3 ms·
> I believe that the more frequent case is when soldiers on the ground are having to make split second life and death decisions Tha't ok, but I think you are a
by pmelendez 11y ago
> I believe that the more frequent case is when soldiers on the ground are having to make split second life and death decisions
Tha't ok, but I think you are assuming that the "good guys" are the only ones that would have access to this. Truth is that once one government start doing this, all the others will follow and even the organized crime would have access to that technology.
- fauigerzigerk 11y agoEven if both sides use machines, that doesn't make it any worse than both sides using humans, on the contrary. But as I said, the wider consequences are a different matter.
- pmelendez 11y agoI think I didn't explain myself clearly... What I meant is that once one side has it, it will go outside of common warfare pretty quickly. You are thinking in Gov. A vs. Gov. B both using machines. My concern is that after that, Gov. B will use machines against humans C inside the same country, or in the neightborhood. And in those cases, "technical errors" can be used as excuse after a tragedy. And that's only one of my concerns... add organized crime and terrorism to the mix and you will have a very explosive soup.
- fauigerzigerk 11y agoI think your assumptions are very realistic and I share your concerns. But looking back at the history of war or combat, I don't feel that human nature has been a mitigating factor. On the contrary.