First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Use of robotic soldiers in the future
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 6/23/15

tenchi22 wrote:

It's dreadful how people drone on about this.




39015 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Tralfamadore
Offline
Posted 6/23/15

VZ68 wrote:


tenchi22 wrote:

It's dreadful how people drone on about this.






Nice pic!
18098 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/2/15 , edited 7/2/15
Robot armies are a terrible idea, as they would make wars more likely.

Why, you ask?

Current wars come at the cost of life. This is a heavy cost, especially when a nation's government has to explain why their fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters had to giver their lives. This heavy cost ensures that any nation that wishes to wage war better be damn sure it's worth it.

Look at the technological advancements in warfare today. It's becoming more and more a "push button to kill scenario." There are still boots on the ground though, so the cost is still high and is likely to make nations avoid in engaging in or prolonging war. Would the American people have wanted to pull out of the Middle East when we did if there wasn't a rising body count that the government had to answer to?

Think of RTS games like Command and Conquer, when you play the game the units are just assets that cost you resources. When they are destroyed you don't feel regret, sadness, or pity. You're just annoyed you have to spend more resources to replace them. Now put that into a real life scenario. If all a war cost a nation was money, don't you think they would be much less reserved in waging warfare if it was just a matter of whether they could pay for it or not?

Also, if first-world countries had robot armies, what would that mean for third-world countries who couldn't afford to produce robot armies? That would lead to a wide power gap that could lead to exploitation. Want the resources of another country? Just send the robots, we'll make the money back from profits (sarcasm here).

And then there's LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict). Would that even apply to inhuman belligerents? Probably not, as LOAC, which is derived from the Hague and Geneva Conventions, pertains to human rights and life.

My point in all of this is if you remove the cost of human life, you remove the main incentive for a nation to pursue peace. As long as war is paid for in blood, it will remain an undesirable option that is only pursued when all else fails. Removing that hurdle will only lessen the cost of war, which can only lead to more warfare as it becomes more profitable than costly.
884 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 7/3/15
As they are, robotic armies are a lot more expensive than an army of meatbags. Made of durable metals and plastics that's gotta cost a pretty penny just for one unit.

Besides, outside of religion or prejudice, wars are just not worthwhile. Shit's expensive and body counts/collateral damage are a logistic's nightmare. It's a whole lot more cheap to resort to things that are considered massive warcrimes (chemical weapons/nukes) OR just negotiate trade. And you know how the collective world likes war crimes.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.