Doesn't this strike you as...inhumane?

[katinmn]

I'm sure most of you have seen this item about robot soldiers being sent to fight "insurgents" in Iraq. This just adds vinegar to the wound I'm feeling over the slaughter in Iraq.

I mean REALLY. They have found a way to further dehumanize the taking of an individual's life.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/10709685.htm?1c
Posted on Sat, Jan. 22, 2005
Army Prepares 'Robo-Soldier' for Iraq
MICHAEL P. REGAN
Associated Press

ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, N.J. - The rain is turning to snow on a blustery January morning, and all the men gathered in a parking lot here surely would prefer to be inside. But the weather couldn't matter less to the robotic sharpshooter they are here to watch as it splashes through puddles, the barrel of its machine gun pointing the way like Pinocchio's nose. The Army is preparing to send 18 of these remote-controlled robotic warriors to fight in Iraq beginning in March or April.

Made by a small Massachusetts company, the SWORDS, short for Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems, will be the first armed robotic vehicles to see combat, years ahead of the larger Future Combat System vehicles currently under development by big defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics Corp.

It's easy to humanize the SWORDS (a tendency robotics researchers say is only human) as it moves out of the flashy lobby of an office building and into the cold with nary a shiver.

Military officials like to compare the roughly three-foot-high robots favorably to human soldiers: They don't need to be trained, fed or clothed. They can be boxed up and warehoused between wars. They never complain. And there are no letters to write home if they meet their demise in battle.


-more-

[ArkDem]

1. I can't believe we are getting too chicken to put our own

troops at risk. This sucks!

[katinmn]

2. We're this big techno advanced country that is now sending

robot soldiers to fight people we have reduced to living in garbage dumps.
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000161.php#more

Shame on America!!!

[Tacos al Carbon]

27. And we should also stop using tanks

ans submarines ... those sneaky, sneaky boats ... oh, and we shouldn't bombard targets from ships or use bombers or AC130 gunships or helicopters. Just hand to hand combat with no body armor so that you won't think we're "chicken."

On edit, the Simpsons had it right:

The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots.

--Bart and Lisa's military school graduation address

[mrfrapp]

36. As it happens

Your sarcasm is noted but their's some wisdom in it none-the-less. It is precisely because of the imbalance in hardware that makes the current crop of politicians so keen to go to war in the first place -- there's little political detriment for them to do so. With these "robot soldiers" the political risk is reduced even further.

This is just a hunch, but I suspect the Vietnam war would still be going on if the Government had an endless supply of soldiers who didn't have families and friends to fight for them once they'd gone. It was after all, public outcry over the loss of so many soldiers that put insurmountable pressure on the politicians. I'd like to think that there would be opposition to these kinds of wars anyway but I'm not sure the politicians would have any reason to listen.

Also, I'd like to ask about landmines. They were voluntarily given up by most countries in the world because they were seen as unfair. Should countries start employing them again because after all, they're pretty effective in maiming enemy soldiers if not outright killing them. I assume, like me, you don't believe landmines should ever be used, but where exactly do you draw the line between what's acceptable in warfare and what isn't?

Personally, I would have no problem in international law banning the use of military hardware that is so much more efficient that the oppositions. For example, no use of Gunships to defend the homeland against enemy farmers or Daisycutter bombs to thwart villianous goat herds. Perhaps then, politicians will give diplomacy more of a chance.

[ieoeja]

40. Landmines unfair?

I'm guessing you meant inhumane. The problem with landmines is that too many are left in place when the fighting moves on and civilians move in.

There is certainly nothing unfair about them in the sense of giving one side too much of an advantage over the other. They are about as cheap, lo-tech and readily available as military hardware gets.

Not that big a deal to make your own even. Communist insurgents in El Salvador used to create several concrete and dirt shells (to look like rocks), insert explosives with cap, place along both sides of a path, and run wires underground to a battery topped by a metal plate buried a half inch deep at furthest point along the path. When the soldier in front steps on the metal plate, all the landmines along the path go off at once.

[Tacos al Carbon]

41. My only problem with landmines

is the fact that they continue to operate long after a conflict is over and, often, no one knows where they are. That is what differentiates them (and sea mines, for that matter) from other weapons that are harmless when not actively being used. If landmines coule be decommissioned with a flip of a switch or have a definite, finite useful lifespan, they would be much more humane and legitimate weapons.

As for imbalance, I'm all for it. I want the soldiers on my side of a conflict to have every possible advantage. Someone else can tell them to take off the body armor because the enemy doesn't have any.

[mrfrapp]

42. Nice

I'm not going to reply to your post with the respect it deserves because I don't think I can contain my contempt sufficiently.

I can scarcely believe I've just read an attempted justification for the use of landmines on a "left wing" discussion board. Please add me to your ignore list.

[Tacos al Carbon]

43. Excuse me?

What exactly is your problem with my post? Do you oppose bullets and shells as vehemently? If not, why not?

[LynnTheDem]

3. It's a horrible slide into Hell and the total end of America.

How easy it will be for people to sit so safe and comfortable, playing their computer war games. How REALISTIC!

Hey, let's blast EVERYONE standing over there! It's JUST A GAME, so who cares if they're innocent civilians, old men & women, little children, pregnant mothers.

Vietnam ended, when the US govt wanted to escalate the war, only because Americans SAW the reality of blood and bone and grey brain matter seeping out of heads.

The US govt learned THAT Vietnam lesson well; how much reality of Iraq's death and blood and bone and oozing brain matter have we seen on MSM? How many dying uniformed American men, women & teens have you seen and heard crying and screaming on MSM?

Little to none. Don't worry your beautiful mind.

Now even soldiers won't have to see the death and destructions and misery they're causing; won't have to smell the thick sweet iron scent of blood. Won't have to worry for their own safety, so no need to be cautious; just kill every MFer that moves.

No need to have solid evidence before waging wars; after all, our soldiers won't be in danger, so hey let them play a few rounds of their computer game. Better America be safe than sorry!

After all, it's JUST A GAME...exactly like the computer game the US Army uses to recruit kids.

[rman]

4. not more inhumane then war already is

btw these "robots" aren't robots; they are not autonomous but rather they are remote controlled.

[LynnTheDem]

5. And the rightwingnuts went nutser over Iraq's balsawood "drones"

Someone should send a half-dozen of those cute little killing-machine remote-controlled machin gun toting robots roaming thru a few US cities; maybe the ensuing total panic will wake Americans up. Some of them.

And that will happen here; what the government is willing to do to others, it's willing to do to us. Why risk cops and NG when they can simply send in their remote robots to gun us down?

[unpossibles]

9. a good point

one of my thoughts about any potential popular uprising is that "would the military/police fire on their own"? Some would, of course, but many would not. Problem solved, I suppose.

Scary as fuck, imo. Have these people not seen RoboCop and The Terminator?

[DistantWind88]

10. These RPAs

Are controlled by humans, though. It's a man who would "pull the trigger."

[LynnTheDem]

11. Yes, from a safe distance...watching on a gameboy type screen with a

gameboy type "joystick". Just like the computer war game the US army uses for recruiting.

How much EASIER it will be for soldiers to sit safe & comfy and PLAYING A COMPUTER GAME, not having to see live in person the REALITY of what they're causing.

Do you feel badly for those you kill when you war-game? Because we're going to end up with troops killing people on their gameboy type joysticks, and who have never actually seen a dead body.

[DistantWind88]

12. Alas, we do that every day now...

They're called airplanes.

[LynnTheDem]

14. True to a point.

So hey, it's ok then!

And it'll be just fine & dandy to Americans when other nations send their machine-gunning bots into our streets. After all, other nations already have airplanes.

[DistantWind88]

15. I'd rather use those

then send my kid into combat. Wouldn't you?

[LynnTheDem]

17. I'd rather do neither. I am glad tho that you have no problem with other

nations sending their armed bots into our cities to safely gun us down.

I assume by your remark that you have a kid; better start teaching him now how to run and hide from bots. Don't want him unprepared.

[DistantWind88]

19. Where did I say that I have no problem

with "other nations...?" I said I'd rather WE use automated systems than risk my kid's life.

[LynnTheDem]

20. I was assuming you're not a hypocrite.

You don't want YOUR kid killed in combat, so would prefer machine-gunning bots.

And OTHER NATION'S kids? They of course will feel exactly the same way about THEIR kids.

So, unless one is a total HYPOCRITE, if it's better for us to use automated systems to save our kids' lives, then of course it's also better for OTHER nations to use automated systems to save THEIR kids' lives.

If one is OK with US using AWs, then one must also believe it's OK for other nations to use AWs against us.

Unless one is a hypocrite, of course.

[leftchick]

25. { Crickets Chirping }

:yourock:

[LynnTheDem]

28. Heh.

Funny how them chirping crickets tend to show up whenever someone is backed into either admitting they are a hypocrite, or admitting that doing the same *whatever the topic is* to Americans in return is fine & just...

:D :D :D

[DistantWind88]

30. How about, I just had some errands to run?

[LynnTheDem]

31. Oh good, you're back! So, you of course are not a hypocrite.

Which of course means you're fine with other nations also using automated weapons against us.

So as I said, if you have a kid, you probably should start now teaching him about these bots so he'll know one if & when he sees one, and how best for him to run away and avoid being machine-gunned down by any.

[DistantWind88]

33. I would be fine with that, if they had them

and could deploy them.

They don't, and we do. I'd prefer to use whatever technological means we have to help save the lives of our sons and daughters in any future conflict. of course, I'd much prefer we NOT have to engage in combat at all, but if we do, I want to my kid to have the upper hand.

[DistantWind88]

35. Ah, that Cricket Chirping sound....

[LynnTheDem]

38. Pardon me, soldier hubby just got home

And he's far more important than you. :)

[LynnTheDem]

37. They WILL have them and they WILL deploy them

If we deploy them in Iraq.

And that's just a very obvious fact. :)

[DistantWind88]

45. Right

Just like they have and have deployed F-15s, F-117s and B-2s.

[LynnTheDem]

47. So you're trying to say ONLY AMERICA has warplanes???

I don't THINK so dear.

And in case you're just obtuse, I wasn't saying IRAQ will deploy bots; I was saying WHATEVER WE come up with & deploy, THE WORLD will come up with & feel free to deploy as well. Including AGAINST us.

Got it now? ;)

[DistantWind88]

49. That advanced we do

No one else has even come close to anything like the F-117 or the B-2. It's not the fact that we have warplanes, it's the fact that ours and our pilots are so much More advanced than anyone else's (I'm speaking of stealth here)

BTW, these aren't bots. They are RPAs, but I'm sure that's lost on you.

They world is free to come up with and deploy all types of weapons even before we deploy them. We don't have a monopoly on weapons production and deployment; the rest of the world doesn't sit around and wait for the US to develop weapons.

All in all, these RPAs are a good thing for the American fighting man/woman. Sorry if you can't see that.

[LynnTheDem]

51. Doesn't make much diff does it, and no dear it ain't "lost" on me.

I'm at Ft Hood US Army Base; got any more false assumptions you care to make while you're at it?

These RPAs are NOT a good thing for our troops; they will ONLY MAKE THE US GOVT MORE EAGER FOR MORE WARS.

Sorry you can't see that.

[DistantWind88]

55. Really?

And you know this, how? The more eager for wars part, I'm talking about.

The fact that you are at Fort Hood and think that RPAs (which you call bots) are not a good thing for our soldiers baffles me. If you'd prefer your Hubby go into the streets of Baghdad rather than having some RPA do the patrolling for him, more power to you.

Ft Hood--that explains a lot.

[LynnTheDem]

58. Question for ya...

You sure do get "baffled" easily, don't you. ;)

I'm pretty sure the reason I gave for my opinion that these BOTS (that really gets to ya, don't it :D) are not good for our troops was quite clearly stated.

But then you do have a very narrow short-sighted view of things, as is clear from so many of your posts. Not a good thing, especially when one has children.

"Ft Hood explains a lot", does it. It certainly explains a lot about you.


buh bye now! :)

[DistantWind88]

59. And your premise was clearly wrong

they ARE good for our troops.

[LynnTheDem]

61. Nope yer wrong again. I'll take the opinions of the troops I just asked

over YOUR opinion. The troops agree with me; unless one takes an extremely narrow short-sighted view, they are NOT a good thing for the troops.

Now I could also give you their reasons for why they think it's NOT a good thing, but would you bother to actually listen? Don't think so.

Anyhoo as I said, the opinion of troops vastly outweighs yours, so I'll stick with NOT GOOD for the troops. :)

[DistantWind88]

62. Sorry again

The troops I speak to, and having spent my share of time in combat zones, think this is a good thing. It exposes them to less danger.

[LynnTheDem]

63. Then the "troops" you speak to have an incredibly selfish narrow and

short-sighted view...or they're stupid. That's always possible.

Enough, you're a waste of time and I suspect lost. ;)

Cheers!

[DistantWind88]

64. Gee, maybe we should just go back to hand-to-hand

combat. That's what your "argument" boils down to.

[atreides1]

69. If They Want Less Danger

Get the hell out of the military. Once again someone is trying to justify taking the human element out of life and death decision making. No one wants to die in war, but if you're willing to kill others then you should be willing to put your own ass on the line.

I guess it would be easier to gun down a child, as long as you're safe and really don't have to deal with the first hand experience of killing another human being, wouldn't it.

And as far as the US pilots being so much better, perhaps you can explain how the US lost to the Indian Air Force in a war game exercise.

My own personal belief is to get rid of all the high tech gadgets, and go back to using the real weapons of war, those weapons that bring you face to face with your enemy, so that you can look into his eyes as you take his life, or as he takes yours. It takes more training to become a proficient swordsman, archer, horseman, or a member of a siege engine crew, then it does to remote operate a killing robot.

In the same light we keep all of our medical technology, this way we can return the troops to the battlefield to fight again.

[DistantWind88]

70. Any use of technology

that enhances the safety of the American fighting man ought to be pursued by the DoD.

About your Indian AF example: Do you know what the ROE were? Were the engagements 4v4? 4v2? Were the engagements BVR or were they dogfights? What armaments were used? Were countermeasures allowed or not? You don't the answers to any of those questions, co you can't say the US 'lost" to the IAF. BTW, MANY people believe that it was Pentagon propaganda to support the USAF buy of the F-22.

[DistantWind88]

29. It would be better for them to have automated

systems as well, but guess what? They don't and we do. Therefore, in order to save the lives of our boys Adan girls, we ought to use them. What do you suggest, we only use the same weapons as they do?

[LynnTheDem]

32. And hey GUESS WHAT!

You don't have any idea whatsoever whether other nations do or don't already have any and HEY GUESS WHAT ELSE! It's a guarantee that nations WILL have them damn soon, if they don't already. :)

And as it's OK FOR US to use them against other nations, it will be EQUALLY OK for other nations to use them against us.

Because otherwise some people would sound like nasty ignorant little hypocrites who think AMERICAN kids are superior and more valuable with more right to live than anyone else's kids.

And no one here would ever want anyone to think they were suggesting such a thing!

[DistantWind88]

34. Guess what?

My kid is MORE important to me than your kid...
My family is more important to me that yours is to me...
The kids of MY country are more important to me than the kids of any other country.

They are not WORTH more, they are just more important to me. And since they are, when some moron gets them involved in a war, we should use our technological advantage to help minimize our loss of life.

And you are right, it IS OK for other countries to use those weapons against us. They just have to field and deploy them.

[LynnTheDem]

39. Of COURSE your kid is more important etc etc etc.

As my family are more important to me than yours.

That's a given.

Or I'd HOPE it's a given.

And after all this sparring, we come to the point; "it IS OK for other countries to use those weapons against us."

Most excellent! :)

[DistantWind88]

46. Absolutely

IF they have them.

[LynnTheDem]

48. No "IF" about it; the world WILL HAVE THEM.

And if we deploy them in Iraq as planned, then we have told the entire world IT'S OK TO DEPLOY BOTS TO MACHINE-GUN PEOPLE DOWN.

And one day, WE will be the people being machune-gunned down by bots.

[DistantWind88]

50. Get a grip - they are NOT bots.

They are RPAs. And it IS OK for anyone else who can deploy them to deploy them--they don't need our OK to do so.

We will, huh? How are they going to get here, Lynn? Why are you rooting for someone to invade the US so badly?

[LynnTheDem]

52. I KNOW what they are, dear.

And I'll continue to call them BOTS as that is the word most people will recognize.

As I said, we're stationed at Ft Hood Army base...where are YOU stationed, dear?

You're sure proficient with the rightwingnut rhetoric; why is that?

[DistantWind88]

56. As opposed to the Fort Hood

Navy base?

Let's see: RAF Mildenhall (two times), Fort Meade (three times), Kelly AFB, Patch Barracks, Newport, Offutt AFB, NAS Souda Bay. And numerous war zone deployments. How many of those you got?

And wanting to employ RPAs to help preserve the life of our troops is right wing rhetoric how?

[Boosterman]

53. The crossbow will lead to Armageddon I tell you

Do you want other villages using crossbows on your kids?

One other little note in all likelihood the bots are already being sold to other countries.

[AllegroRondo]

6. How long until we recruit kids to operate them?

kids who spent years on the playstation honing their skills, just what the army needs.

[DistantWind88]

8. They already have...

who do you think operates these things? Some 20-year old E-3.

[Rapcw]

7. O Boy can't wait to buy the civillian version! n/t

[LynnTheDem]

13. When will other nations send their machine-gunning bots into our cities?

American arrogance so often means we don't think about the fact that everything we do, others will do. Sooner or later th RC range will be 100s or 1000s or more miles away.

I really don't think Americans are going to like it when 3-foot high fully armed robots are cruising thru our streets gunning Americans down. And if we do it in Iraq, sooner or later someone WILL do it to us.

God Help America.

[underpants]

16. They can be boxed up and warehoused between wars

Sleep well

[LynnTheDem]

18. HELL no! Loan em out (for a fee) to whomever our current pals are!

Gotta recoup the costs, they ain't cheap ya know!

[progressiveright]

21. isn't that a good thing ?

robots fight the wars, no soldiers get killed.

that's what i have been saying about geneva conventions - if you are going to have a war, where people kill people, a game with rules, might as well have it with paintball guns so that you can have a winner, but nobody gets killed.

too bad insurgents don't have their robots though... its like people vs machines in terminator I and II during the battles...

if it weren't for newspapers most people in us wouldn't realize we are in the war, it doesn't affect anybody in this country on any level really.

[LynnTheDem]

22. As long as OUR bots ONLY fight their bots, sure.

But that's not the plan. The plan is for our bots to kill their people.

[unpossibles]

23. I was just thinking of that

how it would almost be kinda funny if this technology was used by both sides... then all we would have is civilian deaths, and hey - Freedom ain't free... </joke>

[LynnTheDem]

26. And take it 1 step further; the LEADERS ONLY duke it out w each other

last one standing wins.

[Boosterman]

57. But that make Arnold a viable candidate

Or whoever wins Extreme Fighting. I suppose Arnies getting a bit long in the tooth.

[LynnTheDem]

66. OK I hadn't thoughta that...but WE got JESSIE V!

Yeah he's a bit long in the choppers, too, but I bet he could take The Groper down. :D

[Boosterman]

71. Hehe

I actually thought that would be a good idea at one point after reading a comic book where it happened. Then I started thinking about elections and who would be a "qualified" candidate.

Edited to add-oh and my money would defintly be on Ventura.

[henrik larssonisking]

54. agreement

if we have to fight i want our troops in tanks, flying fighters and the enemy armed with naught but rocks and sticks.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

24. shades of the movie "The Terminator"..........

funny i was thinking about buying the movie Soylant Green today too because of global warming and distruction of the planet being at CRITICAL MASS!

[progressiveright]

44. nobody seems to consider

what will happen when these 'bots' decide to take over the world. we are setting ourselves up for extinction. they already got one of their own as the governor of california.

[rman]

65. they're not bots, there isn't even the pretence that they're autonomous

these things are RINO's: Robots In Name Only. In reality they are remote-controlled (remote presence, remote sensing if you will).

However, autonomous vehicles are in the works, though about all they can do on their own is navigate and identify targets. Of course these can be used as weapons platforms, so that they could also engage targets.
That would suck big time but it's still a long way from taking over the world.
True Artificial Intelligence needed for any robot to "decide" to take over the world is still a long way off, but i know no principal reason why that could not become reality - eventually.

[progressiveright]

67. RINOs to kill insurgents?

that makes me think of mccain, hagel, snowe, and powell charging into iraqi village...

once they develop quantum computers, AI won't be too long behind, with virtually unlimited computing ability it would be able to reach the speed and complexity of human brain.

[Brewman_Jax]

60. The other side of the coin is...

we become comfortable with war by proxy, as in Star Trek TOS episode A Taste of Armaggedon. That's the episode where the two neighboring planets were fighting a war with computers. War became neat and tidy and without the destruction and horrors of actual war. They got too comfortable letting the computers wage war and let it go on for centuries!

That's a more likely scenario than the machines become sentient and turn on us. :scared:

[progressiveright]

68. that's

what people always say right before machines take over...