Attack of the Killer Robots

[rrneck]

"One of the most effective solutions to this quandary, the military has discovered, is to introduce distance into the equation. Studies show that the farther the would-be killer is from the victim, the easier it is to pull the trigger. Death and suffering become more sanitized—the humanity of the enemy can be more easily denied. By giving the Army and Marines the capability to kill from greater distances, armed robots will make it easier for soldiers to take life without troubling their consciences.

The Rev. G. Simon Harak, an ethicist and the director of the Marquette University Center for Peacemaking, says, 'Effectively, what these remote control robots are doing is removing people farther and farther from the consequences of their actions.'”

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4243/attack_of_the_killer_robots


A lot of that going around.

[Buzz Clik]

1. That is exactly why Congress can screw us over again and again without remorse.

[rrneck]

4. Yep. And also

how corporate intersts do it, frequently through congress as well.

It's also how stockholders in the corporations screw (kill) prople long distance through the development of this shit.

Risk management is everywhere.

[Cerridwen]

2. I am such a nerd.

My first thought was of an old Star Trek episode.

Time to google for a link.

edit to add, though not so much of a nerd I knew the episode without googling it.

From Amazon:

Synopsis
In 'A Taste Of Armageddon' Kirk and Spock land on a strange world where, in order to mitigate the physical destructiveness of modern warfare, two planets battle by computer, with designated human casualties herded into evil death chambers.

[rrneck]

3. Less so than you might think.

Science fiction frequently runs ahead of technological development.

[Cerridwen]

7. Yeah, "everything I need to know I learned from Star Trek"

:D

I joke about it but I've learned a lot from science fiction in which the authors are free to criticise and discuss those things not "acceptable" in "polite" circles.

[Sal Minella]

9. Roddenberry was the master, imho.

[villager]

5. I'm thinking of the Cylons, in this instance, turning back on their inventors...

n/t

[Cerridwen]

8. Oooooo, I hadn't though of that angle. n/t

[TahitiNut]

6. When those remote controllers are seated in Washington, New York, or Boston ...

... does that mean that those areas are legitimate military targets? Much is made of 'terrorists' who hide among civilians and how that's somehow 'not cricket' -- but we're gleefully waging war from places like the "Blue Cube" in Silicon Valley. How does that not make Silicon Valley a legitimate target? How does having 'combatants' (using joysticks and video) sitting in a Starbucks between shifts not make Starbucks a legitimate target??

Now ... what's this shit about 'civilians' again??

[KittyWampus]

11. another good point. Some very interesting (and disturbing) facets to this.

I would add that humanity is becoming increasingly alienated/removed from a lot of things.

How our food is grown and produced, for instance.

[rrneck]

12. Yes. A country's infrastructure has been a

military target for a long time. Since the start of industrialized warfare the destruction of a country's ability to produce war material has been a target. Sherman's march to the sea and the bombing of Dresden come to mind. And of course the terrorists on 911 didn't pull the ideas for the World Trade Center and the Pentagon out of a hat.

[Selatius]

10. Eventually, the Pentagon will try to develop machines like this:

[rrneck]

13. It's a fair bet they are

already working on it. Americans have always been willing to trade money for blood. Unfortunately, we may find that since our resource future has been called into question, paying for all those toys may become impossible. Will we be willing to give more blood than money to keep the richest 1% of us in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed?