5 ms·

I wonder what kind of military technology is acceptable in today's standards of morality. This is just a drone. It's not autonomous. It's a remote control car w

I wonder what kind of military technology is acceptable in today's standards of morality. This is just a drone. It's not autonomous. It's a remote control car with weapons or radars mounted on top, controlled by a human looking through a camera. The military use case would be to reduce the possibility of human casualties. Not sure how better to word this. I literally do not understand what kind of military technology is acceptable. Is the common position that no war should exist, no guns should exist, no conflict should exist, and anyone else anywhere in the world that wants to hurt other people should be allowed to without repercussion? Is the idea that if we don't invest in military technology countries like Russia, China, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia will just make batteries and toys? What is the position I'm supposed to be aligned with?

lostlogin 8y ago
More accurately, it’s to reduce casualties for the military that uses them. It’s intended to increase casualties for the enemy. Edit: it’s hard to reply when you keep editing your comments. It’s now quite different to your original post, though this comment does mostly make sense.
- imustbeevil 8y ago
  But that's what war is. I would imagine it's easier, and less of a risk to all humans involved on both sides, to create drones with non-lethal capabilities than to send non-lethal human forces into warzones. Edit: I added the second paragraph to my original comment within 3 minutes of posting it, as I noticed there wasn't much hope of getting a response without fleshing out the question. I now have to choose between adding an additional reply to contend with the idea that I "keep editing my comments", or to edit this comment to deal with that additional claim.
  - coldcode 8y ago
    I wonder though if the future will turn into the Star Trek episode where people are "killed" by an AI and then voluntarily submit to suicide. If war is too non-lethal it doesn't solve the reason for the war in the first place and eventually will lead to lethality anyway. As Sherman said "War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over." Perhaps more effort should go into eliminating the reason for war in the first place, which is of course easier said than done.
    - epicureanideal 8y ago
      Hopefully it would be more like... eventually technology becomes so dominant on the battlefield that without it it’s just suicide. So as soon as one side’s drones are wiped out, they just surrender. Although I suppose many countries would continue to resist in a Gandhi-like moral appeal to the victor’s population to stop the slaughter.
      - baybal2 8y ago
        Pfff, that will never happen. Western people no longer understand the nature of war. Even if one man with a nuke can effortlessly kill a million, a man with an axe can kill him as easily if he can manage to sneak close.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  #dontbetheenemy
fromthestart 8y ago
Regardless of the fact that conflict is inevitable, the idea that I designed a device to take human life would probably weigh on my concious. That's not to say I haven't considered it.

lostlogin 8y ago

More accurately, it’s to reduce casualties for the military that uses them. It’s intended to increase casualties for the enemy. Edit: it’s hard to reply when you keep editing your comments. It’s now quite different to your original post, though this comment does mostly make sense.

imustbeevil 8y ago
But that's what war is. I would imagine it's easier, and less of a risk to all humans involved on both sides, to create drones with non-lethal capabilities than to send non-lethal human forces into warzones. Edit: I added the second paragraph to my original comment within 3 minutes of posting it, as I noticed there wasn't much hope of getting a response without fleshing out the question. I now have to choose between adding an additional reply to contend with the idea that I "keep editing my comments", or to edit this comment to deal with that additional claim.
- coldcode 8y ago
  I wonder though if the future will turn into the Star Trek episode where people are "killed" by an AI and then voluntarily submit to suicide. If war is too non-lethal it doesn't solve the reason for the war in the first place and eventually will lead to lethality anyway. As Sherman said "War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over." Perhaps more effort should go into eliminating the reason for war in the first place, which is of course easier said than done.
  - epicureanideal 8y ago
    Hopefully it would be more like... eventually technology becomes so dominant on the battlefield that without it it’s just suicide. So as soon as one side’s drones are wiped out, they just surrender. Although I suppose many countries would continue to resist in a Gandhi-like moral appeal to the victor’s population to stop the slaughter.
    - baybal2 8y ago
      Pfff, that will never happen. Western people no longer understand the nature of war. Even if one man with a nuke can effortlessly kill a million, a man with an axe can kill him as easily if he can manage to sneak close.
erikpukinskis 8y ago
#dontbetheenemy

fromthestart 8y ago

Regardless of the fact that conflict is inevitable, the idea that I designed a device to take human life would probably weigh on my concious. That's not to say I haven't considered it.