2007-07-23 06:59:39 · 13 answers · asked by Mr.Boombastic 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Because AI systems are not yet at the adaptive stage to be able to handle the rigors of combat -- they don't have the processing efficiency or the rapid-response necessary to handle the rapidly changing battlefield conditions.
Robotics is another matter, and the technology for remote-operated drones and combat platforms is increasing every year. But the costs are still prohibitive (and despite what anyone may claim, values are placed on human lives by politicians). And the systems are not sufficiently robust to be as adaptable as humans in most combat missions.
Give it another 20 years, and you'll see automated defense platforms, and robotic fire support units -- but the front-line soldier is going to be the primary infantry tool for a long way to come -- barring any major sudden breakthroughs in adaptive cognitive expert control systems.
2007-07-23 07:04:47 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
because a robot cannot be held responsible for its actions. It has no feeling to judge a situation. There are many many risks in involving robots/A.I I personally wouldn't want to see war turn into a real life video game, where it becomes a distant reality, and people become out of touch of the actual horror of war.
Rather than using cold robots, the government should fund better body armor. Most of us have all seen the new suits that went under trial that that were damn near indestructible, problem with these suits are they cost millions to manufacture, and the cost of an average soldiers life costs around 250,000. its all in the numbers.
2007-07-23 16:19:48 · answer #2 · answered by Green eyed Tlingit 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because war should not be a video game where the consequences are so far removed from human suffering that people will go to war over the smallest thing like an ambassador not knowing the proper protocol for drinking tea and so refusing to drink it. if we were just to have robotics and a.i. for soldiers i think we would have alot wars for a lot less reason than we do now.
2007-07-23 14:03:37 · answer #3 · answered by ggates1982 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Beyond the cost (bodies are cheaper), the technology is not yet refined enough.... give it a decade.
But if you think it will stop soldiers from dying, I fear you are incorrect... when all the weapons are destroyed, humans will still fight again with rocks. It is our nature, and our bane.
2007-07-23 14:13:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The technology is not there yet.
And, someone will always have to die in war. Wars don't end because the enemy has broken too many of your toys.
2007-07-23 14:03:10 · answer #5 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because.. think about it...... if we created robots, gave them weapons..... made them smart enough to KNOW who to fight..... what makes you think the other countries won't get their hands on them and turn them back on us? Or maybe they will decide to form their own group and attack both us and the enemy. Robots are not here to fight our battles. As artificial as their intellegence may be it is still intellegence and they won't stand for being made to fight for us. They will turn around and kill anyone they feel needs to die, what makes you think they will keep obeying our orders?
2007-07-23 18:09:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. Because the technology isn't there to replace foot soldiers.
2. Because it's extremely expensive.
2007-07-23 14:02:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
so your saying war should be fought by robots. Ok just kill the guys who program the robots, and build them. Victory is assured.
2007-07-23 15:23:21 · answer #8 · answered by satcomgrunt 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Technology isnt that far along. I dont think it would ever fully replace real flesh and blood troops.
2007-07-23 14:05:26 · answer #9 · answered by Hjaduk 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
robotics are not prefect you Stael need soldiers to win war..
2007-07-23 14:20:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋