4 ms·

It would be great if war gets to some point where human lives aren't threatened, but for the forseeable future, robot soldiers are going to be killing humans. F

by lawpoop 10y ago

It would be great if war gets to some point where human lives aren't threatened, but for the forseeable future, robot soldiers are going to be killing humans. Forces who can afford them aren't going to be squaring off anytime soon-- it's going to be military Goliaths like Assad vs. rebels. Like other bombs and advanced weaponry.

riffraff 10y ago
yet, as someone mentioned to me many years ago, robots aren't (probably) going to torture and rape. E.g. in ww2-with-robots people would have been killed but the nanking massacre would not have happened.
- lawpoop 10y ago
  You're saying a force with robot soldiers would have robot soldiers alone, with no human soldiers who would follow up, come in, and commit war crimes?
  - riffraff 10y ago
    no, I am saying that if we replace some human soldiers with some robots, it's likely that the amount of war crimes goes down. E.g. the number of raped women in Nanking was 20000 per some accounts. If half the army had been robots, there might have been 10000 less rapes. If you consider that battle frenzy is likely to de-humanize soldiers much more than "setup camp and hold ground" operations, it seems likely that the number of war crimes goes down even more, once you remove humans from active battle. Of course, I cannot exclude rampaging robots taking revenge on puny humans, but that seems unlikely.
    - lawpoop 10y ago
      War crimes, for the most part, aren't some battle-frenzy or blood-lust, they are either a deliberate tactic or lack of discipline. Nanking wasn't soldiers gone crazy from war, it was deliberate punishment and demoralization of the Chinese. Also see more recent conflicts in Africa. As far as lack of discipline, see the US Vietnam war. It just seems to me that we already have "robot" soldiers -- tanks, plans, bombs, artillery. When the purpose is to terrorize and demoralize an enemy's population, they're not going to have robots doing it.
mercurial 10y ago
Precisely, and for the governments with the robots, this will make the prospect of going to war even more attractive.

by lawpoop 10y ago

riffraff 10y ago

yet, as someone mentioned to me many years ago, robots aren't (probably) going to torture and rape. E.g. in ww2-with-robots people would have been killed but the nanking massacre would not have happened.

lawpoop 10y ago
You're saying a force with robot soldiers would have robot soldiers alone, with no human soldiers who would follow up, come in, and commit war crimes?
- riffraff 10y ago
  no, I am saying that if we replace some human soldiers with some robots, it's likely that the amount of war crimes goes down. E.g. the number of raped women in Nanking was 20000 per some accounts. If half the army had been robots, there might have been 10000 less rapes. If you consider that battle frenzy is likely to de-humanize soldiers much more than "setup camp and hold ground" operations, it seems likely that the number of war crimes goes down even more, once you remove humans from active battle. Of course, I cannot exclude rampaging robots taking revenge on puny humans, but that seems unlikely.
  - lawpoop 10y ago
    War crimes, for the most part, aren't some battle-frenzy or blood-lust, they are either a deliberate tactic or lack of discipline. Nanking wasn't soldiers gone crazy from war, it was deliberate punishment and demoralization of the Chinese. Also see more recent conflicts in Africa. As far as lack of discipline, see the US Vietnam war. It just seems to me that we already have "robot" soldiers -- tanks, plans, bombs, artillery. When the purpose is to terrorize and demoralize an enemy's population, they're not going to have robots doing it.

mercurial 10y ago

Precisely, and for the governments with the robots, this will make the prospect of going to war even more attractive.