bad? thumbs down? like what's your preference, mate, on MASS MURDER BEING PERPETRATED WITH REMOTE CONTROLLED AERIAL VEHICLES, how do you feel about all that? strike yer fancy or no?

jethrovegas

As long as it's the other guy it sounds great. civilian casualties are super low compared to other methods.

i can't think of anything wrong with them.

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

I can't wait 'till ground based drones are ready for combat. Some of you already cry alot.

Can't wait for you to cry about that.

PWSteal_Ldpinch

You mean like this thing?

Man 'Murica is so awesome I get an erection thinking how much better we are.

Do you have any idea how awesome that thing is?

[QUOTE="--Anna--"]

[QUOTE="Lord_Omikron666"]

It also amuses me when people talk about drones and clearly don't know jack shit about them.

Lord_Omikron666

And what do you know about drones...that we don't know jack shit about? Enlighten us?

Well, considering it's my job, I know alot that people don't.

A fellow aeronautical engineer perhaps?

we need more on OT.

I'm cool with drones. I'm not cool with us using them to murder people who are so-called terrorists whilst also killing the innocent people around them.

junglist101

pretty sure we don't do that on purpose.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]well sure right now they might but even at this point i would probably trust an artificial intelligence routine more to make a split second life or death decision than a sleep deprived infantryman that has seen his friends die and is in some sort of compromised emotional and psysical state.

Riverwolf007

At the moment AI can't even do that.

a decade or two?

Hard to say. But i would estimate 50 years being the absolute max.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]i just think this question has not been taken to it's logical conclusion because the baby steps are so appalling and we get all caught up in the horror of war before people think about what the long term goal here is.

hell, people freak out about these things being completely automated but i can make a case where that is exactly what we should be wanting to happen and for why we should be trying to take the human factor out of the decision to fire entirely.

a bot would never seek revenge for his fallen friends, a bot would never get up any bloodlust in the heat of battle, a bot would never have a survival instinct that would lead it to fire if unsure the target was a civilian or a friendly, a bot would never kill just for the thrill of it or because it thought it could get away with it.

now i doubt we will even let completely automated killing machines loose on the battlefield but the reason why we won't is simply because the general public is too stupid to see the advantages in it.

Riverwolf007

As a long time engineer i can safely say that technology especially robots fail a lot more than humans do in these kind of situations.

At the moment AI can't even do that.

[QUOTE="Audacitron"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]or we switch to 100% automated vehicles with all tanks, planes and infantry or whatever within reason being replaced with drones and you get to not panic and shoot everything around you like a madman because you are in no personal danger.

if you can send a guy into the field and he is in no danger he gets to hold his fire and confirm the target and the worst thing that happens is he loses his drone.

drones could be the most humane thing to ever happen to war when the next generation of pilotless vehicle comes along.

Riverwolf007

that's an interetsing thought. If drones are going to be used, they really have to be held to a standard higher than that we expect from soldiers. You can't just kill a bunch of people and then claim self defence. For a drone there can be no such thing.

Of course that's just the utopian vision of drone warfare. That's not how it looks from the other side with the buzzing threat of death from the sky. Inhuman, unaccountable, unpredictable. In terms of winning hearts and minds, in terms of moral authority, you can never win with this technology.

hell, people freak out about these things being completely automated but i can make a case where that is exactly what we should be wanting to happen and for why we should be trying to take the human factor out of the decision to fire entirely.

a bot would never seek revenge for his fallen friends, a bot would never get up any bloodlust in the heat of battle, a bot would never have a survival instinct that would lead it to fire if unsure the target was a civilian or a friendly, a bot would never kill just for the thrill of it or because it thought it could get away with it.

now i doubt we will even let completely automated killing machines loose on the battlefield but the reason why we won't is simply because the general public is too stupid to see the advantages in it.

As a long time engineer i can safely say that technology especially robots fail a lot more than humans do in these kind of situations.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="dramaybaz"] Only people worth being alive on the planet I see. I will support them when they get used on US soil regularly too.BLKR4330

why should i care about anywhere else (in terms of war at least)? it's idiotic to want war to be fair. if it was up to me the other guys would have sharpened sticks while we have tanks, that's an ideal situation (except from an economic stand point. the only time i would want an evenly matched war would be to jump start the economy Ala ww1 and ww2.

well, besides that you should realize how your view is colored by being born on the more advantageous side of this issue, to care about anywhere else is also your only chance for peace, or at least a somewhat peaceful existence. i think being unfair and on a structural basis, amongst other things, creates great frustration which will lead to enemies you can't beat because they can't lose. like the ones we call terrorists that have shown they can pop up anywhere at any time no matter how many drones you let up.

of course i'm biased. It is only natural for the strong to try and impose on the weak (there is a very fine line between this and thrasymachus' fallacy).

Also peace is not ideal. if peace was the norm or the only option, it would be very difficult for us to take what we want from other nations.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="dramaybaz"]

why should i care about anywhere else

dramaybaz

Just to put it out there, people aren't above lying to make the US look bad.ad1x2

or good.

Democracy is an inefficient and corrupt system which leads to incompetent tyrannys.

Happiness is the reason for continued human existence. what is the point of living if you are not happy?

if you hate happiness you are irrational, illogical and possibly mentally ill.