ForumsWEPRShould the creation of Military Robots be allowed?

79 8694
shock457
offline
shock457
710 posts
1,405

I really think we shouldn't make them.

Who knows? The technology can go into the wrong hands and our technology can go against us.

Does anyone have any opinions about this?

  • 79 Replies
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,737 posts
20,765

Newsflash: the military already uses robot technology, like smaller robots to disarm explosives at distance if I'm not mistaken. And there's going to be more.

Is it bad? No, not unless someone purposely programs the robot to be able to turn against your own troops (assuming the robot has any weapons). And in case something goes wrong, e.g. a bug, you just need to hope they weren't stupid enough to arm an autonomous robot with an A-bomb

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,380

it's a good and a bad thing.
let some robots fight. leave the people away. (thats good)
the battlefield will then change from people shooting guns to people behind a computer trying to hack into the enemy's robots. (thats bad)

EnigmaX
offline
EnigmaX
101 posts
30

Vulcan explains it rather well.

This isn't Hollywood; the chances of a robot becoming situationally aware on its own is slim to none. And even if it did, it would be programmed not to know the difference.

shock457
offline
shock457
710 posts
1,405

What if Russia and all the other superpowers create this technology (more advanced robots), and soon the terrorists get their hands on it? That is a bad sign to everyone. Look what happened in the Cold War!!

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,380

What if Russia and all the other superpowers create this technology (more advanced robots), and soon the terrorists get their hands on it? That is a bad sign to everyone.


only bad if you are the target of the terrorists.
and it depends on what those robots can and can't do.

Look what happened in the Cold War!!

not much really.

allot of talking and showing muscle.
but no fighting.
shock457
offline
shock457
710 posts
1,405

There were huge tensions in the Cold War. Only because they wanted to show off their hydrogen bombs and their new technology.

If there was a nuclear fight between them, Russia would've won.

If there was a biological fight, USA would win.

AatosLiukkonen
offline
AatosLiukkonen
67 posts
20

Of course they should. Efficiency is king. Why would you put and EOD technician or a sentry in a position of harm when a robot can do the job just as well in their stead?

If there was a nuclear fight between them, Russia would've won.

If there was a biological fight, USA would win.


wat

America had more nukes, more powerful nukes, and better ways to get them there.

Biological wut?
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,410 posts
2,730

America had more nukes

Nope. At the height of the Cold War, Russia had plenty more. Whether or not they were operational or launch-ready is the real question.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,380

funny you guys talk about winning.
there would be no winner in a nuclear winter of that scale.
and if you really want a winner. i guess the soviets had a better chance, just because they had/have way more land.

SubZero007
offline
SubZero007
942 posts
1,250

This thread is like asking: Should we save people's lives by putting a robot in the field, or should we ban something that could bring somebody's mom or dad back home?

314d1
offline
314d1
3,857 posts
0

What if Russia and all the other superpowers create this technology (more advanced robots), and soon the terrorists get their hands on it? That is a bad sign to everyone. Look what happened in the Cold War!!


Er, what was that about the cold war?

Anyway, it is unlikely that they can get a hold of the technology intact enough to figure out how it works, and if they did it wouldn't be that bad. It would be far worse for them to get their hands on nuclear weapons.
shock457
offline
shock457
710 posts
1,405

Biological weapons are weapons with bio extinct in the weapon. Some weapons can carry Smallpox, Influenza, Swine Flu, certain types of plague, and many other contagious diseases.


There is a chance that America will win in a Biological Warfare, but Russia will obviously win a nuclear war.

Back to the topic of robots. Robots having nuclear weapons is bad, but who would do such a thing!!!

pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

This thread is like asking: Should we save people's lives by putting a robot in the field, or should we ban something that could bring somebody's mom or dad back home?


Or should we put robots on the field so that we'd have more of a reason to just right out start a war?

With robots fighting instead of humans, the death factor is taken out of war, and that factor is what makes a majority of people not want to take part in wars. Without a chance of human fatalities, people would be a lot more prone to approve of a war.

"Why not conquer that country? I know they are perfectly happy with their way of living and ideals, but when we force upon them our way of living and ideals they will learn to love it and be much more happy"
wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,461 posts
1,955


Biological weapons are weapons with bio extinct in the weapon. Some weapons can carry Smallpox, Influenza, Swine Flu, certain types of plague, and many other contagious diseases.

There is a chance that America will win in a Biological Warfare, but Russia will obviously win a nuclear war.

Back to the topic of robots. Robots having nuclear weapons is bad, but who would do such a thing!!!


Either English is not your native tongue, or you do not know how to string together ideas coherently.

To address the topic of nuclear and biological warfare. By the terms of the Geneva Convention, biological warfare is considered a war crime, and any nation that uses such weapons would bring about the ire of nearly every sane country on this planet. As for nuclear war, no one would win.

Robots are far safer to wage war with than the lives of human beings. Your worries over terrorists and nuclear robots seems to be nothing more than fear mongering.
wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,461 posts
1,955

With robots fighting instead of humans, the death factor is taken out of war, and that factor is what makes a majority of people not want to take part in wars. Without a chance of human fatalities, people would be a lot more prone to approve of a war.


Incorrect. With robots in a war one would have to look at civilian casualties, which are considered far graver losses than that of soldiers.

No one readily approves war without some sort of provocation. At least, no country with a sound and stable government.

"Why not conquer that country? I know they are perfectly happy with their way of living and ideals, but when we force upon them our way of living and ideals they will learn to love it and be much more happy"


Explain this please.
Showing 1-15 of 79