4 ms·

That's a best case scenario. What it could do is make military intervention an even easier decision. The loss of human life is a deterrent to engaging in war. I

• sharemywin 10y ago
  That would never happen... Drone operators refer to children as “fun-size terrorists” and liken killing them to “cutting the grass before it grows too long,” said one of the operators, Michael Haas, a former senior airman in the Air Force https://theintercept.com/2015/11/19/former-drone-operators-say-they-were-horrified-by-cruelty-of-assassination-program/ https://theintercept.com/2015/11/19/former-drone-operators-s...
• slv77 10y ago
  Conversely removing the threat to human life may reduce the probability of escalation and make a response more measured. For example two men break through a security fence. A robotic patrol would seem to be much less likely to respond with deadly force than a human patrol would in that situation. If the men were refugees or wounded soilders looking for medical care the more measured response of the robotic patrol may prevent a death and actually de-escalate conflict. Also assume that the two men were hostile and fired on the patrol. The destruction of the mech is much less likely to provoke a political and civilian response than the death of a human and may lead to a more measured response. My bigger concern is that a fully mechanized force may decrease the apparent cost of oppressing a civilian population.