31–40 of 59 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guarantee they can be programmed to carry out missions without sending and receiving signals. Otherwise they can always be detected.
I don’t think you can realistically detect predator - satellite comms
I don't buy this. Given a sufficiently desperate situation, I can't imagine any military with autonomous tanks taking a call to keep the autonomous shooting "disabled" when it would risk actually loosing a war. If anyone had real ethical concerns, they would've not put a gun on a robot to begin with. Once you arm a robot, a software disable is just lipstick on a pig.
Mines are simple robots. They kill for decades after a war. Killer tank robot is much less dangerous.
I don't buy this. Given a sufficiently desperate situation, I can't imagine any military with autonomous tanks taking a call to keep the autonomous shooting "disabled" when it would risk actually loosing a war. If anyone had real ethical concerns, they would've not put a gun on a robot to begin with. Once you arm a robot, a software disable is just lipstick on a pig.
Mines are simple robots. They kill for decades after a war. Killer tank robot is much less dangerous.
These tanks are not alternative to mines. Why not take a step back and ban both? Humanity has already been trying to get rid of mines [https://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/landmines/]
On one hand, I'm pretty excited that something from the universe of Ghost in the Shell would become reality; on the other hand, it's a slippery slope to some dystopian reality where ethical considerations are completely removed from battle.
Repeat of WWI, to be honest, with all these technologies clashing together for the first time. There weren't a lot of "ethical considerations" to using chemical weapons when the alternative was losing thousands in another doomed charge out of the trenches. Same with WWII, where the US would rather open Pandora's box of the Nuclear Age than risk a ground invasion of mainland Japan.
The US simply wanted to drop the nukes and see the outcome and win the war through pure unadulterated terror and fear.
On one hand, I'm pretty excited that something from the universe of Ghost in the Shell would become reality; on the other hand, it's a slippery slope to some dystopian reality where ethical considerations are completely removed from battle.
> “where ethical considerations are completely removed from battle” I’m surprised you say that. Having tired, squishy humans in a hot, cramped box fearing for their life is not exactly a guarantee of “ethical considerations”. Remotely controlled weaponry removes said humans from the immediate danger. It’s a lot easier to apply ethical considerations, when you can be certain a moment of hesitation won’t cause your dea…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mines are simple robots. They kill for decades after a war. Killer tank robot is much less dangerous.
> Mines are simple robots These tanks are not alternative to mines. Why not take a step back and ban both? Humanity has already been trying to get rid of mines [ https://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/landmines/ ]
Just making the illegal more illegal does nothing but mollify a few here and there but certainly lets politicians grand stand as if they accomplished something.
Weapons of war deserve no mercy, since these robots will exist then the only logical solution is design systems to take them down. Weapon systems can certain be designed to take down anything mechanical and ignore people. If anything depriving the petty war mongers out there of their weapons to use against people might be the only worthwhile outcome of this technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mines are simple robots. They kill for decades after a war. Killer tank robot is much less dangerous.
> Mines are simple robots These tanks are not alternative to mines. Why not take a step back and ban both? Humanity has already been trying to get rid of mines [ https://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/landmines/ ]
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/sh...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've heard it argued that cruise missiles are robots - at least as much as a Roomba is - and hence that 'killer robots' have been with us for decades.
And already we have all sorts of problems with cruise missiles (fired by mistake, locking on the wrong target, misbehaving in flight...). Increasing the window of risk to ground combat is very, very risky. As the British ex-soldier quoted in TFA, even humans struggle to discern friend from foe in situations like Afghanistan or Iraq, a machine could potentially create clusterfucks of unimaginable proportions. Not that…
>>> clusterfucks of unimaginable proportions
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Repeat of WWI, to be honest, with all these technologies clashing together for the first time. There weren't a lot of "ethical considerations" to using chemical weapons when the alternative was losing thousands in another doomed charge out of the trenches. Same with WWII, where the US would rather open Pandora's box of the Nuclear Age than risk a ground invasion of mainland Japan.
I put it to you that dropping multiple nukes was not about avoiding ground war in japan. The US simply wanted to drop the nukes and see the outcome and win the war through pure unadulterated terror and fear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo#Operation_Mee...
yet five months later Japan maintained an external persona of implacable resistance. For example the subsequent invasion of the Okinawa islands resulted in over 14,000 American deaths. It was reasonable to apprehend that the invasion of the far bigger Japanese home islands would be far more lethal, also for the Japanese population.
In the Tokyo raid 96 American airmen were killed, despite the only effective defence being poorly co-ordinated anti-aircraft fire. Given a weapon that claimed the potential to end the war without further American losses it seems unrealistic to expect it not to be used.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Repeat of WWI, to be honest, with all these technologies clashing together for the first time. There weren't a lot of "ethical considerations" to using chemical weapons when the alternative was losing thousands in another doomed charge out of the trenches. Same with WWII, where the US would rather open Pandora's box of the Nuclear Age than risk a ground invasion of mainland Japan.
I put it to you that dropping multiple nukes was not about avoiding ground war in japan. The US simply wanted to drop the nukes and see the outcome and win the war through pure unadulterated terror and fear.