Why Can't Wars be fought w/ robots?

[WallofYawn]

Here's an idea, stemming from other thread but thought deserved its own topic:

What if wars were fought using drones, or robots, fighting other drones/robots, on both sides, without human casualties?

Would you still be anti-war, if no one dies? I personally, think this is the way warfare is headed anyway. There will always be those who threaten human life, but what if it became unpopular to do so, and we found other ways of fighting wars/settling disputes?

Thoughts?

[naronic]

Hackers

[Korriken]

At 2/18/14 08:22 PM, WallofYawn wrote: Here's an idea, stemming from other thread but thought deserved its own topic:

What if wars were fought using drones, or robots, fighting other drones/robots, on both sides, without human casualties?

Would you still be anti-war, if no one dies? I personally, think this is the way warfare is headed anyway. There will always be those who threaten human life, but what if it became unpopular to do so, and we found other ways of fighting wars/settling disputes?

Thoughts?

It would be Robots trying to prevent enemy robots from reaching the humans. Once one side gets the advantage, people would begin dying. War isn't a game.

[leanlifter1]

At 2/18/14 08:22 PM, WallofYawn wrote: Here's an idea, stemming from other thread but thought deserved its own topic:

What if wars were fought using drones, or robots, fighting other drones/robots, on both sides, without human casualties?

Would you still be anti-war, if no one dies? I personally, think this is the way warfare is headed anyway. There will always be those who threaten human life, but what if it became unpopular to do so, and we found other ways of fighting wars/settling disputes?

Thoughts?

I don't think many sane people want war at all. Mech wars would be a stupid waste of resources just like normal wars. Really I think war is already fairly mechanized. Mostly wars are fought and won with bombs now in days. War is stupid and I would not want to make a decision on how they are fought.

[WallofYawn]

Good points and I agree. But what if we didn't fight wars at all, is my point?

What if we decided who wins/loses based on competition?

I know war isn't a game, but why can't we do away with war, and have a game instead?

I'm looking at it like this:

how can we prevent conflict and find a solution? An alternative to war. Beyond just talking about it, or handling shit diplomatically which doesn't really work that well in many cases.

The idea of robots was just one idea, and mainly I was thinking of how we can eliminate ALL human casualties, COMPLETELY. How can we do this, and if no one dies in war, is it still war? A casualty free war, is it possible?

[Camarohusky]

At 2/18/14 08:53 PM, WallofYawn wrote: I know war isn't a game, but why can't we do away with war, and have a game instead?
how can we prevent conflict and find a solution? An alternative to war. Beyond just talking about it, or handling shit diplomatically which doesn't really work that well in many cases.

It seems as if you don't understand why war exists. Any altrnative to violent war IS a form of diplomacy. Be it talks, Dennis Rodman, or rollerball.

What makes war effective is not the competition, but the violence. Any non-violence or forceful method would result in a situation where the other side would be volunteering to capitualte, submit, or take a lesser stance. Most people don't want to do that. What war does is force that response. War's vilent capacity either actively forces the other side to submit or it acts to scare the other side into submitting. The show of force also has a lingering deterrent effect on the submitting party and any other party in that situation.

As Al Capone said, "You can get more of what you want with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word"

[oobooglunk]

Robots are stupid and expensive. We already have the technology for robotic soldiers, but we don't have the resources for a robot army.

[All-American-Badass]

You're still gonna have innocent casualties regardless of who are what we send to fight a war, just look at our drone program, on paper it's a great idea, we can take out the enemy without risking the lives of US soldiers. Yet the problem arises when the enemy isn't distinguishable from civilians, which is sorta the situation we have in the Middle East.

[CommanderFalcon]

Once we get to a point where it's both cheaper to do so and there isn't a huge security issue (IE: hackers, inability for the robots to actually, you know, kill things) then we probably will.

[Sense-Offender]

Why don't presidents fight the waaaar?!
Why do the always send the pooooor?!

[Warforger]

'Cause people will decry it as the next biggest crime against humanity. Just look at drones, the only new thing about them is that they're remotely piloted, and now they're pissing everyone off. No one seemed to particularly care when the US was firing cruise missiles which can hit their target hundreds of miles away, or when stealth bombers which cannot be detected were bombing enemies around the world all the while taking off and landing in the US.

Given that I bet robots with guns will piss more people off (although aren't robots already performing a couple of missions in Afghanistan and before that Iraq?).

[mojolot]

If all wars were fought ONLY with machines, how would people revolt against corrupt governments? if countries like Syria or Egypt had armies of mech-soldiers, then the freedom-fighters wouldn't stand a chance. Besides, im sure that robotic armies would drain our natural resources at an even faster rate than our current forces.

[Camarohusky]

At 2/21/14 04:29 AM, mojolot wrote: If all wars were fought ONLY with machines, how would people revolt against corrupt governments? if countries like Syria or Egypt had armies of mech-soldiers, then the freedom-fighters wouldn't stand a chance.

Easy, avoid the robot armies.

Want to revolt, but the prospect of facing T-800 scares you? Blow up a few Federal civilian buildings. Resort to guerilla warfare and terrorism.

When it comes to defeating a robot army, it's the same as defeating a high tech army. The only difference is there is less attrtition to the occupying army. A tank is a tank regardless of whether it has a pilot or not.

[Razefan]

At 2/18/14 08:22 PM, WallofYawn wrote: Here's an idea, stemming from other thread but thought deserved its own topic:

What if wars were fought using drones, or robots, fighting other drones/robots, on both sides, without human casualties?

Would you still be anti-war, if no one dies? I personally, think this is the way warfare is headed anyway. There will always be those who threaten human life, but what if it became unpopular to do so, and we found other ways of fighting wars/settling disputes?

Thoughts?

Too expensive right now, plus technology to replace soldiers is barely even planned to be available in 60 years

[LoboF]

At 2/18/14 08:22 PM, WallofYawn wrote: What if wars were fought using drones, or robots, fighting other drones/robots, on both sides, without human casualties?

if robots were used in war, they would be used to attack cities, not other robots

[leanlifter1]

War is about effectivly spreading Teror. Unless the bots are programed to kill and rape inocent presons and property then the mechanism of War will not be acheived which is once again Terror. First is Political/economic terrorism then if the other party does not submit to the subjugation package that the States are trying to sell on the victim then the War machine wakes up.

[orangebomb]

For some odd reason, I keep thinking that robot warfare is going to like Black Ops 2, where drones will fully go hand in hand with regular human soldiers instead of just being an auxiliary part of the military. We're still a long ways away from having fully armed mechs (e.g. Knightmare Frames from Code Geass fame) or power armor suits (e.g. Marvel's Iron Man) though.

Geekiness aside, people have a hard enough time accepting drone strikes in America for whatever reason, despite being more efficient and reliable that putting boots on the ground or trusting some assassin who may be shifty in their loyalty or crap out at the last minute. Just imagine all of the ruckus that they're making in Pakistan with the drones when civilians get in the crossfire. Though a lot of this could've been avoided if Pakistan actually would do something about earlier and not pass the buck like they are known to do. For fuck's sake, they made and are pointing nuclear weapons at India for nearly 2 decades, but suddenly don't have the resources to deal with a psychopathic terrorist group with a big mouth, no shock to see that their priorities aren't in order and their country is mostly crapsack and unstable.

[Idiot-Finder]

At 2/18/14 08:22 PM, WallofYawn wrote:

Thoughts?

There's a problem, we like to kill each other.

[leanlifter1]

At 2/25/14 06:54 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 2/18/14 08:22 PM, WallofYawn wrote:

Thoughts?

There's a problem, we like to kill each other.

I would say that's 100% false. Do you kill people ? Would you like to kill people ?

[orangebomb]

At 2/25/14 07:51 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: I would say that's 100% false. Do you kill people ? Would you like to kill people ?

It seems to me that you are fond of using loaded questions in order to prove your point.

Regardless, most sane people don't like killing, but in some way, killing is part of our nature. Why do you think we have so many wars in the past and today? Killing someone may be wrong from a purely moralistic standpoint, but with things like Realpolitik and general pragmatism, (especially in times of war) sometimes killing is the only solution, especially if it will save more lives.

[Camarohusky]

At 2/25/14 07:51 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: I would say that's 100% false. Do you kill people ? Would you like to kill people ?

Nah, I'd say hes 100% right. Sure a person may not like killing, but people do.

[leanlifter1]

At 2/25/14 08:10 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 2/25/14 07:51 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: I would say that's 100% false. Do you kill people ? Would you like to kill people ?

Nah, I'd say hes 100% right. Sure a person may not like killing, but people do.

You'd say hes 100% right ? "we like to kill each other." which is a mass sweeping generalization. Then you add to the false statement when you contradict yourself in saying that in your opinion he is 100% right. He say's "we like to kill each other." you say "Sure a person may not like killing" I say where does the 100% agreement on your part come from ?

[jhypsyshah]

The states (ARL) have been planning on replacing 90% of the infantry for a long time. I think that was the point of Future Combat Systems or whatever it's called now.

[orangebomb]

At 2/25/14 08:18 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: You'd say hes 100% right ? "we like to kill each other." which is a mass sweeping generalization. Then you add to the false statement when you contradict yourself in saying that in your opinion he is 100% right. He say's "we like to kill each other." you say "Sure a person may not like killing" I say where does the 100% agreement on your part come from ?

It's human nature to kill each other for many different reasons, that's why we have laws on the books to deal with those who murder, and dole out the punishment for said crime, imperfect as it may be. The vast majority of people on planet Earth goes their whole lives not murdering or killing anyone, but it's because of morals or the law, not because of human nature. Condemn it all you like, people kill people all the time, even if the reasoning is ultimately stupid or pointless.

Also, I would point out that you are using a mass sweeping generalization in saying that killing is 100% wrong, when you should know that it isn't black and white, and it doesn't exist in a mere vacuum. Killing someone for the greater good can be and is often justified if someone was clearly in the wrong and is doing more harm than good to a high level to both a society and as a people as well.

[leanlifter1]

At 2/25/14 09:26 PM, orangebomb wrote:

It's human nature to kill each other for many different reasons,

Please cite legit sources to this opinion of yours.

that's why we have laws on the books to deal with those who murder,

Some people are clinically insane and we have laws to protect the innocent from these individuals.

and dole out the punishment for said crime, imperfect as it may be. The vast majority of people on planet Earth goes their whole lives not murdering or killing anyone, but it's because of morals or the law, not because of human nature.

So it could be said with a certain degree of logic that ones environment they were born into would dictate weather or not they would have to kill others out of necessity to survive. It could also be said that only clinically insane people would enjoy taking another Human beings life in cold blood. My opinion.

Condemn it all you like, people kill people all the time, even if the reasoning is ultimately stupid or pointless.

Some people kill some of the time but these people are considered mentally ill if they enjoyed it.

Killing someone for the greater good can be and is often justified if someone was clearly in the wrong and is doing more harm than good to a high level to both a society and as a people as well.

That would be a matter of opinion not fact.

[The-Great-One]

At 2/18/14 08:22 PM, WallofYawn wrote: What if wars were fought using drones, or robots, fighting other drones/robots, on both sides, without human casualties?

We would get to the point of advance programming that could lead to a robot apocalypse. I'm not for this. Why do we need to have wars to begin with, whether they're with robots or not.

[WallofYawn]

At 2/27/14 10:05 PM, The-Great-One wrote:

At 2/18/14 08:22 PM, WallofYawn wrote: What if wars were fought using drones, or robots, fighting other drones/robots, on both sides, without human casualties?

We would get to the point of advance programming that could lead to a robot apocalypse. I'm not for this. Why do we need to have wars to begin with, whether they're with robots or not.

Why do we need wars to begin with? Was actually the whole point of my question. That was more the point then anything to do with robots, I just chose to use an example others could identify with.

I agree though, that we should AVOID SKYNET AT ALL COSTS. In fact, if robots gain intelligence, we should ANNIHILATE THEM. Smart robots WILL choose to take us out, for we are inferior. ALL SMART ROBOTS MUST NOT EXIST. That is how I feel about it.

I was looking at robot thing more like Reel Steel, or some computer thing. My idea was more "what can we do as an ALTERNATIVE TO WAR." This is just one possibility. A competition or such could be another idea. Hell, even Chess Warfare would be better then having actual casualties. We want to eliminate the need for death in war, thus eliminating the need for war itself. Diplomacy I guess, but instead of talking shit over, you're gambling with resources.(poker game perhaps?)

[Camarohusky]

At 3/1/14 10:45 PM, WallofYawn wrote: Why do we need wars to begin with?

When two people have a need for the same thing and are unwilling or unable to share, only one outcome can result.

[Ericho]

Sooner or later, the robots are going to be defeated and then the people will become the targets. What if a country is bad at building robots but better with other kinds of weapons? That wouldn't really be fair, but then again, it would be hard for really all countries to get robots that good.

[reddge]

if wars were fought with robots then no one would die and thus it would not matter.