What do you think about robots, or 'automated' soldiers being used for war?

Question

Do you think it's right or wrong? What are the advantages and the disadvanteages. And lastly, how far away do you think we are from using something like this?

Answer 1

Ethically it is wrong, and no yo are far away from using something like this. It has been in development for almost a decade or even more.

Why is it wrong? You might kill your own, robots ALWAYS malfunction.

How much does one robot cost? Domo arigato Mr. Roboto.
About half a million for a robot that goes on tactical missions.

Would a robot kill only an adult, or all even children and women?

Would you be able to program a robot to kill a specific target?
Like exam, if the robot hears that the target speaks in Arabic (granted that the war is in Iraq).-correct me if im wrong about their language used.

Advantages:
Less casualty among american soldiers.

Disadvantages:
They might kill american soldiers. They are expensive. The idea is wrong

Facts:
Robots are currently being used in the war, but not automated robots.

Answer 2

Obviously anytime you can remove the human soldier from the threat of injury or death from combat it is a good thing. The remote controlled pilot-less Predator aircraft is an excellent example of this concept. The US Navy's Phoenix missile which has an effective combat range (can it a target) of 100 miles or more is another.
One thing to consider if we ever get to the point where we can remove the human element from combat. Other than complete annihilation or destruction of combatant robots, when would the war end? Even if objectives were achieved the losing country could continue to wage war with robots since it costs nothing in human life. Fortunately or not, one of the determinants of stopping or limiting a war is the toll on human life, at least to a reasonable country (consider the millions lost in the 8 year Iran-Iraq war). And let's be realistic. When the robots begin to lose or dwindle in number (based on industrial capacity) there will, there must be a human combat reserve to fill the void. Then consider, what happens if a country can't field a robot army? Will that country commit human troops or will they capitulate? I submit it would be a human to robotic conflict. Man or machine. In a purely intellectual exercises it would be fascinating to see the outcome of the human will verses the technology of robot forces.

Answer 3

The future of modern warfare will be fought by automated weapons systems [9]. The U.S. Military is investing heavily in research and development towards testing and deploying increasingly automated systems. The most prominent system currently in use is the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (IAI Pioneer & RQ-1 Predator) which can be armed with Air-to-Ground missiles and remotely operated from a command center in reconnaissance roles. DARPA has hosted competitions in 2004 & 2005 to involve private companies and universities to develop unmanned ground vehicles to navigate through rough terrain in the Mojave Desert for a final prize of $2 Million [10]. The field of artillery has also seen some promising research with an experimental weapons system named "Dragon Fire II" [11] which automates the loading and ballistics calculations required for accurate predicted fire, providing a 12 second response time to artillery support requests. However, weapons of warfare have one limitation in becoming fully autonomous: there remain intervention points which requires human input to ensure that targets are not within restricted fire areas as defined by Geneva Conventions for the laws of war.

There have been some developments towards developing autonomous fighter jets and bombers [12]. The use of autonomous fighters and bombers to destroy enemy targets is especially promising because of the lack of training required for robotic pilots, autonomous planes are capable of performing maneuvers which couldn't otherwise be done with human pilots (due to high amount of G-Force), plane designs don't require a life support system, and a loss of a plane doesn't mean a loss of a pilot. However, the largest draw back to robotics is their inability to accommodate for non-standard conditions.

Answer 4

It's already started. We already have the tech. We're now in the process of making it better. It would be no less or no more moral than the people operating it. Which would be (most likely) the people that would have been fighting anyways.

I'm all for it. Lets save some of our soldiers lives. And yes I'm out to save American lives, because these are the people that are representing my family's, my community and I believe my countries best interests.

Answer 5

They have their advantages because they reduce risk for our soldiers. We are already using this technology. We can send in a robot to look around and check things out before we send in humans.

Answer 6

I think it is a good idea. I will cost A LOT. It would be all worth it though. Robots come with glitches though and those may not be good in an important situation when we really need them. It would be better than losing a human life.

Answer 7

It's the wave of the future, especially if they're equipped with the new Metal Storm guns... We're already into production with flying drones, it won't be long before we have automated soldiers.

Answer 8

Killing the enemy by ability of any ability mandatory is the first order of warfare. Drones over the battlefield are getting used to kill the undesirable adult adult males. This retains a stay US pilot out of harm's way. i'm taken with it.

Answer 9

They couldnt be able to tell Civillian from Soldeirs and they wouldnt have any moral

Answer 10

its cheaper to build cruise missles.