Every day, people hear about how robots and other technology has taken over positions in the battlefield. Generally, people agree with what they are doing, "They are saving human lives!", they say, and so on. But as I think about this situation, the more it seems that this isn't the way the US or other countries should be moving as the next generation of tools and battlefield asernal comes out.

My first point is the judgement aspect. Can you expect computers to be able to think, judge situations, use probability as well as humans do on the battlefield. I don't know if I can trust drones and other instruments like this to ever do the job as well as a trained military personnel would do. When explaining this arguement, I like to use the example used in the movie, I Robot. When the robot swims down to save anybody that he can, he sees two different people, a cop(Will Smith), and the girl. The robot judges that Will Smith has a better chance of survival, so the robot saves him. Now, taking it as a thought experiment, I believe that I would save the little girl, and most people I ask have said the same thing. I believe that are certain things that can't be taught to robots, and these certain things are sometimes neccesary.

My second point is purely philosophical. Many people have heard Robert E. Lee's quote: "It is good that war is so terrible, lest we grow fond of it." By unmanning the front lines, we are ultimately dehumanizing the most terrible thing one human can do to another, and that is kill it. Nature and society has built in a mechanism to keep us from doing that, and that is guilt. But when we send the drones to the front lines, we are ultimately washing us any guilt that we would suffer. The action itself is still terrible, but we are getting off philosophically "scot-free". I feel that if we are provoked enough to kill another person, the effects should be felt by the group.
Another point to add on is that I don't see it saving lives. The main reason politicians don't use war unless it is the last option is that people of their own nation will die. They need to make sure that this war is "justified". If we unman the lines to the point that very few people if all will die, then ultimately, more wars will be fought, and more civilians will be killed than anything else.

Please leave your reasoning behind your choice, I would like to hear the arguements on this issue.

Question:
Do you think that we should continue to unman the front lines?

Choices:
Yes
No

 

Aren't these robots controlled by people?

And isn't it better to preserve the manpower?

I agree and disagree. I voted no though, we should not unman the front lines. Humans are and always will be intellectaully superior to machines. Its human nature to always be superior, we wont let anything in the way of that notion.

Maybe robots can be integrated into the battlefield but they should take soldiers places

hmmmm. good question. On the up side the amount of casualties would go down significantly but on the down side, the unmanned vehicles would be less reliable than actual soldiers.

.... we are lazy creatures, we will keep unmanning the front lines. Those Drones are not AI, technically we have no even created the first AI.

All our efforst have been to successfully deploy VI, which have no self reasoning or awareness in which to judge or choose anything. A Virtual intelligence is no more than a PC that recognizes obstacles, and with preset answers, arithmetically does calculations to select which answer is the one that either.... uses less OIL produces less collatreal dmg and so forth, but if the choices are A. Fire Moving Target. B Fire once at moving target. C Fire grenade at target. D. Retreat.

As much as the previous options sound as a cjhoice, the VI is not allowed to go beyond those options, it wont think, well maybe I can hide and ambush him or her, no, depending on armor, calculations and so forth id picks one of them.

The abilities to replace scouting, patrols with unmanned vehicles have been around for ages, Romans wanted more DMG from long ranger, instead of men having to go up close with slings and bows, the Artillery was created, the most rudimentary piece of .......some sort of machine :P to provide more power.

When you say we would grow fond of it, if your talking philosophically unfortunatelly, humans are war like creatures, so war is gona be around til we all die, we come into this world screaming and slapping, we are gona go out in the same way.

The major part of the conflict is going to be fought with unmmaned vehicles, which I remind you are no more than big remote contorl toys, but instead of you driving a lil card through water, is a soldier driving a lil cart through water with a 21E mounted on top of it, I mean unmanning??? every single on of those drones are just big toys with guns on top. Now when we come with something like.......... I dont know a plane that goes to bomb something and "NOONE' is piloting it, even from far away, now that is unmanned.

Are we dihumanizing the battlefield, of course we are, but is the same as... Oil, I hate that oil polutes earth but til we are smart enough to research on something else, well we gota keep sucking on the Oil tit.

Now that will be all, coz when you say " di tons ee it saving lives" I really wont go that far, the rest of your post was well thought but that just struck the dummy zone.

Same thing happended, when Truck's were introduced, we should harvest by hand as earth had intended, look how that lasted, we should use our own streght to lift the weight, well if we want a bigge rpopulation... we need help.... I want to have my friends back at the base protecting it, and have a dummy go out on the humvie, and have the drone get blown to pieces instead of my friend. From there take your own decision :P

No, what you said about people dieng in civilian situations seems rather strong in my eyes. A computer and technology now a days cannot make a difference between a civilian or military unit if it's not operated, and if they can they proll won't be deployed because of cost.

They should limit he amount of drones they have to the UAV which they use now, and the smaller ones they ar planning on using on ground level.

I'm perticulary fond of the idea of the drones who could save human lives, and seemed much more effecient to me then sticking a gun on it, whilst you could use it to transport wounded from hotspots.

The option of AI doesn't seesm very relevant as of know, since it's quite hard to build anything capable of it, I'd rather have the goverent agencies target on sheer accuaray weapons and other such weapons which minimize civilian casuaslties.

I wouldn't mind those live savers drones on the battlefield, and perhaps resupply planes and such and heavily outkitted planes whom otheriwse couldn't even fly (with pilots of course to make the decision (be it ground wise, or be it in-plane)

I for one like military tech though, and find it exhilarating (thats the word right ) although I think it shouldn't exist or be used. But sadly, sometimes we have to in order to kick some *******s up the arse and remind them it's not right being a facist/extremist/ everything other bad that really is bad (but sometimes I do wonder like wtf why are they over there, whilst those guys are doing the same).

I voted yes, however certain responsibilities I'd keep under human control.

Any missile or aircraft for example, that would be equipped with a nuke would definitely have to have a "man in the loop." Likewise any weapon that can cause large/mass and indiscriminate casualties.

I mean robots dont have feeling or guilt they kill and will keep kiling if they have to

I voted no. I don't think that we should ever eliminate human experience and intuition for the equation. I particularly liked your example using Robert E. Lees quote, as I share similar beliefs.

I voted yes.
As some people have said above, drones are remotely controlled by humans. And as you said, its more about preserving your own nations lives not life in general - which suggests any advantage over the enemy would be a strategically good move.

Technically the robot in iRobot made the right choice in that situation because the little girl's survival chances were close to zero, and emotional irrationality is what causes a lot of wars anyway!

"Nature and society has built in a mechanism to keep us from doing that, and that is guilt"

- lol... what a great job its done so far!
Guilt cannot be preventative as a reflective emotion.

I don't doubt our superior abilities in killing each other - just look at all the experience we have throughout history! But it can't ever be a bad thing to preserve human life, even if it may be more efficient to kill each other personally.

Thank you TaSniper, I think that that quote elegantly sums up the philosophical point of view.

It also seems people are more split on the issue than I expected. I thought people would be booing me as tgey usually do. Right now, No is edging out yes, 8-6

I voted yes, because I think that it actually will save lives.
In theory, AI would find the most effective way to kill and cause the most harm to the enemy. This would cause massive casualties in a large scale war, but that currently isnt the case because we arent fighting large armies, we are fighting insurgents.
While guilt mmight cloud a Counter-insurgent's mind, the average insurgent is only looking to kill and will not stop until he gets it.

there is no diffrence from a unmanned front line to a maned one. the joints chief never meets a pvt. infantryman in the army, nor does he meet the ace pilot who will fly dangerouse missions. nor their families who will feel the pain of their loss.

to the generals the front lines are nothing but numbers, and who is winning and who isnt. we lost two squads of infantry in the assualt on point A. its a reasonable loss.

war has already became an unattached situation. the generals no longer go riding into battle with their men, you dont have kings likes alexander the great, who mounts his horse and commands his troops in the middle of battle.


to generals and presidents and even citizens back home, soldiers are nothing but numbers. we lost 5 soldiers today, the public yells about it, the gens relay it real quick into a sit rep to the pres, and life moves on. weather its human life or not. so the day that gens were able to sit almost half way around the world, and send me into battle in a little town were the enemy out numbers me 2 to one, with no valid nor confirmed intel, was the day war became dehumanized. and death is nothing but number on a print out.

yep that is pretty much it. Although Alexander was Gay, I would much Rather put a comparison as to.... Julius Caesar ... or :P the Laconian Army.....(Spartans for those who dont know), :P I uno I dont like Alex... the gay part really ticks me off.. although in those days gayness was .....somewhat not new :P not common, but not new either :P

I don't know if this is the right thing to say on this topic but being in war also brings experience to the troops. (Heh, thats what the game gets at.)

If everyone went around with robots doing the work, who's to say they have a better army? Lol.

But for me, I love technology, So I am all for the advancement. But what really scares me is nano technology used as weaponry. When the time comes that bombs go off, emmitting these things, they get into human bodies, and they can shut down peoples hearts. That scares me. What even scares me more, is when the nano bots, are able to latch onto a persons nervous system, and shock the nerves into controlling them. Maybe thats just my paranoia but I am almost positive that it is possible.... someday in the future....


And another note, I was talking with my uncle awhile back, (I know random) and I was talking to him about using robots in the battlefield. (Somewhat Gundam like. I was years younger....) And he asked me a good question. Why would you build a giant robot, or even a human sized robot which would be easy to hit and destroy? Why not build thousands of little inch by inch bug robots with razor sharp teeth, that can fly through a building and destroy anyone were fighting?
It really got me thinking, and it was a good point. Scary to imagine that things could exist....

To cod's point...


He makes an excellent point that already today soldiers are being dehumanized by the government, and that is wrong. But at the very least those congressmen and generals have to answer up for these deaths. I am not saying that that is enough, because it isn't, but at least there is some aknowledgement to the terrible act that was committed. If sometime in the future all we have to send is a couple robots to destroy a village, do you expect political outrage for the pervervial "enemy". The act is still terrible, people are still dying, but we lose the aknowledgement that it was terrible, the sympathy, the pity, and the little resolve to try not to take such drastic measures in the future.

Also, though, I am not gonna act like I am some expert, because Iam not. I lack any experience in the military, like cod, and you can take my opinions with a grain of salt.

I voted no, but I have somewhat mixed opinion. I support the use of drones and unmanned vehicles, as long as they are being controlled or closely monitored by humans. I simply don't trust a computer to make difficult and complex decisions like they would face in combat. Combat, by its very nature is complex and unpredictable and I don't think its possible to program a computer to respond exactly how it should in any given situation. Wow, that ended up being longer than I expected....

quote:

Originally posted by Joker_Of_Hearts:
I don't know if this is the right thing to say on this topic but being in war also brings experience to the troops. (Heh, thats what the game gets at.)

If everyone went around with robots doing the work, who's to say they have a better army? Lol.

But for me, I love technology, So I am all for the advancement. But what really scares me is nano technology used as weaponry. When the time comes that bombs go off, emmitting these things, they get into human bodies, and they can shut down peoples hearts. That scares me. What even scares me more, is when the nano bots, are able to latch onto a persons nervous system, and shock the nerves into controlling them. Maybe thats just my paranoia but I am almost positive that it is possible.... someday in the future....


And another note, I was talking with my uncle awhile back, (I know random) and I was talking to him about using robots in the battlefield. (Somewhat Gundam like. I was years younger....) And he asked me a good question. Why would you build a giant robot, or even a human sized robot which would be easy to hit and destroy? Why not build thousands of little inch by inch bug robots with razor sharp teeth, that can fly through a building and destroy anyone were fighting?
It really got me thinking, and it was a good point. Scary to imagine that things could exist....

AS the same time as nano technology goes up as offensive weaponry, rest assure that it also goes as defence, not only with more research can it cure any disease except for some... like Mental retardation although that is more of a mutation than a disease.

As Nano Technology goes as a e mean to kill humans from within, they will also be like any weapon, used to protect the human body, prostetics, Bio humans, implants, they'll cancel each other out, just like Nuclear missiles, their potential is being fired, once a defense system comes up, they'll be obsolete, and as well once a better weaponw ithout the radioactive fallout comes out they'll be scraped and recycled.

With weapons is always the same, a new weapon comes out, then a counter comes around, and progress continues. Same as with rifles and body armor, the more powerful the bullet the more powerful the armor has to be and there goes the fat lady rolling foever.

Thats really sad Cod I wish I we could remember and thank all the servicemen who died or got injured in battle. Hey how out sending fat, lazy politicains instead

80% couldnt pass a Pt test, nor would they be able to fit in the standard ACU> nor the bodyarmor for that matter. or a humvee, or a tank lol. thats why i love for congressmen (especially really old ones, and fat ones) to tell me how i do my job. and to set out ROE for me. cause hell, they dont have to worry about that guy who is staring at me really funny. and coming closer and closer. and then A)blowing hisself up, or be pulling out an ak from behind his back and shooting me (because well, i couldnt positivly identify the weapon he was hiding.)