First Armed Robots on Patrol in Iraq

[Guard Dog]

I, for one, plan on purchasing 50 of these for my robot army. They will be remote controlled by my penguin lieutenants.

 

And so, we have heard the first steps taken towards world domination. A penguin controlled robot army with an evil genius behind it all.

Edited August 6, 2007 by Guard Dog

[Azarkon]

These are double-edged SWORDS, if you know what I mean...

[Walsingham]

These are double-edged SWORDS, if you know what I mean...

 

Set point to Azarkon.

 

I still prefer the American system to the current British fashion of simply working out acronyms. Take FRES, for example, the new family of armoured vehicles. In the old days we'd have called them 'Comets', 'Centurions', 'Devastators', or 'Black Princes'. Now it's Future Rapid Effects System. *Looks disgusted on an atomic level.*

 

Bloody war by paste-brained civil servants.

[Tale]

Whatever happend to intials? Why do we have to have stupid acronyms? If they made the FBI with this attitude towards naming they'd probably end up calling it something stupid like FOPS, Federal Organized Police Service. Just name the dang robot RTFG, Robot That Fires Gun.

[Hiro Protagonist]

"special weapons observation remote reconnaissance direct action system (SWORDS)"

 

It took a committee of twelve people eight months to think of that, and all the time getting paid a lot more than me. :sad:

 

 

No, they watched a movie called Screamers with Autonomous Mobile Swords in them. Now in a few years times, the swords will come back to hunt us down as screamers.

[Gorth]

Just name the dang robot RTFG, Robot That Fires Gun. No. 5

Fixed

[Musopticon?]

I keep missing that reference, where is it from?

[Tale]

I keep missing that reference, where is it from?

Johnny 5 is alive!

Edited August 8, 2007 by Tale

[Colrom]

It is scary that someone with enough wealth could have an army of robot soldiers and overlords manufactured and use them take and maintain control.

 

This scenario has been described in several science finction stories.

 

But now the fiction is about to become reality.

 

Yikes.

 

Certainly the technology is coming along nicely.

 

There may be an weakness in this scheme but I don't know what it is.

 

My guess is that the weakness is that when the technology has the judgement to really be effective it will also be smart enough to think for itself in other ways and some ugly supprises may be experienced by all.

 

The first serious try might be done in conjunction with a shock and awe bio attack.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Colrom

[Walsingham]

Colrom has a point. Robot armies would greatly enhance the risk of a combatant using bio-weapons, since the attacking army wouldn't have to worry about friendly fire.

 

I hate to say it but I think we need to look seriously at this issue worldwide. I know from informal contacts that the British Army is fundamentally opposed to the use of independent robots, but the MoD may have other ideas based on cost. As one officer told me. "it's terribly tempting. I can send a squad of soldiers over a hill, or a squad of robots. If I send the robots I know I won't have to visit any parents and wives when I get home."

[Azarkon]

But the enemy likely will, which is the entire problem - regardless of what pundits think, war will never be reduced to simulated battles between robots, because the underlying causes of war are never trivial - it is, as internet goers would say, serious business.

 

Perhaps it's the democrat in me, but it's always been somewhat heartening to think that if enough people were willing to die for a noble cause, they'd be able to achieve it. Unfortunately, the possibility of that "noble cause" being religious and fanatical in nature has produced a modernity that increasingly looks to systematic dominance as the preferred solution. A day might come, then, when even the sacrifice of all its disciples would not allow a cause to survive. That day is frightening to imagine, because who - then - will be able to resist oppression?

Edited August 8, 2007 by Azarkon

[Walsingham]

But the enemy likely will, which is the entire problem - regardless of what pundits think, war will never be reduced to simulated battles between robots, because the underlying causes of war are never trivial - it is, as internet goers would say, serious business.

 

Perhaps it's the democrat in me, but it's always been somewhat heartening to think that if enough people were willing to die for a noble cause, they'd be able to achieve it. Unfortunately, the possibility of that "noble cause" being religious and fanatical in nature has produced a modernity that increasingly looks to systematic dominance as the preferred solution. A day might come, then, when even the sacrifice of all its disciples would not allow a cause to survive. That day is frightening to imagine, because who - then - will be able to resist oppression?

 

I don't understand your first paragraph. But I agree with the second.

[Azarkon]

Sorry, let me rewrite that:

 

"But the enemy commander likely will have to visit parents and wives when they get home, because war will never be reduced to simulated battles between robots: the underlying causes of war are far too serious for that. I say this because some analysts believe that robot armies would, like nuclear weapons, bring an end to human warfare - because who'd ever throw their lives away fighting robots? Me, I think that's BS - not only because it's unlikely to be true, but also because it trivializes war, which is really the object of this entire project - to make war so innocuous that it can be waged painlessly. But it doesn't do that, because if a war was so trivial for both sides that they're willing to let robots decide it for them, it wouldn't have been waged under current circumstances. And if a war was serious enough that people would be willing to die for it, as is the current state of wars, then nobody would let robots decide it for them, either. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that robot armies would change nothing but the weight of technological superiority - and that's a dangerous thing should the one with the technology ever become the 'bad guy' in a war."

[Guard Dog]

Sorry, let me rewrite that:

 

"But the enemy commander likely will have to visit parents and wives when they get home, because war will never be reduced to simulated battles between robots: the underlying causes of war are far too serious for that. I say this because some analysts believe that robot armies would, like nuclear weapons, bring an end to human warfare - because who'd ever throw their lives away fighting robots? Me, I think that's BS - not only because it's unlikely to be true, but also because it trivializes war, which is really the object of this entire project - to make war so innocuous that it can be waged painlessly. But it doesn't do that, because if a war was so trivial for both sides that they're willing to let robots decide it for them, it wouldn't have been waged under current circumstances. And if a war was serious enough that people would be willing to die for it, as is the current state of wars, then nobody would let robots decide it for them, either. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that robot armies would change nothing but the weight of technological superiority - and that's a dangerous thing should the one with the technology ever become the 'bad guy' in a war."

 

You have a really good point there. In a hypothetical future war the opening battles might be fought by robots but in the end it will be human against human. An entire nation will not surrender and submit to an invader just because the enemy's robots beat their robots.

[Walsingham]

*Impressed*

[Gfted1]

Colrom has a point. Robot armies would greatly enhance the risk of a combatant using bio-weapons, since the attacking army wouldn't have to worry about friendly fire.

 

They wouldnt have to worry about bio-weapons either.

[Walsingham]

Colrom has a point. Robot armies would greatly enhance the risk of a combatant using bio-weapons, since the attacking army wouldn't have to worry about friendly fire.

 

They wouldnt have to worry about bio-weapons either.

 

True up to a point. The enemy's biological deterrent woudl be reduced. But the enemy notionally would still be able to attack civilian centres.

[Walsingham]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6939549.stm

 

Pictures of the robots. Gave me the willies.