> What does the average American have that can stop a tank, or an armored personnel carrier, or a jet, or a helicopter The conscience of the man in the driver'

> What does the average American have that can stop a tank, or an armored personnel carrier, or a jet, or a helicopter The conscience of the man in the driver's seat. This is precisely the safeguard that police/military robots (controlled directly by generals or even politicians) will take out of the loop. > robots or not will not change the situation since both sides will have them. The side with control over the nation's industrial capacity will have them. This is the side that will win. And it will almost certainly be a cause for regret. Technologies are not neutral: "It is a commonplace that the history of civilisation is largely the history of weapons. In particular, the connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon--so long as there is no answer to it--gives claws to the weak." "You and the Atomic Bomb", by George Orwell. (http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/abombs.html http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/abombs.html)