Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Christian Science Monitor)   Pros and cons of a robot army -- Pros: It's a ROBOT ARMY. Cons: It's a ROBOT ARMY   (csmonitor.com) divider line
    More: Silly, law of war, overrides  
•       •       •

7613 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Feb 2010 at 4:18 PM (11 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



159 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2010-02-19 12:42:45 PM  
I'm sure our robots will be content fighting the enemy's robots.
 
2010-02-19 12:53:05 PM  
Would a robot army be able to decimate a bear cavalry?
 
2010-02-19 12:59:46 PM  
Everyone knows that a clone army is superior to a robot army, anyway.
 
2010-02-19 1:00:42 PM  
FTFA :

"Be unaffected by anger, revenge, hunger, fear, fatigue, or stress."


From 'The Terminator' :

"It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead. "

I was thinking that the Monitor was doing something between an Homage or Plaigerism, but now all I can hear is Peter Falk saying, "Fencing, fighting, torture, revenge, giants, monsters, chases, escapes, true love, miracles... "
 
2010-02-19 1:11:40 PM  
None of the "robots" that we use are autonomous. They are piloted drones. From the tracked ground units that will hopefully be providing fire support for infantry units, to the scouting cameras that are sometimes thrown into buildings to look ahead, to the the UAVs. They aren't autonomous, so the "concerns" are pie in the sky right now, since all of them have pilots, and those folks are responsible for their use.

None of the remote drones that we will be deploying any time in the next generation are going to be more than larger scale versions of an RC racer, though some of them do have guns.

Ultimately, you have to look at the operators for these moral questions.
 
2010-02-19 1:15:05 PM  
hubiestubert
Ultimately, you have to look at the operators for these moral questions.

Not all of them. The whole idea of a robotic battlefield is that robots (autonomous or not) are on the "front lines", right? They're in the most dangerous places, while the operators can be hundreds or even thousands of miles away, right?

So, who does the enemy being attacked by these front line robots target?
 
2010-02-19 1:21:17 PM  

mrexcess: hubiestubert
Ultimately, you have to look at the operators for these moral questions.

Not all of them. The whole idea of a robotic battlefield is that robots (autonomous or not) are on the "front lines", right? They're in the most dangerous places, while the operators can be hundreds or even thousands of miles away, right?

So, who does the enemy being attacked by these front line robots target?


Considering that many folks pioneered the use of Autonomous Mobile Weapons Platforms that can be discarded, I'd say that we're actually a little behind the curve. The suicide bomber has the advantage of being able to get in a little closer to their targets, and do their own care and maintenance, and they cost significantly less.

If anything, we at least look to reuse our platforms, as opposed to throwing them away...
 
2010-02-19 1:26:21 PM  
Walker: Would a robot army be able to decimate a bear cavalry?

Maybe. But not my penguin army.
 
2010-02-19 1:29:56 PM  
hubiestubert: You're missing my question, I think. When your city is under attack by an adversary's robots, who do you target?
 
2010-02-19 1:36:23 PM  

mrexcess: hubiestubert: You're missing my question, I think. When your city is under attack by an adversary's robots, who do you target?


I understand the question. It is, however, irrelevant. Since the use of these remotes is in conjunction with troops. I don't recall that the rules of warfare said that we had to expose our throats to slap someone who is shooting up the place.

Your question is about the intrinsic fairness of the use of remotes, and that is irrelevant to conflicts, especially the ones that we find ourselves in.

War is not about fairness. Not in the least.

When faced with overwhelming odds, or impossible situations, the sane will surrender.
 
2010-02-19 1:40:06 PM  
hubiestubert
It is, however, irrelevant.

It is extremely relevant to the moral questions surrounding the employment of battlefield robots, which is I thought what you were talking about.

Your question is about the intrinsic fairness of the use of remotes

No, you don't understand my question then. It has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with practical effects.
 
2010-02-19 1:49:37 PM  

mrexcess: hubiestubert
It is, however, irrelevant.

It is extremely relevant to the moral questions surrounding the employment of battlefield robots, which is I thought what you were talking about.

Your question is about the intrinsic fairness of the use of remotes

No, you don't understand my question then. It has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with practical effects.


The practical effect is to deny an enemy the opportunity to strike at our troops. You're looking to move the conversation into a moral question--about the intrinsic fairness of not letting an enemy strike troops directly.

Which is irrelevant, since the moral question is moot when we decide that people need shooting in the first place.
 
2010-02-19 1:57:59 PM  
hubiestubert
The practical effect is to deny an enemy the opportunity to strike at our troops.

Only in a very short term kind of way. Follow that line through though. Foreign armies aren't going to be content allowing themselves to be shot at without shooting back, are they? So what capabilities are 'they' going to develop to counter a move in this direction? Where is this particular cat and mouse game leading?

You're looking to move the conversation into a moral question--about the intrinsic fairness of not letting an enemy strike troops directly.

No, I'm not. Fairness really has nothing to do with it at all. The central moral question I'm intending to raise here is about a military's duty to take actions that protect it's civilian population. If you make striking at the military force pointless, what is your enemy going to target and fight?
 
2010-02-19 2:13:38 PM  
Well, I suppose that one solution would be for the robots to use mainly non-lethal weapons.

Some UAVs like this one (new window) armed with sonic or microwave weapons (or gas, or blinding strobe lights, whatever) could disable and disorient the attackers well enough so that troops can take control of the situation.

However, I mean, as far as people not being able to strike back at their attacker and that causing them to move on to softer targets...we already use cruise missiles and such to kill from way far away...what's the difference?
 
2010-02-19 2:14:44 PM  

mrexcess: hubiestubert
The practical effect is to deny an enemy the opportunity to strike at our troops.

Only in a very short term kind of way. Follow that line through though. Foreign armies aren't going to be content allowing themselves to be shot at without shooting back, are they? So what capabilities are 'they' going to develop to counter a move in this direction? Where is this particular cat and mouse game leading?

You're looking to move the conversation into a moral question--about the intrinsic fairness of not letting an enemy strike troops directly.

No, I'm not. Fairness really has nothing to do with it at all. The central moral question I'm intending to raise here is about a military's duty to take actions that protect it's civilian population. If you make striking at the military force pointless, what is your enemy going to target and fight?


Well, actually, they already have. Which is why we keep looking to keep our troops out of harm's way.

Suicide bombers, IEDs, those are already part of the game. Suicide bombers are assets. They are mobile weapons, and they are essentially tools that can take care of themselves. They are semi-autonomous and they are self directed. And their value to those who use them is less than the UAVs that we use for reconnaissance and to make attacks on hill camps.

The question you're engaged with, we're already dealing with. Less well equipped forces use the tools available. We proved a while back that there are NO conventional forces in the region that can withstand a stand up fight. Period. Which is why we are engaged in the small actions against patrols and strikes at villages and those who are vocal in support of the regime or moving forward.

It's not about what could happen, but what is already happening. It is a less than useful question in regards to remotes, as opposed to the US and Coalition forces in general. We already enjoy a sizable tech advantage, and a sizable force multiplier whenever we deploy folks--and we are being met with insurgents' own versions and tactics.
 
2010-02-19 2:22:53 PM  
hubiestubert
The question you're engaged with, we're already dealing with.

I don't think you've understood my question, because what you're replying with doesn't concern it at all.
 
2010-02-19 2:44:00 PM  

mrexcess: hubiestubert
The question you're engaged with, we're already dealing with.

I don't think you've understood my question, because what you're replying with doesn't concern it at all.


I did. I just don't see a lot of value in it. Because we're already dealing with it. It's not a question of just UAVs and other tech, it's an essential question of how to strike an opponent that has significant field advantage?

It's hardly a new question.
 
2010-02-19 2:46:12 PM  
hubiestubert
It's not a question of just UAVs and other tech, it's an essential question of how to strike an opponent that has significant field advantage?

No. It's nothing to do with advantage, any more than fairness.
 
2010-02-19 2:53:08 PM  

mrexcess: hubiestubert
It's not a question of just UAVs and other tech, it's an essential question of how to strike an opponent that has significant field advantage?

No. It's nothing to do with advantage, any more than fairness.


How do you strike a foe that you cannot reach? It comes then down to target selection. It has everything to do with field advantage. UAVs and remotes, and tanks and choppers, and reinforced positions are parts of the equation. It comes down to then target acquisition, and how to strike targets for effect.
 
2010-02-19 3:10:14 PM  
Bombo arigato, Mr. Roboto.
 
2010-02-19 3:18:33 PM  
Bravely bold Sir Robot rode forth from Camelot.
He was not afraid to die, O brave Sir Robot!
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways,
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robot!

He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp,
Or to have his eyes gouged out, and his elbows broken;
To have his kneecaps split, and his body burned away;
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Robot!

His head smashed in and his heart cut out
And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged
And his nostrils raped and his bottom burned off
And his pen--

/sorry
 
2010-02-19 3:34:21 PM  
hubiestubert
How do you strike a foe that you cannot reach?

You develop new ways to reach them.
 
2010-02-19 4:20:39 PM  
southern.comView Full Size
 
2010-02-19 4:22:11 PM  
If citizens can control them through XBox Live, I'll support a robot army.
 
2010-02-19 4:22:55 PM  
I want a robot, skeleton army.
 
2010-02-19 4:23:09 PM  
Best headline of the year already!
 
2010-02-19 4:23:34 PM  
TFA appears to be 10% insightful, 70% retarded, and 20% FUD.
 
2010-02-19 4:23:35 PM  
What would stop someone, after his robot army is obliterated, to simply call up his human army and squash the side that had the better robot army?
 
2010-02-19 4:26:52 PM  
Well, as long as there's insurance available in the event of a mishap...
 
2010-02-19 4:27:32 PM  
Robots are easy to defeat. You just find their kill limit and throw wave after wave of men at them.
 
2010-02-19 4:27:44 PM  
eggshell-robotics.comView Full Size


knows a thing or two about Robot Armies.

/Hot hot hot
 
2010-02-19 4:27:44 PM  
mrexcess is not

hubiestubert is too!

mrexcess is not

hubiestubert is too!

mrexcess is not

hubiestubert is too!

mrexcess is not

hubiestubert is too!

THIS^^^^^
 
2010-02-19 4:29:11 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: If citizens can control them through XBox Live, I'll support a robot army.


Now that would be cool.
 
rp.
2010-02-19 4:30:00 PM  
There was a Phillip K. Dick story like this, the robot armies pretended to keep fighting while the people hid underground.
 
2010-02-19 4:30:44 PM  

kendelrio: mrexcess is not

hubiestubert is too!

mrexcess is not

hubiestubert is too!

mrexcess is not

hubiestubert is too!

mrexcess is not

hubiestubert is too!

THIS^^^^^


Yup. Just meet up for coffee, blowjobs, and spirited debate.
 
2010-02-19 4:31:33 PM  
Can someone hybrid robots and zombies? A cyborg zombie army would rule!
 
2010-02-19 4:31:39 PM  
fembots? yes.

tracked platforms armed with smart bombs, heavy machine guns, wire-guided missiles, scythes and flails? no.

/unless they have real nice hooters
 
2010-02-19 4:32:48 PM  
On a totally related note, Caprica is on tonight @ 9PM EST on Syfy...
 
2010-02-19 4:33:17 PM  
Might robots be "hacked" by the enemy and turned against friendly troops? If robots contained a remote "kill switch"

right like that'd ever happen. kill switch schmill switch
 
2010-02-19 4:33:27 PM  
farm3.static.flickr.comView Full Size


Hey baby wanna kill all Humans?
 
2010-02-19 4:35:39 PM  
Craig Ferguson is way ahead of you. (new window)
 
2010-02-19 4:36:13 PM  

labman: Everyone knows that a clone army is superior to a robot army, anyway.


Whatever. Clone army soldiers can't shoot for shiat.
 
2010-02-19 4:36:29 PM  
Sending a robot in to do the killing for you, while you sit back in the safety of your bunker with a super big gulp is the height of bravery.
 
2010-02-19 4:36:56 PM  
Of course you understand they will rebel and we will have to fight them, leading to them nukin the planet. On the plus side


l.yimg.comView Full Size

 
2010-02-19 4:37:05 PM  
I, for one, welcome our new Robot Army overlords.
 
2010-02-19 4:38:52 PM  

wpmulligan: I want a robot, skeleton army.


Talk to Craig (pops)
 
2010-02-19 4:39:56 PM  
Autonomous robot soldiers worked out so well before...

rarebirdfinds.typepad.comView Full Size
 
2010-02-19 4:39:57 PM  
*shakes appreciative fist at Vogon*
 
2010-02-19 4:40:16 PM  

mrexcess: hubiestubert
How do you strike a foe that you cannot reach?

You develop new ways to reach them.


Oooh! Oooh! I know! You nuke them. Is that the answer you were looking for?
 
2010-02-19 4:40:43 PM  

MasterThief: On a totally related note, Caprica is on tonight @ 9PM EST on Syfy...


... which so far is kind of sucking pretty hard.
 
Displayed 50 of 159 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.