4 ms·

The disconnect is a very serious concern. I worry about war crimes being committed using these weapons without any accountability or risk. But, I am actually co

The disconnect is a very serious concern. I worry about war crimes being committed using these weapons without any accountability or risk. But, I am actually comforted by them saying that the soldiers experience disorders like PTSD just like deployed soldiers. Before you think I'm a heartless bastard, here's my reasoning: it tells me that the soldiers become psychologically embedded in the situations they experience just like if they were actually there. It tells me that they're not treating it like a video game, so their moral sense should still be engaged. It's not much, but it's some comfort. I still think we need to be very, very careful about the psychological effects of remote weapons, and how it affects the decisions soldiers and their commanders make.

protomyth 17y ago
I actually think the exact opposite. I believe that the trained soldiers controlling these weapons will better be able to make humane decisions since their lives are not directly threatened by the enemy. They can take a second and not panic. They can make better decisions since the split second emotional trigger is not there. So they loose a couple of robots, big whoop. The stress of the kill-or-be-killed situation ends.
- a-priori 17y ago
  Sorry for not replying earlier. I just wanted to say that I hope things turn out that way, because that would be the ideal situation: fewer human casualties on both sides. Maybe I've seen one too many war movies, but I worry that the command-and-control mentality of the armed forces could override the soldier's moral sense, at least immediately, by forcing them to detach themselves from the situations. Remember that while a soldier may think "big whoop" about a hundred-million dollar aircraft going down, their commanding officer (who's butt is on the line for that loss) may not think so, and so will do everything in their power to prevent such losses. That may include some "collateral damage". At least, if the soldiers later suffer from PTSD, hopefully in the end they will speak their minds and the truth will come out. That's how we've heard about a lot of the atrocities of past wars.

protomyth 17y ago

I actually think the exact opposite. I believe that the trained soldiers controlling these weapons will better be able to make humane decisions since their lives are not directly threatened by the enemy. They can take a second and not panic. They can make better decisions since the split second emotional trigger is not there. So they loose a couple of robots, big whoop. The stress of the kill-or-be-killed situation ends.

a-priori 17y ago
Sorry for not replying earlier. I just wanted to say that I hope things turn out that way, because that would be the ideal situation: fewer human casualties on both sides. Maybe I've seen one too many war movies, but I worry that the command-and-control mentality of the armed forces could override the soldier's moral sense, at least immediately, by forcing them to detach themselves from the situations. Remember that while a soldier may think "big whoop" about a hundred-million dollar aircraft going down, their commanding officer (who's butt is on the line for that loss) may not think so, and so will do everything in their power to prevent such losses. That may include some "collateral damage". At least, if the soldiers later suffer from PTSD, hopefully in the end they will speak their minds and the truth will come out. That's how we've heard about a lot of the atrocities of past wars.