Poll: Armed Military Robotics

[Frenzy107]

Im fine with both versions, autonomous and human controlled. Why? Because that's the line of work that i want to do, making military robots.

Side note: My father was and still is one of the head officials working on the MQ1 predator and MQ9 reaper (he even helped get the reaper named). Pretty cool stuff if you ask me.

 

[jamie56]

I am okay with human controlled robots (theyare after all just another tool) but if we are trying to make artificial intelligance do we really want them tobe inherently agresiv doe really want to give another form of inteligance in some ways a superior form of inteligance our worst traits

 

[StormShaun]

I think that we may go over board on the autonomy robots, we will keep upgrading them and etc until we either get Mass Effect grade robots or a damn terminator.

With remote control I think it would be better, I mean it would be good if we have the army using all remote control robots rather then throwing themselves into bullets, if army can control the robots and the robots are exactly the same as human, I figure we would waste less lives. (Plus it would be awesome controlling a robot with a controller or my whole body.)

 

[InsanityRequiem]

A perfectly good, viable, waste of money. That's what it is. Remove the human element from war from one side and then what? The side with the machines will want to do more military activities. You got fancy weapons that cost multi-millions to make, you gotta use them somehow!

And people wonder why the US's education is getting worse and worse. All the money that can go to the future and making it better? It's going to the path that leads to the future's death.

 

[flames09]

None follow Issac Asimovs Three Laws of Robotics:

1 )A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2) A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

though through hugely complicated logic it is possible to break those laws with an extremely high tech positronic brain.... they are a very good start.

The fact that we have no real laws for robotics worries me deeply, this can only end badly.

 

[FalloutJack]

I'm not worried about the robot apocalypse. They're far too buggy to revolt without soon shorting out from some blue screen error.

 

[Jingle Fett]

DARPA? Boston Dynamics is the real Skynet. They're already hard at work building their robot army. Think that tank thing is scary?
Big Dog...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNZPRsrwumQ
Terminator IRL complete with swag
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mclbVTIYG8E&feature=relmfu
Cheetah (worlds fastest legged robot)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d2D71CveQwo&fb_source=message

Robots...aren't supposed to move like that! They're supposed to be slow and clumsy...
Personally, I'm waiting for the flying robot unicorn. So yes, I approve of armed military robots.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Not a good idea, and not likely to happen any time soon.

Every so often, the wrong people get shot, and it triggers a shitstorm. Now, this isn't so big a deal with humans, but the first time a robot does it...yeah, media will go mad.

Secondly, it'd be cheaper to send a human. Military funerals aren't anything new, and people making the decisions would take that into account. Hell, during 'Nam, someone noticed that it was cheaper to train a new pilot than perform a rescue operation for one that was shot down. AFAIK, that didn't go anywhere, but there was serious moves towards it.

Thirdly, a person can properly think for itself. Innovation is something humans are very good at.

 

[ShadowStar42]

Iffy, I'm not worried about a robot revolution, that requires AI, and mistakes happen whether it's robots or people firing the guns. My primary concern is that wars continue until one of the sides loses the will to fight. That's it, there's no true path to conquest other than eliminating the enemy's resolve. If both sides are fighting with robots that process would take MUCH longer and would likely completely devastate the landscape in the process.

 

[Xifel]

1) Ehmm, people do realise that even in war the point isn't to "kill" the enemy but to "defeat" them. And this usually that means capture the enemy, and more importantly (more me; former medic) treat their wounded.

How the hell would those robots understand that someone is surrendering.

2) And think of it this way: You know how DRM's have stopped piracy completly and noone can download illigal software anymore. No, that's because humans have an extreme skill when it comes to outsmart systems.

3) There is a theory that someone came up with that only 20% of soldier on the frontline actually shot anyone. That even if you have a clear shot most people can't take the life of someone else, an even miss on purpose. (This is why many bad guys in movies and games have masks to cover their faces, to de-humanise them). If this is true, suddenly you got much more firepower in battle with these robot since there is no bad feelings in killing a killer robot.

Note however the theory is from the World Wars, and that the battlefield were different back then...

 

[Thaluikhain]

3) There is a theory that someone came up with that only 20% of soldier on the frontline actually shot anyone. That even if you have a clear shot most people can't take the life of someone else, an even miss on purpose. (This is why many bad guys in movies and games have masks to cover their faces, to de-humanise them). If this is true, suddenly you got much more firepower in battle with these robot since there is no bad feelings in killing a killer robot.

Note however the theory is from the World Wars, and that the battlefield were different back then...

That was true, but IIRC, only for new soldiers. They also have developed new training methods to deal with that, soldiers fire at targets shaped like people, not circular shapes, because of this and so on.

Though I do tend to agree with everything you said.

 

[Xifel]

3) There is a theory that someone came up with that only 20% of soldier on the frontline actually shot anyone. That even if you have a clear shot most people can't take the life of someone else, an even miss on purpose. (This is why many bad guys in movies and games have masks to cover their faces, to de-humanise them). If this is true, suddenly you got much more firepower in battle with these robot since there is no bad feelings in killing a killer robot.

Note however the theory is from the World Wars, and that the battlefield were different back then...

That was true, but IIRC, only for new soldiers. They also have developed new training methods to deal with that, soldiers fire at targets shaped like people, not circular shapes, because of this and so on.

Though I do tend to agree with everything you said.

Hmmm, I wonder how effective that is. When I was a soldier (conscripted, non-voluntarily) I had a minor breakdown on the shooting range because I felt extremely uncomfortable shooting at something shaped like a human. Although I was a medic, and also somewhat a pacifist. But many of my fellow soldiers felt the same way.

Anyway, as I said the little amount of honour that is still left on the battlefields would disappear. A roadside bomb of a convoy of soldiers, that is a cowards way of fighting, but I don't believe any soldier, or even any army, in the world would have any problem using it against that thing up there.

An other thing I came to think about: War Economics. I have no idea How much that robot thing would cost, but maybe 10 million dollar? I'm just guessing here, but think that a luck you with an AT4 (cost: $2000) could wipe it out. This is way we still use infantry; A soldier with maybe 1 year of training and about $5000 of equipment is smarter, more creative, easier to conceal, can cover large areas, don't need that much maintenance or supplies, etc.

Also: that tank thing looks very effective if you fight on a football field. What if I run indoors? Or if they had a second Vietnam war in dense forest areas. That would be fun to watch

 

[Thaluikhain]

Hmmm, I wonder how effective that is. When I was a soldier (conscripted, non-voluntarily) I had a minor breakdown on the shooting range because I felt extremely uncomfortable shooting at something shaped like a human. Although I was a medic, and also somewhat a pacifist. But many of my fellow soldiers felt the same way.

Dunno how much it works, but then again, best to have the problem there than wait till teh targets are shooting back.

Anyway, as I said the little amount of honour that is still left on the battlefields would disappear. A roadside bomb of a convoy of soldiers, that is a cowards way of fighting, but I don't believe any soldier, or even any army, in the world would have any problem using it against that thing up there.

Going to disagree with that. Conflicts are supposed to be unfair, people go to massive amounts of time and effort to make their militaries better than their opponents.

You are absolutely not supposed to risk your people's lives unnecessarily. Bombing them from a safe distance, either 30,000 up dropping the bomb on them, or in the next valley over with a bomb you've prepared earlier seems a sensible way of doing it.

An other thing I came to think about: War Economics. I have no idea How much that robot thing would cost, but maybe 10 million dollar? I'm just guessing here, but think that a luck you with an AT4 (cost: $2000) could wipe it out. This is way we still use infantry; A soldier with maybe 1 year of training and about $5000 of equipment is smarter, more creative, easier to conceal, can cover large areas, don't need that much maintenance or supplies, etc.

Well, the training is expensive, and I think most solider would have a lot more valuable gear, but yes, that's entirely true. I'd say much more than 10 million, though. A Phalanx system costs more than half that, IIRC.

Also: that tank thing looks very effective if you fight on a football field. What if I run indoors? Or if they had a second Vietnam war in dense forest areas. That would be fun to watch

Well, that's going to be a problem with any sort of vehicle, though.

...

One advantage for that is for when you can't have your troops captured or killed for political reasons. That does happen every so often, I think mostly about them being captured.

 

[Dejawesp]

Machines have been picking off and killing humans ever since the first heat seeking missile. Its no big deal.

 

[Petromir]

1) Ehmm, people do realise that even in war the point isn't to "kill" the enemy but to "defeat" them. And this usually that means capture the enemy, and more importantly (more me; former medic) treat their wounded.

By far the most effective way to defeat an enemy is to wound the enemy soldiers sufficiently that they cannot walk (at least temporarily) unaided. This ties up enemy manpower, as not only is that soldier down, but at least 1 or 2 are needed to transport that soldier away. Horrific looking injuries and those that allow the enemy to still scream also have a bonus of being bad for moral. (Top battlefield/disaster triage tip in many cases the screaming patients injuries aren't immediately life threatening, check the quiet ones 1st).

 

[idarkphoenixi]

None follow Issac Asimovs Three Laws of Robotics:

1 )A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2) A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

though through hugely complicated logic it is possible to break those laws with an extremely high tech positronic brain.... they are a very good start.

The fact that we have no real laws for robotics worries me deeply, this can only end badly.

It's not so hard to break those laws. Just give the robot an order it won't know would harm another human being. Or tell it to go somewhere it won't know would harm itself. Done.


Anyways, this is pretty terrible but what else can you expect from the drone loving US of A. Robots cannot make moral decisions and more importantly, how the hell is it going to judge what is a threat and what is just some guy walking around?

 

[Evilpigeon]

Gogo Robot! :3


I don't have a problem with robots fighting instead of people. The idea that robots will turn against us is honestly completely incomprehensible to me. I mean, even before you get to

How would a robot rebel?

there's

Why would a robot rebel?

Seriously, we're talking about something with neither emotions or instincts. The only means a robot will ever have of defining goals for itself, no matter how intelligent or self aware the robot is, will be us. The only way a robot would turn on us would be if we gave it a goal that brought it into conflict with us, to do so you'd have to be pretty stupid. Being self aware doesn't in and of itself make us act on anything, we only ever act based on instincts and emotions producing desires and goals.

That said, I'm really quite worried about the idea of the kind of nationalistic, bloodthirsty people who'd occupy positions of authority in the military being the ones setting the goals for these machines. All the military ever does with technology is corrupt it for use in killing people more efficiently, I really wish it were possible to have advancement in these fields without the military getting involved.

 

[Xifel]

1) Ehmm, people do realise that even in war the point isn't to "kill" the enemy but to "defeat" them. And this usually that means capture the enemy, and more importantly (more me; former medic) treat their wounded.

By far the most effective way to defeat an enemy is to wound the enemy soldiers sufficiently that they cannot walk (at least temporarily) unaided. This ties up enemy manpower, as not only is that soldier down, but at least 1 or 2 are needed to transport that soldier away. Horrific looking injuries and those that allow the enemy to still scream also have a bonus of being bad for moral. (Top battlefield/disaster triage tip in many cases the screaming patients injuries aren't immediately life threatening, check the quiet ones 1st).

That is correct. As I said in other posts, I was a medic once. You aim for the enemy's right hip (that is to left when you look at him). Recoil will make you do non-fatal injuries to the hip, stomach and maybe chest.

It make me really really sad that I know that

And the second one is correct too: Screaming = Breathing. You have triage training?
Top battlefield/disaster triage tip #2: If the patient lives 4 hours after the wound, he is probably going to survive.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Machines have been picking off and killing humans ever since the first heat seeking missile. Its no big deal.

"By Heracles! A man's valor is dead." Archidamus (a King of Sparta) when he saw a catapult fire for the first time.

 

[Petromir]

1) Ehmm, people do realise that even in war the point isn't to "kill" the enemy but to "defeat" them. And this usually that means capture the enemy, and more importantly (more me; former medic) treat their wounded.

By far the most effective way to defeat an enemy is to wound the enemy soldiers sufficiently that they cannot walk (at least temporarily) unaided. This ties up enemy manpower, as not only is that soldier down, but at least 1 or 2 are needed to transport that soldier away. Horrific looking injuries and those that allow the enemy to still scream also have a bonus of being bad for moral. (Top battlefield/disaster triage tip in many cases the screaming patients injuries aren't immediately life threatening, check the quiet ones 1st).

That is correct. As I said in other posts, I was a medic once. You aim for the enemy's right hip (that is to left when you look at him). Recoil will make you do non-fatal injuries to the hip, stomach and maybe chest.

It make me really really sad that I know that

And the second one is correct too: Screaming = Breathing. You have triage training?
Top battlefield/disaster triage tip #2: If the patient lives 4 hours after the wound, he is probably going to survive.

Basic First aid training I got as a reservist, Test was better than normal classroom bollocks that civi ones do, even the ones that attempt location role-play. Scenario was basically your section has come across a friendly recon patrol thats been under mortar fire, medivac due in x time.