3 ms·

I worry that the net effect on lives lost will be negative. If all else were kept equal, it would be positive, but all else is unlikely to stay equal. One of th

I worry that the net effect on lives lost will be negative. If all else were kept equal, it would be positive, but all else is unlikely to stay equal. One of the few things keeping the U.S. military from being even more interventionist than it already is, is that the U.S. public has little stomach for its soldiers losing their lives, which heavily constrains military planners (which is a good thing!). If those constraints were loosened, which is one of the goals the military has in funding robotics, I expect that they will be even more gung-ho about sending in firepower to places where it is going to end up causing a lot of civilian "collateral damage". The drone program of the past 5 years is already shaping up that way. Its rules of engagement and the way the U.S. public has responded to it, so far, suggest that when the lives in question aren't American soldiers' lives, neither planners nor the U.S. public consider minimizing loss of life to be a particularly high priority.

Alupis 11y ago
> One of the few things keeping the U.S. military from being even more interventionist than it already is The US military is not interventionist - the US politicians are. The military has little-to-zero say in what military actions they participate in, rather the politicians decide what is politically advantageous for themselves, the country, or the world - and give the orders. The military must then carry out those orders - and I'd still rather they have the option to send a robot instead of humans. > they will be even more gung-ho about sending in firepower to places where it is going to end up causing a lot of civilian "collateral damage" Part of the goal of robotics is to reduce "collateral damage". Humans make mistakes all the time in the field, which can and does result in friendly fire, civilian casualties, and more.
- krapp 11y ago
  Not all "collateral damage" is accidental, though.

Alupis 11y ago

> One of the few things keeping the U.S. military from being even more interventionist than it already is The US military is not interventionist - the US politicians are. The military has little-to-zero say in what military actions they participate in, rather the politicians decide what is politically advantageous for themselves, the country, or the world - and give the orders. The military must then carry out those orders - and I'd still rather they have the option to send a robot instead of humans. > they will be even more gung-ho about sending in firepower to places where it is going to end up causing a lot of civilian "collateral damage" Part of the goal of robotics is to reduce "collateral damage". Humans make mistakes all the time in the field, which can and does result in friendly fire, civilian casualties, and more.

krapp 11y ago
Not all "collateral damage" is accidental, though.