60's. Now imagine much of that same technology being reworked and repaired, sold to third world countries, and used by inexperienced operators!

Some radar images and target data are compelling, but far from proof, much like EVP's and thermal images of "ghosts" are compelling, but still not quite proof. We need a bit more before we can definitively claim that there are ships of extraterrestrial origin flying in the earths atmosphere.

[Evangium 0]

Radar, of all types is not infallible.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-27-radar_x.htm

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/busi...tacradar10.html

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/119594.html

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/...r_radar_errors/

The older it is, the worse it can be. The above examples are newer radar systems that experienced issues. Imagine the radar being used in the 50's and 60's. Now imagine much of that same technology being reworked and repaired, sold to third world countries, and used by inexperienced operators!

Apart from the Israel/Syria incident, those articles show the radar unit performing its function. Obviously some software upgrades are required to overcome some of those 'errors', but the fact they were determined as errors by the humans shows the limitation of the machine

Some radar images and target data are compelling, but far from proof, much like EVP's and thermal images of "ghosts" are compelling, but still not quite proof. We need a bit more before we can definitively claim that there are ships of extraterrestrial origin flying in the earths atmosphere.

Very true, again it falls to human interpretation to make an assumption of what an unknown might be.

[MasterPo 4]

There has been a lot of research into applying some AI to radar (and thermal) readings to try to identify specific kinds of targets. The idea is to seek out a specific target from amoung many possible targets. Or perhaps find the real target from a bunch of decoys.

But either way I don't think that radar itself can tell a whole lot about the kind of craft it's reflecting off.

Sonar is the same. I think you mean hydrophones more than sonar in terms of hearing what kind of engine and propulsion and determining from that what kind of ship it is.

[DONTEATUS 3,518]

I have been a more or less hobbie forum reader But I do enjoy the Post From Skyeagle and The others ITs all in good information faith we all post Mostly LoL.I also like to keep it a Fun place to come too,And seems some get really set off by some peoples opinions,which are just that. But in Skys defence just a little reading into the Radar history book heres a very breif summary on what hes saying.The early 40`s and a man,Percy L Spencer w/just a grade school education,while working with the very early Ratheon co,as a enginer showed the Brits how to mass produce the magnetron tube needed in the building of early radar systems,soon became the major manufacturing co of these wonders,80% of the supply being used in this endevor. And later most of the Ship board radar or,Standard Pulse Radar,by Ratheon all to help the war effort.Now we are still talking the late 40`s here and radar was the prime support reason for such success in that war.Move forward 60 years into the Space age and Ratheon builds the formost leading Radar systems around.Like APG-79 ,an AESA Radar system Active electronically scanned Array. These systems can almost tell you what color underwear you have or not on. To say that Man is the only decideing factor in a system or that Radar alone can tell wether or not a contact is intelligently controled is a mute case Man after all is the One that is the Factor in the situation,He take the information and crunches the info and decides what he wants to. Like the many readers of this Forum. My Hats still off for Skyeagle hes done only good for this place.ANd as For Aliens flying around getting Radar Hits ? Well You decide for your selfs Skyeagle is at no Fault in his approach and reporting method.Facts are Man made the Radar systems man interpits the info ,man has to dael with the Info! Debate is good for Man! By the way we sunk and sent many a fellow Human to there death by the Info from Radar,Did that mean we didnt belive the contacts were Intelligent?

[Evangium 0]

I have been a more or less hobbie forum reader But I do enjoy the Post From Skyeagle and The others ITs all in good information faith we all post Mostly LoL.I also like to keep it a Fun place to come too,And seems some get really set off by some peoples opinions,which are just that. But in Skys defence just a little reading into the Radar history book heres a very breif summary on what hes saying.The early 40`s and a man,Percy L Spencer w/just a grade school education,while working with the very early Ratheon co,as a enginer showed the Brits how to mass produce the magnetron tube needed in the building of early radar systems,soon became the major manufacturing co of these wonders,80% of the supply being used in this endevor. And later most of the Ship board radar or,Standard Pulse Radar,by Ratheon all to help the war effort.Now we are still talking the late 40`s here and radar was the prime support reason for such success in that war.Move forward 60 years into the Space age and Ratheon builds the formost leading Radar systems around.Like APG-79 ,an AESA Radar system Active electronically scanned Array. These systems can almost tell you what color underwear you have or not on. To say that Man is the only decideing factor in a system or that Radar alone can tell wether or not a contact is intelligently controled is a mute case Man after all is the One that is the Factor in the situation,He take the information and crunches the info and decides what he wants to. Like the many readers of this Forum. My Hats still off for Skyeagle hes done only good for this place.ANd as For Aliens flying around getting Radar Hits ? Well You decide for your selfs Skyeagle is at no Fault in his approach and reporting method.Facts are Man made the Radar systems man interpits the info ,man has to dael with the Info! Debate is good for Man! By the way we sunk and sent many a fellow Human to there death by the Info from Radar,Did that mean we didnt belive the contacts were Intelligent?

You've kind of answered your own question there, Donteatus. Like you said, Man crunches the data and makes his own interpretation. And the machine does as its told, without conscience or moral judgement in its actions.

Personal differences aside, I'd say Sky and I have done reasonably well to have as many views as we have. Sure, we have hard hardly any replies, but I kind of expected that. After all, the subject matter is hardly the kind that people on this forum like to get exited over, and yet this debate is still sitting in 3rd place in the viewing ranks.

[DONTEATUS 3,518]

I just have to belive that any creatures much more advanced than us would indeed have so far supeior senseing means than we do or may ever have at there claw,or finger tip maybe even methods of cloaking totally there presence here? So ITs fun just to imagine the possiblities. No need to get at each others throats,right?

[Evangium 0]

I just have to belive that any creatures much more advanced than us would indeed have so far supeior senseing means than we do or may ever have at there claw,or finger tip maybe even methods of cloaking totally there presence here? So ITs fun just to imagine the possiblities. No need to get at each others throats,right?

Imagination is a necessary tool for discovery. What's to say that if Colombus and other explorers didn't dream and imagine, that we'd know as much of the geography of our planet today? That if the generations that have gazed at the Moon and Mars had never wondered 'What if' that we'd ever have learnt to fly, let alone escape the bonds of Earth?

And now with the advances we've made in robotics and computer science, I wonder how long before we'll see the first 'alien' intelligence evolve from our own creations. Something that whilst we can recognise it as intelligent by our measure, doesn't think at all like us...