You know, this would be a good thing. Imagine that countries had robots that where so overwhelming in force, agility and firepower, that no army could resist them. No combination of tanks and airplanes could defeat such a fleet of robots.
In that case, there is no need to kill the civilians any longer. If two technologically advanced nations battle each other, and the robot fleet of one of the nations is destroyed, the battle is lost. Still fighting would be pointless, because you lose people, and the other guy does not even lose machines.
So we'd just have a huge robot battle in the desert that we could watch on TV, and when our country lost, we'd resign ourselves to the invading force and just give up (or run).
I guess the strategy then would be to wait till the human military administrators come in, and then start a low level insurgency.
"It occurred to me that if I could invent a machine - a gun - which could by its rapidity of fire, enable one man to do as much battle duty as a hundred, that it would, to a large extent supersede the necessity of large armies, and consequently, exposure to battle and disease [would] be greatly diminished."
Well, he was right. Imagine the invasion of Iraq with swords and men on horses. You would need millions and the deaths would have been in hundreds of thousands of soldiers.
Without guns and bombs I think the conflict would have ended sooner. Well trained armed forces using bow and arrow are extremely effective to the point where untrained forces have little chance of winning. For a historical example consider what the mongol army did and how long it took. The reason why insurgency and non traditional warfare has become effective is how little training someone needs to use hit and run tactics and a gun.
PS: Picture a tank using a balista and protected by bow and arrow. It's not rapid fire but without guns / high explosives it's just about as hard to stop.
> Without guns and bombs I think the conflict would have ended sooner. Well trained armed forces using bow and arrow are extremely effective to the point where untrained forces have little chance of winning. For a historical example consider what the mongol army did and how long it took. The reason why insurgency and non traditional warfare has become effective is how little training someone needs to use hit and run tactics and a gun.
Counterexample: it took Julius Caesar 7 years to conquer Gaul. Then there's the Hundred years War, fought over much the same terrain.
Some other modern examples: Iran-Iraq War: lasted 8 years, was a draw; 1991 Gulf War: lasted one month.
German invasions of France: 1970 - quick victory; 1914 - bogged down; 1940 - quick victory
I suspect the technology used during a war has little effect on its duration.
What about the fortress/siege process. You know it took months to take a single fortress back in those days, but nowadays if it's surrounded, the battle is over.
No single fortress would have lasted 8 years of constant fighting while being surrounded. Having a fortress increases the cost of conflict but unless support shows up they don't really help over the long term. Because, the enemy can wait for you to starve while they bring in new supply's.
Clearly we would have lost more people and it would have taken longer to overthrow the government but as individual technology improves the ability for an insurgency to last as an effective fighting force increases.
That's why I'm never really worried by some specific country out East getting a few nukes. Good ol' MAD ensures they'll be turned into a glass parking lot as soon as they so much as breathe on the launch button.
Obviously it becomes an issue when individual terrorists can get their hands on nukes, because then there's no country to flatten in response to such an atrocity.
All of this is under the assumption that war is a necessity.
Or when nations use terrorists and other non-state actors (such as mercenaries) to launch attacks without taking ownership.
When you had 5 nuclear powers, it was pretty easy to figure out who was bombing you. When you have 25, MAD doesn't work any more. Somewhere in between the word "mutual" loses cohesion. (unless you plan on bombing every nuclear country in the world in response to any nuclear attack, which seems politically a no-no)
I don't understand your logic. Why would you want to respond to mass death by imposing mass death? Why would you want to 'flatten' a country? Whatever the reason for a nuclear attack, it was not decided by a country, it was decided by a small group of people. Destroying an entire country of 10 or 20 million would be a barbaric and completely counter-productive answer to a nuclear strike.
What I'm saying was that if it was clearly identifiable that a country was responsible for an attack (ex. country declares war on Israel, fires nuke), then they deserve to be ruined.
It's not that I'm advocating going around tossing nukes at the home country of a single terrorist or group, I was just addressing the specific issue where we're so worried about X or Y country acquiring nuclear weapons. If that country would ever use them as part of a declared war on our allies, then they'd deserve what came to them.
But as I (and Dan above noted), the real issue is if individuals sneak these weapons around and cause mass destruction - who deserves the response to that atrocity?
So if Saddam decided to throw a nuclear bomb at some country, all Iraqis would have been responsible for this? And you advocate wiping them all out? Is the president, in this case, any different from a terrorist? Particularly an unelected president - one who cannot be said to represent the members of his country.
People don't 'deserve' death because someone in their neighbourhood did something bad.
It is attitudes like 'countries deserve to be ruined' that cause world wars. The U.S, without being provoked, declared war on Iraq and caused the death of 600.000 Iraqis. Do 600.000 U.S citizens now 'deserve' to die?
Think before repeat things, even if you grew up hearing them.
I think slavery might be making a comeback sixty or so years from now. And I mean large-scale slavery, unlike the 26 million slaves there are now. I mean slavery in the billions. Robots might make it very easy.
I'm with you here as well. It's essentially a glorified version of the missiles that we currently use to shoot enemy missiles out of the sky. This is where all of the government Military contractors are headed, autonomous packs of weapons that hunt together and act as one mind to destroy something. My dad worked at Lockheed for 20 years and has since moved on to Northrop where they have some pretty crazy pack-hunting autonomous helicopters that look pretty fearsome. That's the kind of stuff I might worry about, but something up in outer space shooting down an enemy rocket doesn't really concern me as potentially dangerous... at least not any more dangerous than shit the Military already has :)
A cruise missile is a controlled. The future "robots" will be autonomous. There are plenty of UAV's (unmanned aerial vehicle) used in different theaters but very few (public) UAAV's (unmanned autonomous aerial vehicle.) A UAV has a pilot at a ground station in Florida, a UAAV has none. It is given a mission and it has objectives with priorities and, if it faces resistance or bad weather it thinks for itself.
The "killer robot" headline is silly. The interesting trend is that autonomous weapons systems are operating with fewer and fewer men in the loop.
If you bring up terminator when talking about today's robots, you don't know anything about robotics.
Cluster bombs, landmines, nukes, etc. are all much better kill-bots.
The ethics are also trivial: killing civilians is bad. Torture is bad. Killing armed combatants is ok.
Robots are going to be _more_ ethical, because operators won't react instinctively but logically. No one wants to kill civilians. A robot entering a house in Fallujah will be less trigger happy.
I find myself writing this comment every few weeks. People don't know anything about robotics.
If people can hack computers, people will be able to hack robots (should they be able in any way to respond to commands, which they'd better). This is a frightening prospect.
Rogue killer robots are then equivalent to other asymmetric battles. They are a lot like suicide bombers. Except they have giant robot lasers and are easy to spot, unlike a cell that looks like everyone else.
Either way, my point is that the ethics are not at all ambiguous. You put security measures in all your weapons, and you shouldn't think of robots as any different. That is my point.
In that case, there is no need to kill the civilians any longer. If two technologically advanced nations battle each other, and the robot fleet of one of the nations is destroyed, the battle is lost. Still fighting would be pointless, because you lose people, and the other guy does not even lose machines.
So we'd just have a huge robot battle in the desert that we could watch on TV, and when our country lost, we'd resign ourselves to the invading force and just give up (or run).
I guess the strategy then would be to wait till the human military administrators come in, and then start a low level insurgency.