4 ms·

Well, robits have done fantastically well for the US military. A predator drone, killing people in Afghanistan, while being controlled from a base in Las Vegas,

Well, robits have done fantastically well for the US military. A predator drone, killing people in Afghanistan, while being controlled from a base in Las Vegas, is a wet dream for military chiefs and policy makers, not to mention war mongers. I suspect the end game is to drastically reduce humans and have robots to conduct the war, remotely killing the 'enemy'. One more sad step towards de-humanizing the enemy.

squarefoot 6y ago
> One more sad step towards de-humanizing the enemy. Much worse than that; it's one more step towards screening people from the monstrosities of the war, creating therefore a culture that endorses it because any negative effects are hidden. Families are often opposed to war because they know some of their kids won't make it back; that's a powerful deterrent and is the reason why after a while showing soldiers coffins was forbidden to US TV networks during the last Gulf War: they recalled the protests during Vietnam after it became clear that soldiers weren't taking a walk in the park down there. Now if we make it certain for one side to never lose any soldier because every action is being performed from safe distance by a drone pilot, war suddenly becomes a videogame in which one side cannot lose anymore, but more importantly that same side won't have any negative feelings associated to the war because it doesn't bring any suffering. This is the recipe for creating a state of eternal war, and I'm strongly opposed to that. I want all sides - including mine - to experience deaths and mutilation, grieving families, babies who will never know their parents, etc. If we take those away, we take away all reasons to not want wars.
- greggman3 6y ago
  I don' think that will ever happen because you can't keep tech in a bottle. The tech will spread and people on the other side will also fly their war drones from sofas.
  - tremon 6y ago
    And both sides will try to hit the sofas, not the drones.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      OK, I've cancelled the order for a new "smart couch". The AI-driven massage mode was tempting, but being strangled by "APT"-hacked furniture seems an ignominious way to die...
  - CapricornNoble 6y ago
    Yeah, we're seeing it already, from Mosul (I think ISIS pioneered DJI quadrocopters dropping frag grenades) to the current Nagorno-Kabarakh conflict with much larger UAVs. The stuff is everywhere and every military needs to work anti-UAS tactics into their training plan.
- rland 6y ago
  I don't think it's necessarily technology that created this culture (although, it helps!). After Vietnam, the US just didn't do "War" in a classical sense, with only a few and short-lived exceptions. Our all volunteer force does war, but it's now known as "targeted killing," "combat advisory," and other buzzwords. This is because if we want to actually do war, we have to ask Congress, the American public, etc, and actually face down the moral questions inherent to that process. The last few times we actually had to do that it was plainly disastrous. As you say, this method of doing video game wars has a way of making smaller, more automated "enforcement actions" a more or less permanent state of affairs. I believe the start of this was Vietnam. As a result, strange things happen. I remember the public's reaction to ISIS -- it was pretty much complete bewilderment. "Why the hell do these guys hate us so much?"
golergka 6y ago
> One more sad step towards de-humanizing the enemy. I think it's a step in completely opposing direction. If you're in the battlefield, you don't have any possible room to error on the side of mercy, because that kind of error will get you killed. But when you move to Las Vegas, see your family every day, get enough sleep and don't risk even a light injury, that's exactly the kind of environment where you can allow yourself not to be so trigger-happy.
- kumarvvr 6y ago
  This logic is absurd on the face of it. Being in a safe environment will never let you empathize with those who you kill. In fact, with killer robots conducting wars, dont be surprised if the video feed is edited by an AI in real time, to blur out blood and gore, justbecause 'we want to protect our boys from PTSD'. Remote control allows for escaping the horrors of war, without stopping the war.
  - golergka 6y ago
    > Being in a safe environment will never let you empathize with those who you kill. And being shot by them, or expecting to get shot by them will? > Remote control allows for escaping the horrors of war That's exactly my point. Horrors of war are exactly what makes people shoot first and think second. I think that the core reason people are opposed to this is because it just feels unfair. It is. The side of war that has the drones is much stronger than the opposition. But historically, mercy has always been the business of those who're so strong that they're sure in their victory and don't feel threatened. People who are afraid and desperate are inevitably much more cruel.
  - owyn 6y ago
    This is basically the plot of Ender's Game and empathy with the enemy was also a big plot point...

squarefoot 6y ago

> One more sad step towards de-humanizing the enemy. Much worse than that; it's one more step towards screening people from the monstrosities of the war, creating therefore a culture that endorses it because any negative effects are hidden. Families are often opposed to war because they know some of their kids won't make it back; that's a powerful deterrent and is the reason why after a while showing soldiers coffins was forbidden to US TV networks during the last Gulf War: they recalled the protests during Vietnam after it became clear that soldiers weren't taking a walk in the park down there. Now if we make it certain for one side to never lose any soldier because every action is being performed from safe distance by a drone pilot, war suddenly becomes a videogame in which one side cannot lose anymore, but more importantly that same side won't have any negative feelings associated to the war because it doesn't bring any suffering. This is the recipe for creating a state of eternal war, and I'm strongly opposed to that. I want all sides - including mine - to experience deaths and mutilation, grieving families, babies who will never know their parents, etc. If we take those away, we take away all reasons to not want wars.

greggman3 6y ago
I don' think that will ever happen because you can't keep tech in a bottle. The tech will spread and people on the other side will also fly their war drones from sofas.
- tremon 6y ago
  And both sides will try to hit the sofas, not the drones.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    OK, I've cancelled the order for a new "smart couch". The AI-driven massage mode was tempting, but being strangled by "APT"-hacked furniture seems an ignominious way to die...
- CapricornNoble 6y ago
  Yeah, we're seeing it already, from Mosul (I think ISIS pioneered DJI quadrocopters dropping frag grenades) to the current Nagorno-Kabarakh conflict with much larger UAVs. The stuff is everywhere and every military needs to work anti-UAS tactics into their training plan.
rland 6y ago
I don't think it's necessarily technology that created this culture (although, it helps!). After Vietnam, the US just didn't do "War" in a classical sense, with only a few and short-lived exceptions. Our all volunteer force does war, but it's now known as "targeted killing," "combat advisory," and other buzzwords. This is because if we want to actually do war, we have to ask Congress, the American public, etc, and actually face down the moral questions inherent to that process. The last few times we actually had to do that it was plainly disastrous. As you say, this method of doing video game wars has a way of making smaller, more automated "enforcement actions" a more or less permanent state of affairs. I believe the start of this was Vietnam. As a result, strange things happen. I remember the public's reaction to ISIS -- it was pretty much complete bewilderment. "Why the hell do these guys hate us so much?"

golergka 6y ago

> One more sad step towards de-humanizing the enemy. I think it's a step in completely opposing direction. If you're in the battlefield, you don't have any possible room to error on the side of mercy, because that kind of error will get you killed. But when you move to Las Vegas, see your family every day, get enough sleep and don't risk even a light injury, that's exactly the kind of environment where you can allow yourself not to be so trigger-happy.

kumarvvr 6y ago
This logic is absurd on the face of it. Being in a safe environment will never let you empathize with those who you kill. In fact, with killer robots conducting wars, dont be surprised if the video feed is edited by an AI in real time, to blur out blood and gore, justbecause 'we want to protect our boys from PTSD'. Remote control allows for escaping the horrors of war, without stopping the war.
- golergka 6y ago
  > Being in a safe environment will never let you empathize with those who you kill. And being shot by them, or expecting to get shot by them will? > Remote control allows for escaping the horrors of war That's exactly my point. Horrors of war are exactly what makes people shoot first and think second. I think that the core reason people are opposed to this is because it just feels unfair. It is. The side of war that has the drones is much stronger than the opposition. But historically, mercy has always been the business of those who're so strong that they're sure in their victory and don't feel threatened. People who are afraid and desperate are inevitably much more cruel.
- owyn 6y ago
  This is basically the plot of Ender's Game and empathy with the enemy was also a big plot point...