Combat robots prepare for Iraq - Page 3




 
--
 
January 24th, 2005  
r031Button
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Quote:
Originally Posted by r031Button
Wars need to be human; and theres a big difference between seeing somethin gin real life and seeing it through a video camera. I'm morally opposed to the very concept of robots doing our killing for us. But I've also never seen combat, so I don't really have the ability to back that up.
There is very little room for morality on the battlefield. There are quite a few people's who where morally opposed to guns on the battlefield but they aren't around anymore to voice their objections.

I do, however, think it's an interesting concept to ponder. Without human involvement war just becomes a match of each country's economy, really.
My point is though, it's a great deal easier to kill through a video camera then it is through your eyes, and I think it's a mistake to use robots; it takes the thought of human pain and suffering out of war making. The next time a government has to consider going to war, it can do it and not have to worry about the killing and death; simply because it has robots, and it's humanity won't die.
January 24th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
It would have to worry about the killing and death of the civilians on the other side and the outcry that would provoke on its own people.
January 24th, 2005  
r031Button
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
It would have to worry about the killing and death of the civilians on the other side and the outcry that would provoke on its own people.
Nations are tribal by definition, we tend to overlook the loss of life in other nations compared to those in ours.
--
January 24th, 2005  
Snauhi
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
Or where they would be certain to be killed. Need a suicide attack? Just program the trusty T-1.
Its cheaper to was 2000 people then a robot, instead of wasting money into this just build more tanks and stuff.
January 25th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snauhi
Its cheaper to was 2000 people then a robot, instead of wasting money into this just build more tanks and stuff.
Well you've got to remember that this is the beginning R&D of this technology. Of course it's going to be better in the short run to crank out Abrams tanks instead of these flimsy little things, but they arn't meant to be mass-produced, they're ment to be tested and evaluated so that in the future truely great war-machines can be produced.
January 25th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Cheaper to use people? Can you actually put a price on human life? If you know the mission is sure to destroy whoever attempts it, I think spending X amount of dollars is money well spent on any robot..
January 25th, 2005  
battery
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snauhi
Waste of money, no robots can do better things then humans. And it cost like ****.
Think of it this way; with the robots replacing servicemen and women, you have a new workforce able to focus on manufacturing of robots, with that comes potential for greater income. I think replacing humans would be a very good, though very unlikely to happen by the time we all serve or get done serving in the military, perhaps 40-50 years from now...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
Cheaper to use people? Can you actually put a price on human life? If you know the mission is sure to destroy whoever attempts it, I think spending X amount of dollars is money well spent on any robot..
Issue of morality. Good thought though, I agree, why waste a human life when you can use a robot?

Quoting Doc.S

Cheers,

Battery
January 25th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Not to mention the fact we can throw robots aroun ad-hoc without really having to worry about their safety. Look at how we used UAVs in Afghanistan and Iraq, unlike piloted spyplanes we could do anything we wanted with a UAV because if it got shot down... so what? We'll just unpackage anotherone and fly it out there in 30 minutes.