Did anybody else start a thread on this? I couldn't find one. The Army is field testing Robot Snipers in Iraq, starting in March or April. They are not autonomous machines, but allow soldiers to remote-control fire from distant locations--quite a force multiplier if they are deployed in sufficient numbers.
As the article says, "the SWORDS, short for Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems, will be the first armed robotic vehicles to see combat." Land based, anyway. Hellfire missles were put on RPVs in recent years.
I am a little surprised by this, I hadn't expected real combat robots so soon. Although the RPVs have been quite succesful in Iraq and Afghanistan. I chopped up the article some in my quotes.
quote: The rain is turning to snow on a blustery January morning, and all the men gathered in a parking lot here surely would prefer to be inside. But the weather couldn't matter less to the robotic sharpshooter they are here to watch as it splashes through puddles, the barrel of its machine gun pointing the way like Pinocchio's nose. The Army is preparing to send 18 of these remote-controlled robotic warriors to fight in Iraq beginning in March or April.
Military officials like to compare the roughly three-foot-high robots favorably to human soldiers: They don't need to be trained, fed or clothed. They can be boxed up and warehoused between wars. They never complain. And there are no letters to write home if they meet their demise in battle.
But officials are quick to point out that these are not the autonomous killer robots of science fiction. A SWORDS robot shoots only when its human operator presses a button after identifying a target on video shot by the robot's cameras.
As one Marine fresh out of boot camp told Quinn upon seeing the robot: "This is my invisibility cloak."
"For the foreseeable future, there always will be a person in the loop who makes the decision on friend or foe. That's a hard problem to determine autonomously," said Lowrie.
These are very tough robots:
quote:Quinn said it was a "bootstrap development process" to convert a Talon robot, which has been in military service since 2000, from its main mission - defusing roadside bombs in Iraq- into the gunslinging SWORDS. The Talon had already proven itself to be pretty rugged. One was blown off the roof of a Humvee and into a nearby river by a roadside bomb in Iraq. Soldiers simply opened its shrapnel-pocked control unit and drove the robot out of the river.
It has devasting firepower:
quote:The $200,000, armed version will carry standard-issue Squad Automatic Weapons, either the M249, which fires 5.56-millimeter rounds at a rate of 750 per minute, or the M240, which can fire about 700 to 1,000 7.62-millimeter rounds per minute. The SWORDS can fire about 300 rounds using the M240 and about 350 rounds using the M249 before needing to reload. Chances are good the SWORDS will get even more deadly in the future. It has been tested with the larger .50 caliber machine guns as well as rocket and grenade launchers - even an experimental weapon made by the Australian company Metal Storm LLC that packs multiple rocket rounds into a single barrel, allowing for much more rapid firing.
And it's very accurate:
quote: A typical soldier who could hit a target the size of a basketball from 300 meters away could hit a target the size of a nickel with the SWORDS, according Quinn.
The better accuracy stems largely from the fact that its gun is mounted on a stable platform and fired electronically, rather than by a soldier's hands, according to Staff Sgt. Santiago Tordillos of the EOD Technology Directorate at Picatinny. Gone are such issues as trigger recoil, anticipation problems, and pausing the breathing cycle while aiming a weapon. "It eliminates the majority of shooting errors you would have," said Tordillos.
"We've fired 70 shots at Picatinny and we were 70 for 70 hitting the bull's-eye," said Sebasto, boasting of the arsenal's success with a Vietnam-era rocket launcher mounted on a SWORDS.
On the horizon: MULES (Multifunction Utility/Logistics Equipment Vehicles) and Robotic Infantry Support System: (RISS):www.globalsecurity.org.
So the 21st century will have robot warriors of one kind or another. Scary but inevitable I guess. Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote: Scary but inevitable I guess
That's probably the best way to sum it up. We live in a society that really doesn't accept human death as a part of war.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I did post a link, Morbo, but I can't remember the title!
This whole concept really scares me.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
We have no fate but what we make.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Heh, for some reason, when I read the title I thought, "Oh cool. They put mechanical arms on robots".
Posted by Peter (Member # 4373) on :
hmmmmmmmmm................'I, Robot' anyone??
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
So now putting robots instead of humans, while maintaing human discretion, in harms way is a bad thing?
I'm lost now I really am. You don't want people to get killed, but you'd rather have people die rather than robots get blown up? Is this a liberal thing or some crazy people thing?
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
They are going to weld a few Claymores (the non-sword variety) on to this thing with a big red button on the control panel for when someone hostile tries to take the gun or ammo from a disabled robot, yes?
Feyd Baron, DoC
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Counter-Strike nerds all over the world have just wet themselves at the news.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote: Is this a liberal thing?
Oh, it definitely is.
Liberals prefer everything over humans.
Animals, plants, water, air and now robots.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Can PETR be far behind?
Will the next war in the middle east be greeted with protesters chanting "No Oil for Oil?"
[ February 15, 2005, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Ehh no, I mean is it a liberal thing to be afraid of robots replacing humans in the field.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Oh well, when you talked about people prefering other people dying instead of robots blowing up and asked wether it was a Liberal thing I just assumed...
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Stormy, that's one of my favorite movies. Too bad Cameron has gone downhill since then.
Getting lost is what happens when you jump to conclusions, Nfl.
quote: but you'd rather have people die rather than robots get blown up?
Did I or anyone else say or imply they'd rather have people die than robots? That's absurd. This robot seems like a plus for the US military, assuming it works well. I don't see this particular application as bad or scary, but it's only the first step on the road to autonomous robot armies, which has many nightmare scenarios. Science fiction is replete with them.
[ February 15, 2005, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
No guys, I don't those people really read the article. Its not a liberal thing. They were thinking the robots were autonomous.
So lets just make it clear:
These are remote controlled robots, NOT AI!! There is a human with a computer screen behind the controls.
And frankly that rocks. And I'm about as liberal as it gets. Then again, I'm also a counter strike nerd I want one
Edit: At the end of the article they said that there will always be a human behind the controls for the forseeable future making the friend or foe decision, becuase its impossible to develope software to make that decision really.
[ February 15, 2005, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Morbo:
quote: Scary but inevitable I guess.
Elizabeth:
quote: This whole concept really scares me.
Generally people are scared of things they don't like. I hardly think I'm jumping to conclusions given these statements.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Rapid technological change is often scary, even when it doesn't involve robots armed with rocket launchers.
I posted the article, of course I know the robots are not autonomous . The future implications are still daunting, for most people who think about them.
[ February 15, 2005, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Rapid technological change is often scary, even when it doesn't involve robots armed with rocket launchers.
If only they had a quote of the day on this forum. Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
In the end how are these robots different from TOW missiles or any other remotely controlled weapons? How are they even different than an F-16? Why do we care that in one case a pilot is in the aircraft and in another case the pilot could be sitting anywhere from his living room to a remote military base in Siberia? What exactly is the significant difference that can be construed as "scary?"
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
You're right: robot snipers are actually warm and cuddly. I predict it will be the toy to get come Xmas.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
And an Army Ranger makes the perfect companion for those lonely nights when mommy and daddy are away.
But wait, toy stores sell both GI Joes and fighting robots!
So maybe you should answer the question instead of sarcastically avoiding it!
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Hmmm, good comeback, nfl. There are killer robot toys. But plenty of parents won't let there kids play with them.
Government use of deadly robots has frightening implications. If you don't get that I cannot explain it to you.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Sometimes those robots might need someone to talk to.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Will you answer the question instead of making false unrelated claims? First, like fighting robots parents often won't let their children buy GI Joes either. Its violence that concerns parents, not the fact that they're robots. Second, you still haven't answered how the government use of remotely controlled robots however deadly they are is any more dangerous than the use of an F-16 or an M-1 tank. Implying that I'd be stupid and shortsighted not to grasp your fictional implications is just a poor way to avoid answering the question.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I don't see anything particularly scary about robot soldiers. The only danger is that we might become too quick to enter wars if the cost in human life on our side becomes very low. But people have always been pretty aggressive at starting wars anyway. Probably better to lessen the harm of warfare insofar as we can.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
As was said, these are TELEOPERATED machines, not real "robots." They are not programmed to respond to their environment.
But they are programmed to respond to a well-formatted data stream--the input control channel for the remote teleoperator.
Unplug that cable, and plug in the cable for the SkyNet computer, and there you go!
But how is this different from a "smart bomb", or the strap-on smart-bomb conversion units the Air Force now has? Not that much.
The UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) are polited via radio-control from great distances, I imagine that we no longer need line-of-sight, and that you can bounce commands (so to speak) off of the military communications satellites to control these things from wherever the propagation-delays don't screw up your control schemes. Plus, we've added weapons to them.
Boeing and Lockheed are in competition for UAV bombers, with UAV fighters coming shortly after that. One of the programming goals for ALL these vehicles is some level of autonomy, so that temporary interruptions do not cause you to lose your asset, and so that higher and higher levels of mission requirements can be handled by the on-board computers (in part, with regard to that time-lag issue). Again--what do you think a smart bomb or a cruise missile is?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: But how is this different from a "smart bomb", or the strap-on smart-bomb conversion units the Air Force now has? Not that much.
ssywak
And nfl asked similar questions:
quote:In the end how are these robots different from TOW missiles or any other remotely controlled weapons? How are they even different than an F-16? Why do we care that in one case a pilot is in the aircraft and in another case the pilot could be sitting anywhere from his living room to a remote military base in Siberia? What exactly is the significant difference that can be construed as "scary?"
The difference is a F-16 or TOW missle can't kick down your door and kill you. Or rob, kidnap or commit other crimes. Armed robots have the potential to do that, whether autonomous or teleoperated. They bring automated violence down to the retail or street level.
Also, while they may be a boon to US forces now and in the near future, further down the road armed robots can proliferate, eventually being used by smaller governments, or even individuals, corporations, organized crime or terrorist groups.
Just like nuclear weapons gave us an irresistable weapon to end WWII, but now years later we are struggling to keep rouge nations and terrorists from acquiring them.
[ February 20, 2005, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: The difference is a F-16 or TOW missle can't kick down your door and kill you. Or rob, kidnap or commit other crimes. Armed robots have the potential to do that, whether autonomous or teleoperated. They bring automated violence down to the retail or street level.
Why does it matter if the kidnapper is a human or a machine controlled by a human? The only difference is that the military isn't putting soldiers in harms way. Its not as if gangs getting hold of this technology are going to be more likely to commit crimes, they'll commit crimes either way. The only difference I see is that a robot is being put in harms way instead of a human.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Using a robot to commit a crime would make solving and prosecuting that crime that much harder, if not impossible.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: The only difference I see is that a robot is being put in harms way instead of a human.
Which is exactly why unethical people would love to get their hands on robots capable of violence--because the robots could act as effective proxies.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Anyone who could afford one of these robots wouldn't be putting themselves in harm's way either, they'd put some lackey there. I'm sure at the point that sort of regular people can get their hands on robots we'll also be able to track where the robots come from, they can't just pop out of holes in the ground. Regardless I don't even think its realistic that robots will be out of the hands of the military before we'll have gone through much more important societal changes making your points moot.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Military weapons have often gone missing and fallen into the wrong hands.
Have you ever changed your mind about anything, nfl? You latch onto an opinion like a bulldog.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I forgot that you refuse to acknowledge that robots aren't any less dangerous soldiers with M-16s.
Have military weapons fallen into the wrong hands? Yes. But M-1 Tanks and F-22s don't disappear too often and when similar weapons do they're usually at the hands of powerful intelligence agencies whose governments are likely to develop the same technology anyways. The key is to stay ahead of your enemies, not to stand stagnant while they improve their technology.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Like I said back in the 15Nov04 thread Terminator Iraq : The Rise of the Machines. So all you armchair warriors can get ready for a new variation on Internet hunting. Yep, coming soon to a PC near you, a real war paying for itself via subscribers ala Everquest.
[ February 20, 2005, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Just so everyone knows, we already load up those remote-control flying spy drones with missiles. We've actually had that ability for about 2-3 years now. The only major change here is that we haven't been using robots in the field with the Army yet. SWAT teams and Police forces in some cities in the US have had robots armed with a shotgun for years now. It's actually quite logical for us to start using these things in combat. Frankly, I'm incredibly confused about why we HAVEN'T been doing it since the start of this thing.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: Military weapons have often gone missing and fallen into the wrong hands.
Wow. Great question. I think it would be wiser, however, to realize that these things were probably designed with that scenario in mind. Most of our higher technology equipment is designed with methods to keep people from getting ahold of it.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: Using a robot to commit a crime would make solving and prosecuting that crime that much harder, if not impossible.
Wrong. The law would consider a robot a deadly weapon in this type of case. Plus, tracing a direct remote connection like the one required to control these particular robots is not a difficult thing with the right equipment. Furthermore, the absolute COST of using something like this in a crime makes it unlikely to happen. To all those scared of the Science fiction stories, think about it. How many science fiction stories can you come up with (Aside from Jules Vern and many other extremely early Science Fiction writers) that have actually happened? If anything, the bad things that happen in Science Fiction stories do more to PREVENT what happens in them than anything else.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
I agree that the use of robots in combat is a logical step. However, I tend to think that it isnt a step in the right direction.
I think it is another step in the direction of dehumanizing killing. A soldier who is sitting in a tank or command center, watching his enemy on a screen, and deciding when and who to shoot from a distance, can be completely seperate from the lives he is about to take. How is that a good thing? Just because it minimizes the loss of OUR soldiers, doesnt mean it will minimize the loss of life. I hate to say it, but it's like telling soldiers that war is a video game. Those people you are looking at through a screen dont really exist to you, because you cant feel them. I dont know. I cant really explain it, but I really think that this is a pretty stupid thing for us to accept.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Foundling, what you're describing isn't a step that was taken by these new robots because its already been noted how a fighter pilot feels less about killing than a sniper who has to look his target in the eye. The goal of warfare should not be to make things easier on enemy combatants, whether you're worried that we will engage in unjust war is a seperate question.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Let's think about this, foundling, this concern you've just raised is actually another BENEFIT of having these robots. Have you ever heard of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? Dehumanizing the enemy and making a kill seem like it's not really happening is actually a good thing for our soldiers. The only argument that you're making is that we shouldn't have wars. Well, you're right, we shouldn't. But war happens whether we like it or not. People are going to die because of it.
Of course, what you mention is a bad thing if a controler suddenly starts thinking it is just a game and starts taking out civilians who pose no threat to anyone. That's the only real issue you can have with a remote controled robot, and it's something that would require careful training and protocols to prevent, and since these robots can be made to be fairly difficult to destroy, I'd imagine a "fire only when fired upon" protocol would be used in all situations.
We're fighting people who want to kill us so badly they're willing to kill themselves to do it. That isn't defense of anything. That's pure hatred. Why should our fighting men have to face that kind of hatred when it's possible for someone sitting at a computer monitor 10 miles away to clear out a room of terrorists who are just waiting to kill an American?
So if war is unpreventable, and if people are going to die, I'd rather not have MY side of the war lose as many men to bullets, and I would MUCH rather lose less to the psychological strain that results in seeing countless deaths. So does having a robot do your killing for you dehumanize the act of killing? Probably. But I think it's better for the ACT to be dehumanized than those who must act.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: We're fighting people who want to kill us so badly they're willing to kill themselves to do it. That isn't defense of anything. That's pure hatred.
Hm. Oddly, throughout history, this has in fact been considered a truly heroic form of defense. From the Japanese Kamakaze to the famous defense of Sparta, I'd hardly make the argument that the only reason to kill yourself in order to kill someone else is "pure hatred."
[ February 20, 2005, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:From the Japanese Kamakaze to the famouse defense of Sparta,
Do you mean the defense of Thermopylae by the Spartans?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Tom, the Kamikazes aren't considered heroic, they're considered to stupid and crazy. At least in our culture, its considered a mark of fanaticism to throw your life away for a cause and make yourself a martyr.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
"Foundling, what you're describing isn't a step that was taken by these new robots because its already been noted how a fighter pilot feels less about killing than a sniper who has to look his target in the eye"
I didnt say it was the first step, nfl, I said it was another step. Many have already been taken. I dont agree with most of them.
"The goal of warfare should not be to make things easier on enemy combatants," Thats true. But, the goal of war also shouldnt be to make killing easier on our soldiers. It should be HARD to take a life. It should be squeamish, and dirty, and it should feel wrong every time you do it. You might still do it because you know you have to, but it should personally affect you every time. It shouldnt be sterile, easy, or comfortable.
"whether you're worried that we will engage in unjust war is a seperate question."
Worrying about us engaging in unjust war is a bit like worrying about the barn door being open after the horses already got out. We have engaged in unjust war in the past, we do so now, and I'm sure we will continue to do so into the future. I'm much more worried about how we make it so easy to accept that war is a neccessity. I'm worried about how we distance ourselves from the loss of life our soldiers are experiencing and incuring by allowing our media to feed us milk pap stories, with only pretty pictures, none of the icky ones. I'm worried that we allow technology to outdistance our sense of morality, of right and wrong, because we are told it's neccessary for the good of the nation. I'm worried that we can so easily dismiss the pain of other nations, other people, because they arent in our face, screaming in agony. I worry about alot of things.
But I cant really say I worry about unjust war.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
You seem to have a real desire to make life as difficult as possible for the people who keep us safe. Before you raise your voice in furious indignation, I do believe you have altruistic reasons. However, those reasons are seriously misguided.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
"Tom, the Kamikazes aren't considered heroic, they're considered to stupid and crazy. At least in our culture, its considered a mark of fanaticism to throw your life away for a cause and make yourself a martyr."
Good dear sweet lord. This is funny. So, soldiers arent heros, but fanatics. Is that what you think, nfl? And Tom isnt just talking about OUR culture, nfl. Contrary to popular opinion, OUR culture is not the be all end all of history. Countless war-like cultures throughout the ages considered dieing for your country to be the ultimate sacrifice.
edit: You know, in light of my post below, this comes across as pretty damn snotty. I'm not going to change it, but I'll acknowledge its inherent snottiness.
[ February 20, 2005, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: foundling ]
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
You know, nfl, I have never agreed with anything you have said. Except for that one memorable occasion when you said "the". I agreed with that. But otherwise, I find your comments to be the exact polar opposite of everything I believe in.
So, I shouldnt be surprised when you think of my reasoning as misguided, cause I think your reasoning is seriously warped. I guess I should just accept that fact, and ignore your condescending, ignorant comments. I'll try. But I cant promise anything.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
quote:The difference is a F-16 or TOW missle can't kick down your door and kill you. Or rob, kidnap or commit other crimes
Morbo, do you know the level of robotics we're at these days?
"Rob, kidnap, or commit other crimes"
Since the android project I was on over 15 years ago really hasn't progressed much beyond the prototype stage, you can wait another decade or two before you really have to worry.
They cost a few million apiece--they're not going to be replacing the infantry any time soon.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: So, I shouldnt be surprised when you think of my reasoning as misguided, cause I think your reasoning is seriously warped. I guess I should just accept that fact, and ignore your condescending, ignorant comments. I'll try. But I cant promise anything.
Not only is it snotty, it's hypocritical. Mostly because this comment is, in itself, condescending and ignorant. But hey, to each his/her own.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Now, I'll give you snotty, but I really cant see the hypocritical. I mean, it's not like I said none of my posts were going to be condescending, did I? No. So, while it was a tad snarky, it was nothing but truth. NFL is more than welcome to just try and ignore anything he finds offensive about my posts. So are you, for that matter. And, if you'll notice, he did start the snottyness. Implying that I was about to go off on an emotional tangent indeed. So Boris, while defending your buddy is an admirable quality, I would stop trying to save him from snarkyness he so richly deserves. It'll only make it harder for him in the long run.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Foundling, maybe you haven't noticed this, but most of our soldiers come back from war alive and unharmed (at least physically). So being a soldier isn't about throwing your life away. There is a historically recognized distinct difference between putting your life in harm's way and flying a plane with you in it into a ship. Tom certainly seemed to be writing within the context of our cultural historical perspective otherwise I don't know how he can make the claim, "Throughout history, this has been considered..."
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
And if someone didn't get outraged and indignant when someone accused them of willing pain and suffering on our soldiers I would find something very wrong with that.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: Now, I'll give you snotty, but I really cant see the hypocritical. I mean, it's not like I said none of my posts were going to be condescending, did I? No. So, while it was a tad snarky, it was nothing but truth. NFL is more than welcome to just try and ignore anything he finds offensive about my posts. So are you, for that matter. And, if you'll notice, he did start the snottyness. Implying that I was about to go off on an emotional tangent indeed. So Boris, while defending your buddy is an admirable quality, I would stop trying to save him from snarkyness he so richly deserves. It'll only make it harder for him in the long run.
I don't think anyone deserves Snarkyness. And I really don't even KNOW NFL. I just find it very wrong to belittle someone's comments by saying they are ignorant or condescending. I honestly don't see the condescending tone in his posts. My only argument with what you just said is that you could have easilly been very civil about it but you chose not to be. This is the point when discussion turns to argument. I think the both of you are getting a little too serious about this.
To put my response in perspective, you honestly came off as saying, "You know, nfl, I'm better than you and you're an ignorant fool because you don't believe the same things I do." That's foolishness in itself.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Boris, I find it very wrong to belittle someones posts by telling them their ideas are misguided.
"You seem to have a real desire to make life as difficult as possible for the people who keep us safe. Before you raise your voice in furious indignation, I do believe you have altruistic reasons. However, those reasons are seriously misguided."
I also find it immensely annoying, as I'm sure most people do. Now, nfl could have said "I BELIEVE your reasons are seriosly misguided", making it a personal opinion, which he has every right to. However, he made it a statement of fact. Misguided means : led or prompted by wrong or inappropriate motives or ideals So, he was saying that my strongly held ideals about the imperfections of warfare are either wrong, or innappropriate. And, he said this in as snotty a manner as possible. So, I have no problem responding to snottiness with snottiness. It's better than telling someone to go to hell. It might not be conducive to maintaining a civil conversation, but then, I never said I wanted to have a civil conversation with someone who is so consistently condescending to others. And, if you'll notice, nfl has stuck to the original point of the thread, instead of responding to my snarkiness, which is more than I can say for myself. Or you, for that matter, Boris.
I dont see how I came off calling nfl an ignorant fool. I thought it was the other way around. You know, the whole misguided thing and all. Just because I am open about how much I have disagreed with nfl, doesnt mean I expect him or her to have the same ideas as I do. I give respect to those who are willing to do the same. To those who arent, I give sarcasm and snarkiness. Like I said, it's better than getting angry and swearing at them:).
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Seriously, you should know that almost everything is an opinion whether its stated or not as such. Even going by definition, facts can be disputed which means that people, especially when it comes to politics, have different opinions on which facts are correct or relevant. In other words, if you were to tell me that you didn't believe that my views were misguided, I would call you a liar since you pretty have said as much already.
In conclusion, you're making a big issue out of an omitted word which I think was implied.
For the record I said in my post that I believed your motives were just, but that your beliefs on what to do about those motives were misguided. So considering that another, more appropriate definition of misguided would be "Based or acting on error; misled: well-intentioned but misguided efforts; misguided do-gooders."- American Heritage Dictionary
[ February 20, 2005, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: To those who arent, I give sarcasm and snarkiness.
I always thought it more of an idealistic coup to respond to sarcasm with sincere kindness.
Anyway, in response, his words, "It seems like" are a good bit of a qualifier that you completely ignored. He wasn't saying that you hold this opinion, but rather that your wording is making it seem, to him, that you DO have that opinion. That isn't in any way an attempt to belittle you. He's stating his opinion of what you said. Now, you did, however, very specifically say that his point of view was "Warped" and that his comments were ignorant. This is a bit of an over-reaction, I think. Perhaps you should have gotten him to understand your comments before condemning his as ignorant and condescending.
I fully understand your view that killing from 10 miles away is de-humanizing. But showing people the awful reality of death and war isn't going to keep it from happening. When the machine gun was invented, the inventor hoped to end war by making it so bloody that no one would want to do it. It didn't work like that. There is no way to prevent people from going to war. If it isn't our country, it's any number of other countries. And really, the root of your argument is that war shouldn't happen. I WISH things could be that easy. But they aren't, and any way we can keep our soldiers from dying in a war is a good thing in my book. Frankly, I didn't hear any arguments like this when the Police started using robots to prevent loss of life. Why do you argue that it is bad for our military to use it?
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Hmm... Thanks, nfl. That puts a whole new spin on what you were really saying. And, for the record, you didnt say just, you said altruistic, which could be seen as just, or it could be seen as hyperemotional misguided crap. Just for the record.
More than anything else, I think this issue comes down to a very basic difference in ideaolgies. And, like I said before, nfl, our ideas are very disimilar. That doesnt mean I think you are automatically wrong, it simply means that much of what I say to you will be seen as pointless drivel, and vice versa. It's like Charlie Browns parents talking to each other, with only certain words coming through. Whuwhuwhuwhu....liberal...whuwhuwhuwhu....budget cuts....
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Also for the record, unless I'm being sarcastic which will be fairly obvious and usually illustrated with a " ," I use "altruistic" when describing the actions of our soldiers, of the passengers that crashed the plane in Pennsylvania, and in reference to generally positively motivated actions.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: Regardless I don't even think its realistic that robots will be out of the hands of the military before we'll have gone through much more important societal changes making your points moot.
newfoundlogic, this is weasling and you know it. We aren't talking about other societal changes or dangers in this thread, not nuclear winter or global warming or my receding hairline (tragic though that is ) We are talking about the potential for the misuse of robots, which you keep dismissing out of hand, but is a real potential.
Also, soldiers in any army, including ours, are human (at least until March), with human frailties. They can be bribed, and they can snap.
I remember at least one incident where a M-1 Abrams stolen by a soldier IIRC [edit:just saw another webpage that said he was a retired soldier] rampaged around on the highway in California.
quote:Dr. Adler, in his book, documented two cases of soldiers running amok with a tank in Germany in the 1980's after a widely publicized tank attack there. Army security was increased, and "tank amok never happened in Germany again," Dr. Adler said.
I wanted to cut that last sentence out, but let's be fair--it is rare, as you pointed out on page one, but military weapons, even tanks and bombers, are stolen and misused by US soldiers. Dr. Adler, a psychiatrist who wrote a book on multiple murders, even had a term for it: tank amok. I don't have a link, but didn't a pilot go missing with an armed A-8 or A-10 in Colorado a few years ago? I think the verdict was he commiteed suicide with the bomber, but I could be wrong.
quote: They [multiple or rampage killers] are not drunk or high on drugs. They are not racists or Satanists, or addicted to violent video games, movies or music.
Most are white men, but a surprising number are women, Asians and blacks. Many have college degrees, but most are unemployed.Many are military veterans.
[ February 21, 2005, 01:30 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Robots will also be an excellent tool to clean the streets of the riff-raff in crowd-control operations, in the US or else where.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: Morbo, do you know the level of robotics we're at these days?
No, but I could ballpark it.
I'm worried about the potential for misuse of deadly robots, not this early prototype, as I have said more than once in the thread.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Morbo, what you're missing is that all these human frailties that could lead to the "disappearance" of some of those robots all apply to the very soldiers in the field right now. They are just as capable of making a mistake and killing a civilian as they are of using a robot to kill a civilian.
As has already been pointed out, I think a reason for those high number of killers being military men is PTSD which could be greatly alleviated by removing them from the scene of battle.
What it comes down to, is that my ultimate priority is to make the military more effective and reduce the casualties of our soldiers.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: What it comes down to, is that my ultimate priority is to make the military more effective and reduce the casualties of our soldiers.
The same logic justified the developement of nuclear weapons, and look at where we are now vis-a-vis nuclear proliferation to rogue states or terrorist groups. [edit to add: And killer robots are much, much simpler tech than nuclear bombs. High schoolers compete with robots, albeit w/out rocket launchers.]
That's a good point that these robots could potentially reduce PTSD among vets, I hadn't thought of that.
I brought up the bribing of soldiers, tank amok rampages and that pilot that disappeared with his A-6 only to refute the point you and others brought up that basically "it's all good, because the DoD will control all the robots now and for the foreseeable future." This is not true.
Even assuming the US military keeps tight security on their technology, other countries and corporations have as much or more robotics tech as we do. And they won't be idle. We could even see a new robot arms race--a Waldo Race! Bwhahahaha I just coined that.
[ February 21, 2005, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Nuclear weapons would have gotten out whether or not we developed them. Both the Soviets and the Germans were already trying to develop them during World War II. Would the Soviets have been as fast if they didn't see Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Probably not, but it certainly would have happened anyways and at least we were ahead of the game (until Sputnik). You're point about corporations knowing more about robotics proves this point as this knowledge with be proliferated regardless of military development. So a robot arms race isn't out of the question, but I don't think our involvement in it will reduce the likelihood of it occurring.
Not only are cases of M-1s going missing rare, but then they do they are usually recovered. I expect recovery will improve with technology especially considering advancements that allow battlefield commanders to know where all of their units are at a given time.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
I saw this trailer and thought their arguments sounded familiar.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: A robot cannon began wildly and autonomously firing its huge gun in South Africa last Friday, killing 9 soldiers and wounding 14. The Oerlikon GDF-005 antiaircraft gun suddenly began uncontrollably shooting as it swung back and forth, spraying hundreds of high-explosive 35mm cannon shells all over the place.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Ack! Thread Necromancy!
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I saw that, Morbo! Isn't that horrible? I can't imagine what sort of bug would cause that. That just gives me nightmares, thinking about working on a project that messes up and kills people. =(
Gizmodo is a great site, though. I check it every day.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
IsSkynet next?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Tom, the Kamikazes aren't considered heroic, they're considered to stupid and crazy. At least in our culture, its considered a mark of fanaticism to throw your life away for a cause and make yourself a martyr.
No, the Kamikaze pilots got a good rap in the long lens of history.
They were not considered stupid, but fanatical, heroic, and tragic.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I want one ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
) We are talking about the potential for the misuse of robots, which you keep dismissing out of hand, but is a real potential.![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
I just coined that.