Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I can't imagine it's too distant? Drones already replace, in many senses, fighter pilots.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Considering that robots are barely able to walk efficiently, it's not close.

    It's more likely you'll see robotics assisting soldiering, in the form of biomechanic suits.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Robots or not, the victims of war are humans.
    Hopefully states will stop their obsession with war before we get to that stage.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Don't think we have to worry about "I Robot" happening just yet but technology demonstrably an increasing part of all aspects of our lives.

    Don't understand Call of Duty but had relevant experience with 13 year old cousin recently. He was saying how amazingly realistic the graphics are, I tried to explain 4 legged "tanks" are wildly unrealistic. I know its just a game (not sure if he does); I mean if just one of the four legs is damaged that's it whereas with proper tank treads/tracks its going to be much harder to take down. Isn't this common sense?

    On serious note can well envision vastly improved exoskeleton use in case of injured soldiers as one example.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    in 2025 it will be called Skynet !!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Falcatas)
    Robots or not, the victims of war are humans.
    Hopefully states will stop their obsession with war before we get to that stage.
    Just as society will always need policemen, sensible governments will always need soldiers.

    The real question is how often are they needed in anger. Hopefully that will start to decrease.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -Native Briton-)
    in 2025 it will be called Skynet !!
    Skynet already exists, actually...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Soldiers are already borderline immoral, how humane do we think warfare is going to be when just machines are being deployed?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by s.a.u)
    Soldiers are already borderline immoral, how humane do we think warfare is going to be when just machines are being deployed?
    Yawn leftie yawn ..... zzzzzzz !!!!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -Native Briton-)
    Yawn leftie yawn ..... zzzzzzz !!!!
    Actually I'm centrist. Some of us can actually think for ourselves and not buy into the military worship and propaganda. We've already seen how atrociously civilians are treated by our troops, multiple times, throughout history, and it continues to this day.

    Keep drinking the Kool-Aid. I hope you like the taste.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by s.a.u)
    Actually I'm centrist. Some of us can actually think for ourselves and not buy into the military worship and propaganda. We've already seen how atrociously civilians are treated by our troops, multiple times, throughout history, and it continues to this day.

    Keep drinking the Kool-Aid. I hope you like the taste.
    And we've all seen that when some soldiers abuse their position the only thing that stops them is...more soldiers.

    Remember, you are from the exact same society that produces these soldiers. If that society wasn't so messed up there'd be no need for the soldier in the first place.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Just as society will always need policemen, sensible governments will always need soldiers.

    The real question is how often are they needed in anger. Hopefully that will start to decrease.
    No they don't. If citizens were well armed we wouldn't fear invsion.
    Soldiers are always used offensively usually murdering brown people overseas.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Falcatas)
    No they don't. If citizens were well armed we wouldn't fear invsion.
    Soldiers are always used offensively usually murdering brown people overseas.
    And what of situations like Sierra Leone? Like Kosovo?
    We may not fear invasion, but do we not have an obligation to try and step in and do the right thing when others are intent on doing the wrong?

    And really, an armed citizenry? They'd have to be trained. They'd have to be grouped, they'd have to practise. They'd have to be...regimented. You know, like an Army...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Not so long... after they replace my grandsons' lovers with these artificial cuties below.

    http://youtu.be/QYLYfLRg5dc


    http://youtu.be/mM-OECEdVMg


    Gee... someone could become a billionaire because of those sexy robots.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    And what of situations like Sierra Leone? Like Kosovo?
    We may not fear invasion, but do we not have an obligation to try and step in and do the right thing when others are intent on doing the wrong?
    War costs money and the government get this money by increasing taxation.
    if you want help so badly go ahead. Its easier to say "Let's help!" when you aren't the one carry the gun or dealing with the bloody consequences.

    Also Western intervention robs the people of that country from liberating themselves and you end up with situations like in Iraq.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Falcatas)
    War costs money and the government get this money by increasing taxation.
    if you want help so badly go ahead. Its easier to say "Let's help!" when you aren't the one carry the gun or dealing with the bloody consequences.

    Also Western intervention robs the people of that country from liberating themselves and you end up with situations like in Iraq.
    I did. I'm ex-forces.


    And yes, the cost of getting involved is high. The potential is, however, that the cost of not being involved is higher.

    Imagine not having to pay for car insurance. As long as you didn't crash into anyone, or no-one crashed into you, or nothing happened accidentally ever, you'd save money. But as soon as something did happen you'd be collosally out of pocket. Was the decision to not buy insurance sensible?

    You presume that people are capable of extricating themselves from those situations. Clearly, that's not the case.

    And you also ignore the ability and utility of having armed forces that are able to respond to humanitarian disasters. Our first response to the Ethiopian famines of the 80s was by the military. Our first response to any number of hurricanes in the Caribbean is from the military. Our response to typhoons, to earthquakes, to volcanoes, to tsunamis...is all from the armed forces. You'd stop that, too?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I think we'll always need soldiers ie: actual human soldiers. Maybe we won't need them for combat in the future, and tbh, it seems like in a WW3 scenario, all we'd be doing is fighting each other's robots... Well we'd be killing people as well, but we'd send out soldier robots to go and fight x countries soldier robots, so that you can advance or they can't or whatever

    I think that you'll definitely need soldiers for the peace keeping stuff.

    (Original post by skunkboy)
    Not so long... after they replace my grandsons' lovers with these artificial cuties below.
    (Original post by skunkboy)

    http://youtu.be/QYLYfLRg5dc


    http://youtu.be/mM-OECEdVMg


    Gee... someone could become a billionaire because of those sexy robots.
    Posted from TSR Mobile


    Thank you for placing those in my search history :rolleyes:
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    I did. I'm ex-forces.


    And yes, the cost of getting involved is high. The potential is, however, that the cost of not being involved is higher.

    Imagine not having to pay for car insurance. As long as you didn't crash into anyone, or no-one crashed into you, or nothing happened accidentally ever, you'd save money. But as soon as something did happen you'd be collosally out of pocket. Was the decision to not buy insurance sensible?

    You presume that people are capable of extricating themselves from those situations. Clearly, that's not the case.

    And you also ignore the ability and utility of having armed forces that are able to respond to humanitarian disasters. Our first response to the Ethiopian famines of the 80s was by the military. Our first response to any number of hurricanes in the Caribbean is from the military. Our response to typhoons, to earthquakes, to volcanoes, to tsunamis...is all from the armed forces. You'd stop that, too?
    Car insurance is to insure your own property and covering ones own car is optional. Being forced to pay for foreign adventures overseas is not.

    Humanitarian aid can be done through charities. If it is such a good idea to help people why do we need to force it through taxation?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Falcatas)
    Car insurance is to insure your own property and covering ones own car is optional. Being forced to pay for foreign adventures overseas is not.
    Third party, fire and theft is the mandatory minimum that you must have.

    The armed forces are an international equivalent.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

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.