Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A is for Awesome)
    Spoiler:
    Show
    True, we're still a few decades away from

    I just wet my knickers a bit :mmm:
    But seriously, if those bad boys came on the seen, not only would, me and the terrorists be releasing urine, but the soldiers too.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Perhaps it will lead to people getting detached, or perhaps it will lead to people making more rational decisions. I'm sure there are situations where the soldier is trying to decide whether to shoot or not and in the end decides to go for it just in case he is about to get killed. With robots they might be less likely to react in fear like that.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    But these are still generally remote-controlled. It's not like the drones randomly go for a flight and kill whoever they like.

    Such a drone would be classed as artificially intelligent, something which we still haven't quite conquered (and are not likely to if they keep changing the definition).

    The completely uncontrolled devices we have in the battlefield are just detection systems, such as the Packbots which detect snipers, IEDs etc.

    Unmanned =/= uncontrolled.

    There are developments undergoing review constantly in terms of intelligent robots, but as far as I'm aware, the Geneva Conventions prevent the use of uncontrolled robotics in armed combat. Of course, these would be used out in the open, so you'd struggle to get away with it, unlike torture which could occur behind closed doors...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Skynet ftw.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Dun-dun Dun Dun-dun
    Dun-dun Dun Dun-dun
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by azhao)
    They aren't robots, if they're controlled by a remote operator they are remote controlled vehicles and thus are not as ethically dubious.
    beat me to it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    I don't like how responsibility for collateral damage could be passed on to technical errors, either.
    Well, considering that responsibility for technical errors is passed on to people, this won't happen anyway.

    As for the rest, I don't see how it's that big a deal. Pretty much everything the military does is controlled by software, so this really isn't anything new.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    O hai arms race.

    TBH though - Japan's army of Superu-Killeru Robotu! will wipe the floor with NATO robot armies.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Skynet..
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planto)
    Well, considering that responsibility for technical errors is passed on to people, this won't happen anyway.

    As for the rest, I don't see how it's that big a deal. Pretty much everything the military does is controlled by software, so this really isn't anything new.
    Hmm. As someone mentioned earlier isn't there a danger of the engineers being held accountable when they're not even involved in operations? If a group of soldiers shoot a load of civilians in error it's rightly the officer who is held responsible, if the robots malfunction where does the blame lie?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Those aren't robots, they are remote controlled killing devices. So long as they don't end up making decisions for themselves, i'm ok with it. People are more likely to be trigger happy when under stress, if they are sitting in an air conditioned office block with their families to go home to in the evening, they are much less likely to be stressed than if they were camping in afghanistan under mortar fire.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    They should send Hypnodisk into battle. That thing was badass on Robot Wars.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    They're remotely controlled - no different to using a gun. In fact I fail to understand the difference - other then US soldiers don't die when predators get shot down.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by azhao)
    They aren't robots, if they're controlled by a remote operator they are remote controlled vehicles and thus are not as ethically dubious.
    So was Skynet. Initially.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I guess there was more than meets the eye.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RyanT)
    They're remotely controlled - no different to using a gun. .


    :lolwut:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Toaster Leavings)
    Hmm. As someone mentioned earlier isn't there a danger of the engineers being held accountable when they're not even involved in operations? If a group of soldiers shoot a load of civilians in error it's rightly the officer who is held responsible, if the robots malfunction where does the blame lie?
    No, because that's clearly the officer's fault. If a fighter jet falls out of the sky because the pilot can't fly properly, engineers don't get blamed. There's a clear distinction between an incompetent user and a technical malfunction due to something like rounding error.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    :lolwut:
    How is pressing a button any different to pulling a trigger exactly?

    They are both devices whose killing sequence is initiated by state sponsored agents.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RyanT)
    How is pressing a button any different to pulling a trigger exactly?

    They are both devices whose killing sequence is initiated by state sponsored agents.


    Because when firing a gun, the soldier is directly involved with the killing and violence.


    When controlling a robot, the operator is physically and emotionally removed from the violence.


    I would say there is a masssive difference which brings up important ethical and moral questions about the future of warfare.

    But to say the two are identical is just plain wrong.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Because when firing a gun, the soldier is directly involved with the killing and violence.


    When controlling a robot, the operator is physically and emotionally removed from the violence.


    I would say there is a masssive difference which brings up important ethical and moral questions about the future of warfare.

    But to say the two are identical is just plain wrong.

    Morally I'd argue they're the same.
    Emotionally I'd argue it could become on par with it being like a computer game.
    Physically I'd argue that it's different because the soldiers life isn't in danger.

    So the question is would the use of them change?

    If only we have them (and have more of them), would we be more up for going to war with other countries in the middle east?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.