Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Robot tanks: On patrol but not allowed to shoot

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–59 of 59 posts

Re: Robot tanks: On patrol but not allowed to shoot

#51

Post by eeZah7Ux »

krageon wrote: post #49
eeZah7Ux wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't. Hiroshima and Nagasaki hosted mostly old retired people and children, and women in a smaller percentage. It hosted no military equipment of any significance, nor strategic locations, nor any significant factory. A large number of people were [ex] fishermen and quite poor. These people had very little power or ability to either support or resist the militaristic elite. They were well in the bottom 20% of…

> Please don't. Please don't what? I was offering a different view to the same issues, along with a plea to view complicated situations in the same way that the people subject to them at the time did: As complicated situations. Reducing it to this one-dimensional "everyone was innocent" reasoning is demeaning to the people making those hard decisions. They have to sleep too, and that's hard enough when the situations…

> Please don't what?

Please don't try to sneak in a justification for genocide and paint it as a necessary evil.

> I was offering a different view

Your "different view" came with the unwritten implication that the actions of a terrible government justify genocide:

>>> Japan was an extremely bad actor. They had death camps just like the Germans did at that time. One can imagine that the German victims wished someone dropped a few nukes so Germany would back off a bit quicker.

This sentence does not mention a specific military strategy.

You are clearly implying that a being an "extremely bad actor" is enough to justify retaliation against unarmed civilians.

> we owe it to every victim ... to understand the situation properly

...

Re: Robot tanks: On patrol but not allowed to shoot

#52

Post by A_Parr »

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #44
tjchear wrote: post #4

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.

> I'm pretty excited that something from the universe of Ghost in the Shell would become reality Pretty excited? Cyberpunk was always intended as a dire warning of the looming dystopian future. And urge people to rebel to it. It literally has "punk" in its name. It's a bit sad to see how it's been flipped on its head.

GITS is largely post-cyberpunk, but dips into cyberpunk for ideas. Mostly for it's antagonists. The cyberpunk driver of the post-cyberpunk tank being an interesting take on things, at least.

Clarification for those who don't know. Cyberpunk spun off of a bunch of genres that call themselves $name-punk but ironically ignore the -punk aspect and just replace $name for the name of the technology they replaced magic with in what's otherwise a fantasy story. (Including literally magic as technology.) Because cyberpunk was taken, the cyber version of $name-punk ended up being called post-cyberpunk instead of cyber-steampunk for whatever reason.

Re: Robot tanks: On patrol but not allowed to shoot

#53

Post by shpeedy »

rishabhsagar wrote: post #33
shpeedy wrote: post #22

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/ ]

They only way to get rid of mines is to make them useless. Robots can make them useless, because they can spot and disarm or label mines automatically, or just step on them.

Re: Robot tanks: On patrol but not allowed to shoot

#54

Post by eeZah7Ux »

A_Parr wrote: post #52
eeZah7Ux wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm pretty excited that something from the universe of Ghost in the Shell would become reality Pretty excited? Cyberpunk was always intended as a dire warning of the looming dystopian future. And urge people to rebel to it. It literally has "punk" in its name. It's a bit sad to see how it's been flipped on its head.

GITS is largely post-cyberpunk, but dips into cyberpunk for ideas. Mostly for it's antagonists. The cyberpunk driver of the post-cyberpunk tank being an interesting take on things, at least. Clarification for those who don't know. Cyberpunk spun off of a bunch of genres that call themselves $name-punk but ironically ignore the -punk aspect and just replace $name for the name of the technology they replaced magic with…

> GITS is largely post-cyberpunk, but dips into cyberpunk for ideas

This does not negate the dire warnings of cyberpunk both as a genre and GITS itself.

This thread is about robot tanks built by the military-industral complex. Everything else is besides the point.

> Mostly for it's antagonists

*its

Re: Robot tanks: On patrol but not allowed to shoot

#55

Post by thombat »

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #47
krageon wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Japan was an extremely bad actor. They had death camps just like the Germans did at that time. One can imagine that the German victims wished someone dropped a few nukes so Germany would back off a bit quicker. In the end it wasn't exactly pretty, but saying it was just for terror and fear seems like it takes a complicated situation and makes it one-dimensional. We've all been alive long enough to know real life is g…

Please don't. Hiroshima and Nagasaki hosted mostly old retired people and children, and women in a smaller percentage. It hosted no military equipment of any significance, nor strategic locations, nor any significant factory. A large number of people were [ex] fishermen and quite poor. These people had very little power or ability to either support or resist the militaristic elite. They were well in the bottom 20% of…

> Hiroshima and Nagasaki hosted mostly old retired people and children, and women in a smaller percentage. It hosted no military equipment of any significance, nor strategic locations, nor any significant factory.

Wikipedia may well be wrong, but it does list some significant military items:

======

At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of industrial and military significance. A number of military units were located nearby, the most important of which was the headquarters of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's Second General Army, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan, and was located in Hiroshima Castle. ... Also present in Hiroshima were the headquarters of the 59th Army, the 5th Division and the 224th Division, a recently formed mobile unit. ... In total, an estimated 40,000 Japanese military personnel were stationed in the city.

Some 70,000–80,000 people, around 30% of the population of Hiroshima at the time, were killed by the blast and resultant firestorm, and another 70,000 were injured. It is estimated that as many as 20,000 Japanese military personnel were killed

The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest seaports in southern Japan, and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The four largest companies in the city were Mitsubishi Shipyards, Electrical Shipyards, Arms Plant, and Steel and Arms Works, which employed about 90% of the city's labor force, and accounted for 90% of the city's industry."

Of 7,500 Japanese employees who worked inside the Mitsubishi Munitions plant, including "mobilized" students and regular workers, 6,200 were killed. Some 17,000–22,000 others who worked in other war plants and factories in the city died as well. Casualty estimates for immediate deaths vary widely, ranging from 22,000 to 75,000. At least 35,000–40,000 people were killed and 60,000 others injured. In the days and months following the explosion, more people died from their injuries. Because of the presence of undocumented foreign workers, and a number of military personnel in transit, there are great discrepancies in the estimates of total deaths by the end of 1945; a range of 39,000 to 80,000 can be found in various studies.

======

Of course none of that is grounds for jubilation: many, probably most, of those killed or maimed were victims to some degree. But that was also true of strategic bombing of all kinds by all sides throughout that war and those since. The uniqueness of the atomic bomb lay in the scale and ease of unleashing horrors, not in introducing horror to war.

Re: Robot tanks: On patrol but not allowed to shoot

#56

Post by 6nf »

Nextgrid wrote: post #31
6nf wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think you can realistically detect predator - satellite comms

I'd be curious to know how is the latency handled when it comes to aiming & shooting over a satellite connection.

Watch some of the videos on youtube, it's quite interesting. You can see that the predator is able to target and track automatically so the pilot basically just has to hit the button to fire the weapons and a hit is almost guaranteed. No need to have good reflexes or low latency. The pilots are in Nevada so the best case scenario is probably 100ms pings anyway.

Re: Robot tanks: On patrol but not allowed to shoot

#57

Post by tjchear »

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #44
tjchear wrote: post #4

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.

> I'm pretty excited that something from the universe of Ghost in the Shell would become reality Pretty excited? Cyberpunk was always intended as a dire warning of the looming dystopian future. And urge people to rebel to it. It literally has "punk" in its name. It's a bit sad to see how it's been flipped on its head.

Excited in the way that the big robots we read so much about in stories become real, but I don't wish for the world in which those death machines become a necessity turn into reality.

Re: Robot tanks: On patrol but not allowed to shoot

#58

Post by tjchear »

krisoft wrote: post #9
tjchear wrote: post #4

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…

And I'd say that ethical decision should never be moved up the chain. War is ugly, and should be ugly so that we think twice before waging one. You can still keep a level head with non-autonomous systems, e.g drones with human operators, or remote controlled marine bots.

Re: Robot tanks: On patrol but not allowed to shoot

#59

Post by krageon »

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #51
krageon wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Please don't. Please don't what? I was offering a different view to the same issues, along with a plea to view complicated situations in the same way that the people subject to them at the time did: As complicated situations. Reducing it to this one-dimensional "everyone was innocent" reasoning is demeaning to the people making those hard decisions. They have to sleep too, and that's hard enough when the situations…

> Please don't what? Please don't try to sneak in a justification for genocide and paint it as a necessary evil. > I was offering a different view Your "different view" came with the unwritten implication that the actions of a terrible government justify genocide: >>> Japan was an extremely bad actor. They had death camps just like the Germans did at that time. One can imagine that the German victims wished someone d…

I'm not sure what to tell you, except to try to emphasise to you that understanding what other people think (or arguing for the things they might think as a rhetorical device) doesn't "imply" that that is what is right. I don't presume to tell other people that they are flat wrong and they need to think something else and I would appreciate it if you could extend me the same courtesy.
Post reply on HN