Should we build a horde of rampaging killbots?

[jimmy olsen]

A human army can also be loyal to a tyrant. 

Of course it can. But why would it? Because the tyrant has to placate it and protect its interests. A human army is a check and limiter of a tyrants power because the tyrant has to work to keep it loyal. This would be not be a problem with a robot army.

I think it is not rational to require that killer robots be perfect before we adopt them.  They only need to be better than humans.

If they are better than humans then whomever controls the robot army would be our absolute master. Is that a rational idea?

A robot army doesn't exist in a vacuum.  I imagine it also requires power, ammunition, maintenance, upgrades, replacements, parts, etc.  Humans are still in the picture.  We are not talking about Skynet.  Yet 

Which people would be forced to provide at robot gunpoint. At least until they could be replaced by repair bots.

[Ideologue]

So it is not ok for a robot to pull the trigger but ok for a human to do so?  I don't get the reasoning.  Humans can lose their minds, go crazy, betray their own sides, kill people just for fun, panic, etc.  Why are humans inherently better than machines?

Because they don't frighten Jody Williams as much.

I'm still angry that we can no longer use landmines.  They're fantastic defensive and offensive weapons.  If you don't want to deal with landmines, don't wage war.

It's the same goofy, emotional reasoning that led to the banning of chemical weapons, whilst burning people to death was a-ok.

[jimmy olsen]

So it is not ok for a robot to pull the trigger but ok for a human to do so?  I don't get the reasoning.  Humans can lose their minds, go crazy, betray their own sides, kill people just for fun, panic, etc.  Why are humans inherently better than machines?

Because they don't frighten Jody Williams as much.

I'm still angry that we can no longer use landmines.  They're fantastic defensive and offensive weapons.  If you don't want to deal with landmines, don't wage war.

I thought the US never signed that treaty?

[Ideologue]

So it is not ok for a robot to pull the trigger but ok for a human to do so?  I don't get the reasoning.  Humans can lose their minds, go crazy, betray their own sides, kill people just for fun, panic, etc.  Why are humans inherently better than machines?

Because they don't frighten Jody Williams as much.

I'm still angry that we can no longer use landmines.  They're fantastic defensive and offensive weapons.  If you don't want to deal with landmines, don't wage war.

I thought the US never signed that treaty?

Iirc, that's true, but we also still don't use avowed landmines as area denial weapons.  Am I way off base?

[Admiral Yi]

Iirc, that's true, but we also still don't use avowed landmines as area denial weapons.  Am I way off base?

If this means what I think it means, no.  The Korean DMZ is heavily mined.

[jimmy olsen]

Iirc, that's true, but we also still don't use avowed landmines as area denial weapons.  Am I way off base?

If this means what I think it means, no.  The Korean DMZ is heavily mined.

I don't believe that US soldiers man a stretch of the line anymore. They're in bases further back from which they can reinforce or counterattack as appropriate. So those mines, even if planted by the US years ago, are Korean mines now, not American.

[Caliga]

Title changed to placate Wiggins.

What of the other Baker Street Irregulars though?

[jimmy olsen]

Title changed to placate Wiggins.

What of the other Baker Street Irregulars though?

Is this a Sherlock Holmes reference?

[Tonitrus]

I read a crappy sci-fi novel (really near-future) series on this subject when I was a youth, called "Warbots".  In it's history, they used killbots (thought it'd be one human controlling several), but they sucked, so sophisticated nations started augmenting those units with human soldiers again.  Though as I recall, it was more of a move towards automated bots with human companions.

They also used submarine aircraft carriers. 

This was it:

http://jayfort.hubpages.com/hub/The-Warbots-Series-by-G-Harry-Stine

[Ideologue]

Neil's worst nightmare.

[Malthus]

If you criminalize mass-murdering killbots, only criminals will have mass-murdering killbots.

[lustindarkness]

Yes, the movies have shown us the way, it would be glorious, it would bring peace. Ultron said it best in his upcoming movie: "There's only one path to peace. . . Their extinction".

[Siege]

This is the most stupid thing i ever heard.

Every weapon system ever banned has been built sooner or later. Robots and droids are very safe, with built in safety measures to disable in the unlikely case of malfunction or hack. This guy have no idea how the military works. Droids are not going to be release to kill "everything in sight/sensor". That's stupid. The military does not orders or carry a mission without an operational order, mission specific Rules of Engagement, MLECOA and MDECOA analisys (most likely and most deadly enemy courses of action), etc, etc, etc.

We don't go out to any given place just because we want. There is mission generation process based in collected intel, both SIGINT and HUMINT, and then the mission packet its submited by Operations to the Commander, and he makes the final decision whether it is a go or not, based and all his staff recomendation.

When a unit goes out in a mission, everything has been planned and all supports (Drones, fixed and rotary wing aircraft, artillery, mortars) and supplies  has been coordinated, including the QRF (quick relief force), which is another unit that will come out to help if the shit hits the fan.

What I am trying to convey to you is that ground combat drones will be integrated into modern warfare within this frame and concept of combat operations. The decision making process will remain the same, and as today, commanders will be ultimately responsible for whatever happens in their missions.

This idea that nobody is responsible IF an smart drone is part of a friendly fire or war crime incident is completely bogus, a misunderstanding of how the military operates and how combat operations are executed, being perpetuated by "activists" without a clue.

The other argument that drives me crazy is when these activists claim it is immoral to use droids in combat because droids don't have emotions. They don't realize this is precisely why droids are so much better than humans in combat. Droids don't have feelings, they don't have a bad day, or debts, or girlfriends back home while they deploy. Droids are not political, or suicidal. They ar the perfect technology to avoid risking human lives in combat unnecesarily. Counter terrorist operations will be changed for ever.

And regardless, humans will be still be going into combat with the droids in the foreseeable future, because the decisions ultimately belong to the commander on the ground.

Not building our droid armies means wasting blood and treasure unnecesarily.

[Martinus]

Then perhaps it should be Languish that builds the killbot army. He who controls the killbots can never be a slave.

And the use of killer robots would require a unanimous decision in a Languish poll. Which means they will never be used.

We would be like ancient guardians of Shangri La.

[grumbler]

Then perhaps it should be Languish that builds the killbot army. He who controls the killbots can never be a slave.

And the use of killer robots would require a unanimous decision in a Languish poll. Which means they will never be used.

Nonsense.  Include a jaron option (Jaron wopuld use them) and you'd get unanimity.