what do you think about militaries using killer robots?

Page 2 of 5 [ 68 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Joined: 22 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,432
Location: Indiana

21 Dec 2021, 12:43 pm

Such robots would be deployed by wealthy nations while poorer nations would still have to use humans. Nations will be far more willing to wage wars abroad if they can send robots to fight instead of risking their own lives. How much longer would it take for a nation to become war-weary if none of its young men are being brought home traumatized or in caskets? How much longer might we have stayed in Iraq or Afghanistan if the danger were only directed at robots and not servicemen?

How much sentience would these robots have? How much would they need to be remotely effective soldiers? How much would they be able to think? In my mind, they would need to have near-human levels of intelligence and cognizance--which would likely make them sentient enough to question why they are acting as slaves. Unless they are programmed to not value their lives, which to me is unconscionable. What will the military do if their robots decide to fight for their rights? What if the robots rebel against a nation which has fewer human soldiers than robot ones? What if two nations waging wars with robots find that their robots are intelligent enough to turn on their masters?

_________________
Diagnoses: AS, Depression, General & Social Anxiety
I guess I just wasn't made for these times.
- Brian Wilson

Δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν.
Those with power do what their power permits, and the weak can only acquiesce.
- Thucydides

Conservatism discourages thought, discussion, consensus, empathy, and hope.

funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder

21 Dec 2021, 1:02 pm

roronoa79 wrote:

What will the military do if their robots decide to fight for their rights? What if the robots rebel against a nation which has fewer human soldiers than robot ones? What if two nations waging wars with robots find that their robots are intelligent enough to turn on their masters?

I for one welcome our new robot overlords.

_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

21 Dec 2021, 1:55 pm

I don't really have much of a problem with it until they try to make them autonomous, that is where the more problematic possibilities start to crop up. I think people also miss out on some of the advantages, particularly in low intensity conflicts where contact with civilians are more common. A robot, for example, wouldn't need to make the snap decision about whether that's a weapon being pointed at it or something more innocuous, as a life is not on the line if it doesn't act quickly enough, it can have sophisticated pattern recognition sensors for identifying weapons precisely, can be equipped with a suite of lethal and less lethal munitions for different threat levels, can use things like gyroscopic stabilizers and laser range finding to minimize the possibility of missing when it does use its weapons, etc. Basically, I'm picturing something like telepresence for soldiers rather than Skynet here.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

21 Dec 2021, 2:34 pm

Dox47 wrote:

Interesting point. You could have a remote control "robocop" enter some Iraqi person's home. And if a human child points a toy gun on the robot the robot can just stare at the kid while the kid pulls the trigger. If the "toy" turns out to be a real gun firing a real bullet- its only gonna hit a bot- so there is no life lost. And the bot would probably be bullet proof anyway. And if the gun turns out to be a toy the bot wouldnt have been tempted to shoot the innocent kid to save its own life the way a human soldier would.

Texasmoneyman300
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,648
Location: Texas

21 Dec 2021, 2:54 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

Texasmoneyman300 wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

Drones are essentially flying robots.

Robot infantrymen, and self driving tanks, are a logical next step on the battlefield.

Not saying that thats good or bad, just that it is probably going that way.

Why killer robots would be worse than killer humans is not obvious to me.

Would rather have machines kill machines than humans kill humans.

If you're worried about "collateral damage" and deaths to civilians then thats always been an issue in warfare.

well maybe killer robots would be worse because they could shoot full-power battle rifle rounds like the 7.62x51 NATO in 3 round bursts and full-auto instead of modern soldiers with assault rifles having a range of 300 to 500 yards because the 7.62 X 51 NATO could have a close to 1000 yard range.Thats my theory.Regardless the robots could have more ammo in the field especially if it was assault rifle ammo like the 7.62x39mm or the 5.56x45 NATO.Also killer robots would prolly be better shots than infantry soldiers perhaps.

Which point are you making?

Are you saying robot soldiers would be good idea because they would be more effective than human soldiers?

Or are you saying that they would be a bad idea because they would be more effective than human soldiers?

I am just saying that theoretically they could be more effective than a human soldier because a robot could shoot a 7.62 x 51 NATO accurately with 3 round bursts and full auto if it had to and be much more effective than enemy soldiers with AK-47 at range.I would think its a good idea if the US is the first one to have this technology.Also our robots would be much more effective at 500 to 600 yards and further with the 7.62X51 NATO or 6.5 Grendel or 6.5 Creedmoor than current American marines and soldiers with the .556 x 45 NATO.Also the robot soldiers could be better shots.

Last edited by Texasmoneyman300 on 21 Dec 2021, 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Texasmoneyman300
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,648
Location: Texas

21 Dec 2021, 2:56 pm

Fnord wrote:

What do you think about children using assault weapons?

I think they are likely to go on killing sprees due to faulty information they find on-line.

Define assault weapons.Do you mean assault rifles or modern sporting rifles?

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

21 Dec 2021, 3:16 pm

Texasmoneyman300 wrote:

Fnord wrote:

What do you think about children using assault weapons?

I think they are likely to go on killing sprees due to faulty information they find on-line.

Define assault weapons.Do you mean assault rifles or modern sporting rifles?

If he said "assault rifles" then he probably means "assault rifles".

Military type automatic capable rifles that fire heavy bullets like the M16, and the AK 47, but also the consumer civilian version of the M16 (the AR 15). And not hunting rifles that fire one shot at a time.

funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder

21 Dec 2021, 3:20 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

Texasmoneyman300 wrote:

Fnord wrote:

What do you think about children using assault weapons?

I think they are likely to go on killing sprees due to faulty information they find on-line.

Define assault weapons.Do you mean assault rifles or modern sporting rifles?

Assault rifles are defined by firing relatively light bullets compared to a battle rifle.

A modern sporting rifle is the weapon of choice for many mass shooters and is what the media refers to as an assault weapon. A modern sporting rifle isn't granddad's bolt action 30-06, it's a sporterized assault rifle derivative.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,951
Location:

21 Dec 2021, 3:25 pm

I meant "ASSAULT RIFLES".

:roll: I hope I typed that loud enough for you.

Texasmoneyman300
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,648
Location: Texas

21 Dec 2021, 3:26 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

Texasmoneyman300 wrote:

Fnord wrote:

What do you think about children using assault weapons?

I think they are likely to go on killing sprees due to faulty information they find on-line.

Define assault weapons.Do you mean assault rifles or modern sporting rifles?

Oh okay well actually the M16 shoots a very small and light bullet and M16 and AK 47 are very weak guns compared to even a .243.Oh i thought he said assault weapon.Like the 5.56 NATO is not even that good of a round for deer in my opinion.Also a AK-47 bullet is light compared to battle rifle ammo such as the 7.92x57 Mauser.

funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder

21 Dec 2021, 3:28 pm

Texasmoneyman300 wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

Texasmoneyman300 wrote:

Fnord wrote:

What do you think about children using assault weapons?

I think they are likely to go on killing sprees due to faulty information they find on-line.

Define assault weapons.Do you mean assault rifles or modern sporting rifles?

You make a good point why people insisting those rifles are suitable for hunting deer shouldn't be taken at face value.

Texasmoneyman300
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,648
Location: Texas

21 Dec 2021, 3:30 pm

Fnord wrote:

I meant "ASSAULT RIFLES".

:roll:

I hope I typed that loud enough for you.

oh okay thanks.True assault rifles are not used very often in crime sprees by mass shooters.More offten than not they use AR-15s if they are using rifles.Like a AR-15 is much more likely to be used in a mass shooting than a M16.

Texasmoneyman300
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,648
Location: Texas

21 Dec 2021, 3:31 pm

funeralxempire wrote:

Texasmoneyman300 wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

Texasmoneyman300 wrote:

Fnord wrote:

What do you think about children using assault weapons?

I think they are likely to go on killing sprees due to faulty information they find on-line.

Define assault weapons.Do you mean assault rifles or modern sporting rifles?

You make a good point why people insisting those rifles are suitable for hunting deer shouldn't be taken at face value.

All I know is that I would much rather be hit with a AK-47 than even a kid's deer rifle.

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

21 Dec 2021, 3:54 pm

Texasmoneyman300 wrote:

funeralxempire wrote:

Texasmoneyman300 wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

Texasmoneyman300 wrote:

Fnord wrote:

What do you think about children using assault weapons?

I think they are likely to go on killing sprees due to faulty information they find on-line.

Define assault weapons.Do you mean assault rifles or modern sporting rifles?

You make a good point why people insisting those rifles are suitable for hunting deer shouldn't be taken at face value.

All I know is that I would much rather be hit with a AK-47 than even a kid's deer rifle.

Well..I meant "heavy" as opposed to pistol bullets. Traditional First World War type infantry rifles had heavier bullets than modern assault rifles, but machine guns of the interwar era fired pistol bullets. But first the Germans, and then the Soviets, and finally the Americans invented rapid fire guns that fired intermediate sized rounds that combined the rapid fire of tommy guns with the hard hit (but only at the close ranges in which actual combat occurs) of the old long slow firing infantry rifles.

Those were the "assault rifles". They did not invent them to kill deer. They invented them to kill large numbers of smaller game- namely human enemy soldiers.

The AR 15 is just a civilian version of the M16 as I understand it. So it is great at mowing down large number of humans at close range (like in a school corridor) but sucks at killing deer in the woods.

funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder

21 Dec 2021, 4:07 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

Traditional First World War type infantry rifles had heavier bullets than modern assault rifles, but machine guns of the interwar era fired pistol bullets. But first the Germans, and then the Soviets, and finally the Americans invented rapid fire guns that fired intermediate sized rounds that combined the rapid fire of tommy guns with the hard hit (but only at the close ranges in which actual combat occurs) of the old long slow firing infantry rifles.

Machine guns fire full-sized rifle rounds, the same as battle rifles. The lightest machine guns were sometimes also referred to as automatic rifles but weapons like the BAR weren't considered suitable for general issue. The Fedorov automatic rifle was light enough to enough to hint at where things were going to go.

Submachine guns fire pistol rounds and are intended for close-quarters but battle rifles were still the standard infantry weapon.

Auto-fire capability isn't a huge consideration with assault rifles and many military issue weapons are limited to bursts. Assault rifles in western doctrine are used much more like the battle rifles they replaced than like SMGs.

Texasmoneyman300
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,648
Location: Texas

21 Dec 2021, 4:57 pm

funeralxempire wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

Ya I think most of the time they use single shots at a time or 3-round bursts as opposed to full auto for M4 Carbines.

Page 2 of 5 [ 68 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Jump to:

what do you think about militaries using killer robots? Post Reply New Topic

what do you think about militaries using killer robots?