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
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)
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.
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!!!
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"
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.
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"
