Ethics of high tech weapons

[Bozo Erectus]

Funny, alot of the arguments Ive seen here against the feasability and utility of remote controlled robots on the battlefield are virtually identical to arguments Ive read written by senior military officers 100 years ago when the tank was first being developed and introduced.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

it will be just like when only the US had nuclear weapons, and conquered the world with it's unstopable power. Wait that never happend and it still won't happen when we have more remote control airplanes

The US wasn't unstoppable back then, and also it had the USSR standing against it if it wanted to pick on little countries.

No more.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

Funny, alot of the arguments Ive seen here against the feasability and utility of remote controlled robots on the battlefield are virtually identical to arguments Ive read written by senior military officers 100 years ago when the tank was first being developed and introduced.

What, the driver will overheat?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

No, that tanks would never play a big role in combat, werent practical, and could never replace infantry when spearheading invasions.

 

[nonconformist]

Weapons are only as ethical as the guy using it.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Thats true, but its hard to think of an ethical use for a remote controlled killer robot

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Could not be remote controlled at all. The robot or flying drone could simply scower the battlefield for targets of opportunity and fire at will, without central control.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Aphex, huh? Maybe Im misunderstanding you But the drones, and the Robo Sharpshooter in the article on the previous page, are all remote controlled.

 

[cgannon64]

Aphex, I don't think they'd trust a robot to kill on its own. They would let it scout out targets, but if it fired, I'm sure it would require some kind of human authorization.

 

[Lord_all_Mighty]

I agree with Bozo, machines controlled in this way will destroy any chance of preserving peace in our world. Think about it, agressive and ambitious political leaders with this kind of technology would be lethal. Billions of death-robots destroyed while conquering a country? Who cares, just build more. Money is replacable, people aren't.
Even in democratic governments, with your sons/daughters operating a kill-bot on another continet completely safe in a bunker, there is little reason to protest.

 

[BasketCase]

The thing is, modern weapons are often so terrible effective, causing so much collateral damage, especially nukes being good enough to destroy the whole planet.

From the wooden club to the rifle, to air power and bombs to intercontinental nuclear missiles a great change took place.

The best weapons out there became weapons of mass destruction, and they are so terribly effective that still conventional forces are needed to fight wars - against those who do not have the means to counter with brute nuclear force, if things go wrong.

It's always the big guns that get all the attention, isn't it?

There are two trends running in warfare: towards bigger weapons (i.e. nukes) and towards more accurate ones. In World War II there were no such things as "smart" bombs; it took a large number of planes and a whole lot of bombs to be sure of hitting a target, and the collateral damage was horrendous. Today, it takes one plane and one bomb to hit something, pilot error and enemy defenses aside; usually it takes a couple groups of planes to maintain air superiority and suppress ground defenses so the bomber or bombers can get a shot in. But the collateral damage is a lot lower.

 

[downwithgravity]

The days of the Giant Killer Death Robots are nearly upon us.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

The ultimate weapon system in the US arsenal for the last two hundred years and in the next twenty will still be a Marine and his rifle.

Are you suggesting that you guys are better than the army boys?

 

[Bronx Warlord]

Are you suggesting that you guys are better than the army boys?

Better? in some areas yes.

All Marines, from grunts to mechanics are expert marksmen. each and every last Marine down to the lowest Private to the Commandant of the Corps.

So in that respect yes, we are " better "

Then again, in defense of the Amry... no one does ground warfare like the Army, nobody. The ammount of firepower and support they can bring to bare apon a foe is astonishing.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

I was joking man, everyone knows that the marines are better riflemen.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

I'm sorry

 

[Longasc]

Giant Death Robots were just another weapon.

And who is sure they would mainly kill other GDRs? The question is, what would a nation without GDRs do against them? They will probably strike where it hurts, if they can. Even an "old-fashioned" nuke has more killing potential than a future Giant Death Robot.


So why should it be unethical to use these robots. I think it is the right way to minimize human losses on the own side, the lack of emotion involved may also save civilians.

The days of close combat on a large scale are over by far. No bomber pilot ever saw much more than crumbling buildings and huge explosions. They could imagine, but seeing their destruction afterwards in pictures was surely a sad feeling, but still not a first-hand experience.

 

[Longasc]

I see also no reason to overly praise the Marine Corps or any other military fighting unit in that way. Pure machism.

USMC - Social underclass put to good use to risk their lives as well-trained specialist cannon-fodder. It is really a special honor to do the dirty and dangerous work.

The ultimate weapon system in the US arsenal for the last two hundred years and in the next twenty will still be a Marine and his rifle.

At least two buckets of pathetic self-praise.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

USMC - Social underclass put to good use to risk their lives as well-trained specialist cannon-fodder. It is really a special honor to do the dirty and dangerous work.

Nice try, I would hardly call it the Social undercalss put to good work considering the people that make up it's ranks. Are some of them from the Social underclass? yes, some of them are. Are many also from wealthy families? yes, many are. Cannon fodder? no, we do not use Soviet Doctrine and considering your time in the military I can tell your just saying this to get a rise out of me.

As for Speical honor... wich by the way your countrys armed forces completely and utterly lack after your holidays in Poland and the Soviet Union, well let's talk about that speical honor shall we?

Cost effective - The USMC is the most cost effective out of any branch of our nations armed forces. We get second rate gear from the army like boots, uniforms, communications equipment and what do we do with it? we get 120% out of it. I guess that has nothing to do with the Marines useing it right? Afterall according to you we are all the social undercalss... funny then, how were so damn effective.

Battle History - I'd love to see any branch of your nations ared services that can match our achivements. We have often times been the navy's bastard children, looked down apon and underfunded. Yet we have defused more hotspots by our mere presence than our army has. In combat we have earned our reputation for professionalism, valor and compatence by getting the job done. We pretty much wrote the book on amphibious warfare. The success of this effort was proven at Guadalcanal, Bougainville, Tarawa, New Britain, Kwajalein, Eniwetok, Saipan, Guam, Tinian, Peleliu, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Look it up sometime, I dare you. The Chosin Reservoir, cutoff and outnumbered by close to 17 divisions to our one/ not only did we manage to pull out after we were written off, we inflicted massive casualties on the chicom/nk forces... and we diden't have to leave our equipment behind. Every last truck, tank and peice of heavy equipment that was not destroyed was taken with us... in the middle of a bilzzard mind you.

How about that 6th army?

You are in absolutely no position to speak down apon my Corps, I don't care what your " logic " is. The fact of the matter is we are one of the premier fighting forces in the wrold, sorry if that bothers you. I could go on and on but I won't bother, just remember we earned our nickname, devil dogs, from your own people in world war one.

At least two buckets of pathetic self-praise.

Too bad it's a fact, and your armed forces have nothing to be proud of in the slightest.

 

[BasketCase]

The days of close combat on a large scale are over by far. No bomber pilot ever saw much more than crumbling buildings and huge explosions. They could imagine, but seeing their destruction afterwards in pictures was surely a sad feeling, but still not a first-hand experience.

Way back when the most advanced high-tech weaponry available was a stick with a sharpened rock on the end, the fact that war was ALWAYS close-up-and-personal did absolutely nothing to stop it.

For the troops, anyway. The chieftain/king/emperor/whoever was still as far removed from the battle as George Bush is today. That disconnection from the horror of war has always been there.

Spears, swords and forged weapons, cannons, flintlocks, repeating rifles, machine guns, F-15's, nukes. Even in the nuclear age, we've had dozens of large-scale man-to-man wars (just most of them didn't involve the United States and therefore didn't make the 6 o'clock news).