3 ms·
I'm not sure telepresence is sufficient to win a war. People generally agree that when you have a human soldier standing on every street corner, you've won. I t
by tlb 14y ago
I'm not sure telepresence is sufficient to win a war. People generally agree that when you have a human soldier standing on every street corner, you've won. I think a telepresence robot on every street corner would not have the same effect.
One reason is that even in war, most people are reluctant to kill enemy soldiers. But few would have much trouble sabotaging robots. So telepresence robots won't cause the civilian population to accept the new regime.
Despite some effort, I have not managed to cause people to form the sort of bond with a telepresence robot that naturally forms with people thrown together.
- jakeonthemove 14y agoI think regime changes will be done from the inside more often than not in the future - it's been proven to be more effective (and cheaper) than sending thousands of soldiers and machinery to foreign lands... Meanwhile, telepresent groups of drones and semi-autonomous turrets would be used to fight any localized resistance and protect important objects. I think (and hope) we won't see any major conflicts like WW1 and WW2 in the future, since there's really no good reason for one (even Europe finally gets it, hence the EU), unless it's an alien invasion...
- jzwinck 14y agoIf the occupied society is too willing to destroy the guard robots, but would not hurt humans, why not give them both? Post a sign on each bot: "WARNING: if this guard is tampered with, its controlling human will be subject to electroshock." Or wire it up so if one bot is damaged it commands a nearby one to retaliate, either against the original aggressor or a random target.