Obama's Plan To Disarm The Usa
- Thread starter khaddon2110
- Start date
Excellent point. I am scared of it being used incorrectly or for inappropriate means. Since human life on our sides or those with the technology won't be impacted as much, the ability to kill people with low casualties increases.
Normally the decision to go to war is justified by if the sacrifice of our people allows a specific country to gain something, be it freedoms, safety or whatever. Well if there is no sacrifice, there might not need to be as much justification. The loss of human life was part of a check and balance system to war, you loose that feedback and I am not sure what would happen.
Look at war generally rather than this war specifically involving Americans.
If there is only a monetary cost, and no human cost to war, the richer country wins, period. There is no moral incentive to do what is right, as you aren't killing anyone, just costing them money. Who thinks this sounds like a good idea? At that point, there is no reason for a country with the means not to go in and take whatever they want, as they won't lose any people to do it. War is horrible, people die, and that is what makes it something that people don't want to happen. I don't like the idea of people dieing, and want to give our soldiers as many advantages as possible, but conceptually I think it is a bad idea to take them out of the line of fire altogether.
If there is only a monetary cost, and no human cost to war, the richer country wins, period. There is no moral incentive to do what is right, as you aren't killing anyone, just costing them money. Who thinks this sounds like a good idea? At that point, there is no reason for a country with the means not to go in and take whatever they want, as they won't lose any people to do it. War is horrible, people die, and that is what makes it something that people don't want to happen. I don't like the idea of people dieing, and want to give our soldiers as many advantages as possible, but conceptually I think it is a bad idea to take them out of the line of fire altogether.
we won't be alive to see that kinda technology....that being said the technology that it would take to do something like this hasn't even been invented/discovered so we have nothing to worry about. Besides a robot that sophisticated that could think for itself could be taken out by a tiny little computer virus. Robots will never be on their own, I hope there comes a day to fight alongside artificial intelligence...wont happen in this lifetime
Drones - which we do have right now accomplish pretty much the same thing as I robot. I was using them as the same.
Edit - Yes I am serious!
Last edited:
So let me get this straight, you are afraid of drone technology replacing humans, because we might use it in the wrong way? Care to elaborate? Give us a for instance? Soldiers have never been held to a higher standard than they are today. The ROE's that are in place now have caused american lives. When you have soldiers at war wondering if they pull the trigger, will they be held liable for it, it puts undo pressure on them. When we have politicians in congress declaring soldiers guilty of crimes before even knowing the facts of the situation, and a supreme court who thinks enemy combatants should have the same rights as us, it's a miracle that we have an all volunteer armed force. You give them what they need, period. Whether that be new weapon technology or not. Do you honestly think that other countries would not continue to evolve and develop weapons if we stopped doing it?
Too much media involved now-a-days with war, conflict, treatment of captured enemy combatants etc.
In a way, yes, I am concerned that with no costs other than monetary ones, we would use a technological army to fight wars we would not otherwise get involved with. Or to put it another way, I am not necessarily so much worried about what we (Americans) would do with such technology as what others would (could) do with it. If you knew that it would cost you $50 to kill that guy over there (oversimplification) with absolutely no risk to you, and he had something you wanted, what would stop you?
I don't think it is all bad that soldiers are held to a higher standard now than in the past. Shouldn't there be some recompense for shooting the wrong person? Yes, honest mistakes happen, but with no consequences, an entire village could be slaughtered because there are suspected terrorists in it, and you can't tell which ones are innocent. I would think that the morals of our soldiers would prevent atrocities like that from happening, but history does not support that hope. Do you believe in our justice system that says innocent until proven guilty? Do you believe that this is a universal concept, or should it only apply when you like?
Sure, it sucks when you have to confirm that the guy you are about to kill really deserves it, but how do you live with yourself if you are wrong?
Why - all of my states are the same regardless of if it is a drone or a robot. The only difference between the two is there is a human operating the drone having DIRECT control of the dron in California or where ever they do it, and the robot operates itself with a human still have control over general operation, but semi-autonomous. They both remove the need for humans to be in a high risk situation, just one is what we have now and the other we might have in the future.
If you are going to say my statement is reckless, you might want to at least tell me why.....otherwise it's meaning is lost.
K
khaddon2110
Well-known member
...
how bout by saying the technology that we use is anything like that in the movie I, Robot. Im assuming that is what you are referring to.
On top of that we have both drones and robots and to a certain degree they both act autonomous in one aspect or another. Soldiers will never be out of high risk situations the key is to limit the number that are put in those situations.
On top of that we have both drones and robots and to a certain degree they both act autonomous in one aspect or another. Soldiers will never be out of high risk situations the key is to limit the number that are put in those situations.
That warzone is their home. They have nowhere else to go. How many people stay in a city about to be hit by a hurricane, even when they know it is coming?
I'm not trying to say that our justice system should apply, but maybe the concepts should? Killing innocents is bad, are you going to argue with that? Yes, it would be nice if they would kindly wear a sign saying "I'm not a bad guy, that guy is >" but that's not going to happen. I don't want our justice system to apply there, but I do want our soldiers to not wantonly kill people.
Dropping the bombs on Japan saved countless lives, I'm one of the first to say that. Do you think it was easy for the men who dropped them?
I'm not trying to say that our justice system should apply, but maybe the concepts should? Killing innocents is bad, are you going to argue with that? Yes, it would be nice if they would kindly wear a sign saying "I'm not a bad guy, that guy is >" but that's not going to happen. I don't want our justice system to apply there, but I do want our soldiers to not wantonly kill people.
Dropping the bombs on Japan saved countless lives, I'm one of the first to say that. Do you think it was easy for the men who dropped them?
So stay for a war but leave if a hurricane comes?
What side of the fence are you really on here?
Um, you cant see the technology difference between I robot and a drone?
K
khaddon2110
Well-known member
I think that they were trained to do a job and they performed flawlessly. i know it probably did weigh on them later in life, it would have to if you are human...
From the standpoint of the arguments I was making they are interchangeable. The both remove humans from the battlefield.
Yah, they are different technically... but there purpose is the same. The difference is in the amount of human control they both have. Drones = direct, robot = indirect, or at least less direct.
1. do you remember hurrican katrina?
2. It's not a matter of wanting or not wanting its a matter of living and dying if you dont act your done...you can't think about it. Innocent people die during war there is no way of stopping it. Why are people so compassionate towards the 'innocents' that die in battle and not about the soldiers that are faced with the choice.
3. Do you think it's easy having to choose between life and death? Knowing that you're fighting an invisible enemy? at any moment someone could just pop off rounds at you and there is nothing you can do about it. Unelss you know what it's like and the attitude of the people over there i suggest you stay off this topic cause it makes you sound like an ignorant fool
Quite the comments you got. I am not worried about machines turning on the human race.I am more worried that the ability and means to kill other people will become much easier... especially when there is only a dollar value attached to it and not a human cost. It scares me because the restraint for an armed conflict will be less as it only takes money instead of a large human cost.
Ok, I see your point, but lets look at a realistic hypothetical situation.
Iran gets close to having a nuclear arsenal. They start threatening Israel, making demands and threatening to blow them off the face of the earth.
Israel decides that it cannot any longer take the risk of Iran getting nuclear weapons, and goes in and invades Iran.
The rest of the nutjob muslim countries join in on the side of Iran. So it is now Israel and the U.S fighting 2 million troops.
Present military scenario:
We have the technology to employ battlefield multiplyers. Meaning we can out gun 2 million or their troops with lets say 50,000 people on our side by using drones, fighter air cover, intelligent tanks, smart bombs, etc. Most of our people can kill the enemy without a direct line of sight. The enemy has to see us to kill us.
Ruffyrider military scenario:
The US has 1950's era tanks, machine guns, mortars, land mines, all line of sight technology.
Through lack of technology, we need 1.5 million troops to battle the enemy. The local draft board calls Ruffyrider "We need you over in Iran ASAFP"
Ruffyrider has a great liklihood that he will be casualty of war, either injured or killed. But wait, there will be 100's of thousands more just like Ruffyrider.
Now, which scenario would you like to be a part of? Ruffy Rider's army or the present military scenario?
Dang the whole I, Robot thing was a fraudian slip I guess... I was going for "a robot".
That I, Robot technology is not what I was referring to at all and seems to be where the confusions is coming from. dang that movie. It was good though
