Neverside

Robots and War?

(on a debate spree today lol)

What do you think about the use of robots being used in war? Note: I do mean lethal robots such as the US, S.W.O.R.D.S program.

I for one am highly opposed to the use of lethal robots being used in war. It's just makes going to war a little bit easier, knowing that none of your men and women will be dieing. Even if it came down to robots vs. robots, I donâ??t think people would simply let a bunch of robots take their homes.
World domination though one country would be a very real threat if lethal robots are to become something of future wars.

Anyway, what about the rest of you, what are your views?

___________________

People without self-doubt scare me.
The world is my country, science is my religion. - Christiaan Huygens
“Don’t take refuge in the false security of consensus.�

Home||Truth|Love

It's just another weapon of war. I'd rather see two armies of robots fighting each other than two armies of human soldiers.

I don't see how human soldiers killing civilians would be any different from robots killing civilans, so from the point of view of the civilians, there's no difference since they end up dead anyway.

If a country has enough power and money (and population) they can just as well prepare a gigantic army of human soldiers as an army of robots. The robots would just be more expensive.

What do you think a government would pick: paying extra to ensure none of their soldiers die, or getting more bang for their buck with tons of expendable human soldiers?

Last edited by nano, March 18th, 2005 10:17 PM (Edited 1 times)

Hmmm.... that would be actually good in a sense that all human race in the world would be unifty together to fight against machines. But it's hard to imagine robots' taking over us..... wooo scared.

Quote:

It's just another weapon of war. I'd rather see two armies of robots fighting each other than two armies of human soldiers.

Er..... go play computer games >.<

___________________

I learn.

I think it would be at least another generation before any practical robotic soldier or weapon would actually be used in war. Then from there we would move on to Gundams and whatnot...

I think it would be better to develope ways to nuetrilize enemies without killing anyway. If your enemy was a robot, that would be nice. Heck, why don't they just play CS to solve land disputes? Or Halo if they're in a console mood? Because the ultimate level of sacrifice is human death, so one way or another, robots or no robots, peeps is gonna die for their fight. Robot fighting would still be more entertaining though.

:/ what the heck was my point. its late...

___________________

i agree with tool, its not good, especially when one nation (ie the US) gets the technology before everybody else, it really tips the balance of power, its would mean the US is the only effective superpower, and if the government were to be infiltrated (which doesnt seem to hard judging by the current president) by someone with slightly too big ambitions, we might see a world government soon, but that will be ugly.
'hmm, lets see, our robots cost like 10 grand each, we'll need like 100 to wipe out about 50,000 human enemy soldiers, **** war is cheap now, its would be inneficient Not to do it.'

as for when everyone has the technology, it would be even worse, imagine all the misuse, terorism etc, puposefully targeting civilians and so on.

BUT, i dont think this is avoidable, technology develops regardless of its possible uses or the ethical implications and their aint a damn thing we can do about it, it just means everyone needs to be a little more carefull and considerate, with regards to usage of technology, and security needs to develop simultaneously to defend against such technology.

___________________

|'Personal Growth'|'Personal Development'|
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind.
|Threadless T-Shirts|Last.fm:NS Group|

Quote:

If a country has enough power and money (and population) they can just as well prepare a gigantic army of human soldiers as an army of robots. The robots would just be more expensive.

Not true, cost far more to have human soldiers then it would robot soldiers. You donâ??t have to pay robots, you donâ??t have to give robots homes, you donâ??t have to pay for the robots family to live in homes, or have food, medicare, or provide recreational tours, or places to hang out, bases over seas wouldn't have to be half of what they are now. I could go on for a while and create one hell of a list. Oh yeah can't forget some of the big one's, such as; the size of ships, air craft (like cargo), run ways, base sizes.

Although there are many ways in which robots do cost less, the cost of humans is far greater. And we haven't even talked about what one is more valuable (in terms of combat that is)

And no, no one country could take over the world with power and population, an less the technology difference was so drastic (such as w1 vs. now) would a country come even close to pulling it off, the population need to take the world would most likely have to be a bit more then half and when you talking that many people, the cost would render just about any nation in this world powerless. But even with robots it wouldn't be easy to pull a world take over, for example if every country you took over the people wouldn't work for you no matter what, then you would surely pull out if you had no way of controlling them.

Quote:

I think it would be at least another generation before any practical robotic soldier or weapon would actually be used in war.

Actually the U.S is sending in some S.W.O.R.D.S into Iraq some time soon (canâ??t find the news article, itâ??s in my binder somewhere)

Quote:

I think it would be better to develop ways to neutralize enemies without killing anyway

Yeah they are doing that too. I have seen stuff used with heat and sound, largely for mob control but it could defiantly be used in a war scenario.

Quote:

I don't see how human soldiers killing civilians would be any different from robots killing civilians, so from the point of view of the civilians, there's no difference since they end up dead anyway.

Except for the fact that a robot isn't tormented by the acts of war such as people are. Witch in turn makes those people who went to war more anti war, then people who have never seen the face of war and simply know it as a game from their TV sets. Those people are far less aware and caring about the acts of war in comparison to someone who has been there knows it. Go talk to some vet's then go watch TV you tell me what makes you more anti-warâ?¦

___________________

People without self-doubt scare me.
The world is my country, science is my religion. - Christiaan Huygens
“Don’t take refuge in the false security of consensus.�

Home||Truth|Love

Last edited by Tool, March 19th, 2005 12:45 PM (Edited 1 times)

Best topic title, ever!

I recon it's bad. SImply because of the reason that war is about conquering a country. Conquering a country with robots would mean that alot of things wouldn't be able to be taken care of, And that the quality of the country would most likles reduce.

Also, the roman empire colaypsed because of similar circimstances. They got lazy, and hired people to fight for them. And when an army more powerfull came along, that army got beaten, and Rome was left for attacking. Similar circimstances COULD apply IF america got lazy, or if Soldiers didn't fight/ get better training.

___________________

Originally posted by nano:

If a country has enough power and money (and population) they can just as well prepare a gigantic army of human soldiers as an army of robots. The robots would just be more expensive.

Do you think a robot would die from a bullet wound? No

Do you think a human would die from a bullet wound? yes

"Robots" are in use with several armies for some time now, including armed "robots"...

___________________

"I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Voltaire