±«Óãtv

And this is qualitatively different from an F-16 over Gaza how, precisely?

The ethical questions do indeed remain - it's just that they're not new. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all live in peace and harmony, eh?

Hugs,

-H

Actually, I'd say robotic warfare is even more questionable than conventional warfare in the case of a nation, like the US, fighting a nation that cannot afford the robot technology.

Wall.E vs EVE - no competition...

It looks a bit like the robot out of Short circuit. No 5 is alive. And he knows where you live.

Presumably these are "drones" more than "robots". Remote controlled, not AI.

Because the Terminator films prove that humans always win.

GV

The same question has existed whenever one nation developed a new superior war fighting technology other nations did not have. The question was one that was given great thought when the atom bomb was invented. If the US does not develop this technology first, someone else will. I can't think of anyone I'd rather see have it first and exclusively than the US. BTW, the unmanned drone planes that can fire rockets such as the Predator are in the same vein. It's allowed the US to kill al Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan without American troops setting foot on their soil.

Recently documents from the Eisenhower years have come to light regarding the legality of spy satellites. The US deliberately held back on launching satellites allowing the USSR to have them first because the legality of flying over another nation's territory even in space was unclear. By allowing the USSR to launch Sputnik first, the US felt the issue had been settled and was then free to develop spy satellites to fly over the USSR replacing manned planes like the U-2.

Imagine an entire army of robots controlled from halfway around the world. The threshold of when a nation goes to war could become much lower. The US population at large was very supportive of the Wars in Iraq in 2003 and in Vietnam until its own wounded and dead soldiers started returning home. Robots soldiers will "make war safe for democracy."

M2
"Imagine an entire army of robots controlled from halfway around the world."

Yeah, but who gets Optimus Prime? I mean, Megatron has a really cool gun and all, but Optimus always wins in the end.

Another thing - C3P0's sexuality. Would the Christian right really want a gay android fighting alongside US troops?

Of course, we are talking about a nation that put a T-800 in charge of California. "It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. (although it did have a good feel of the cute intern) And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until it is President".

As you can see, I'm not taking this too seriously.

GV

M2

I mean c'mon, who is going to "develop this technology" first? The Galactic Empire? Skynet?

Maybe it's the Brits. All those Daleks and K-9 must look scary, but all you'll need to do is run up some stairs.

Actually, I'm just thinking through the "Tom Clancy" logic here.

If the US doesn't launch a thermo-nuclear war, someone else will.

If the US doesn't unleash unpredictable bilological weapons on the world just to see what happens someone else will.

Yep, makes sense to me. Go build 'em robots M2. I'll even supply the Lego.

GV

Sorry to go on, but this is hilarious.
Two serious questions -
Just how will these robots replace combat - infantry?
And the threshold of war getting lower - that's a good thing?


And yes, if any nation is going to get this sort of power, let's give it to the U S of A. Not those war mongering Swiss, for pities sake!

M2 - 'fess up. You ARE George Bush the 2nd, aintcha ( ;

GV

Graham, THIRD. ;-)

Do I detect a note of jealousy here? Robot envy? The US had no qualms about using the atom bomb to end the war in the Pacific. It was tested on July 16, 1945 and dropped on Hiroshima August 6, not a whole lot of time for reflection about it. Actually, the intended target was Berlin but sadly, the war in Europe ended too soon. After my experience in the German hofbrau at the industrial trade fair at Le Lac in Bordeaux France in 1973, I wondered if it wasn't really too late.

Yes! Terminator should be fighting for us; I've always said it. Follow my logic:

1) War is sometimes necessary.

2) Human casualties in war should be minimised.

3) Using robots will minimise human casualties as much as possible.

4) Therefore, we should use robots in war when war is necessary.

The End.

I'll be here all week.

Well, someone beat me to correcting about them being "drones", not robots.
And, someone else beat me to mentioning Doctor Who!

One point to the previous post- War will still be inhumane. after all, A. Those drones will be fighting in areas people live in. and B. There will still be a need for people in certain military capacities in the front lines for some time to come.

One more point. I do think that the first machine-on-machine combat has already happened long ago. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the UK have some radar-guided automatic anti-aircraft guns in WWII that were used against V-1 flying bombs?