mechanized war

do you believe that we can intoduce atonomous warfair without removing the meaning of war

Plato wrote:do you believe that we can intoduce atonomous warfair without removing the meaning of war

So your basically saying, can we introduce Robots to take human roles in war and not remove the meaning of war?

I think this is a no brainier, war is war, no matter if robots are fighting it or not

think about it if you remove the casualtys the tragaty is lost and those that don't have such tech will be slaughterd. since one side will not have any reason to stop fighting war may turn into nothing more than a game

a game where no one wins

Plato wrote:think about it if you remove the casualtys the tragaty is lost and those that don't have such tech will be slaughterd. since one side will not have any reason to stop fighting war may turn into nothing more than a game

Defintion of war: "a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air."


It says nothing about people dying so if you remove that part of the war, it would still be considered war

im talking on a deeper level

Plato wrote:im talking on a deeper level

Meaning what level?

War would of course still be war in the sense that

"a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air."

is happening, that point is not very debatable. With the introduction of mechanized warfare as was stated earlier the tragedy would be lost and could transform war into a very detached "game". While theoretically a good idea for removing the death involved in war it could create problems since the "rules" of war could very well be changed by this, how do you know when you have won? What new aspect will replace the psychological factor that was involved before? (involving massive losses of lives) With lives no longer an issue will it be harder for civilians to convince their governments to stop a war now that the only noticeable effect would be a drain on money? As i mentioned above the "rules" of war would change with a advancement like this more devastating and inhumane weapons could be developed, and what if a terrorist got hold of these new items?
Overall i would say that it would be a slight improvement but it would bring with it a new set of problems that would soon expand to be just as bad as the ones currently associated with war.

lets be realistic, death goes hand in hand with war.

To say that introducing "robots" into a war would make it more "safe" and make it a "game" is complete ignorance. We are all humans and war will be war forever.

Timmy wrote:War would of course still be war in the sense that

"a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air."

is happening, that point is not very debatable. With the introduction of mechanized warfare as was stated earlier the tragedy would be lost and could transform war into a very detached "game". While theoretically a good idea for removing the death involved in war it could create problems since the "rules" of war could very well be changed by this, how do you know when you have won? What new aspect will replace the psychological factor that was involved before? (involving massive losses of lives) With lives no longer an issue will it be harder for civilians to convince their governments to stop a war now that the only noticeable effect would be a drain on money? As i mentioned above the "rules" of war would change with a advancement like this more devastating and inhumane weapons could be developed, and what if a terrorist got hold of these new items?
Overall i would say that it would be a slight improvement but it would bring with it a new set of problems that would soon expand to be just as bad as the ones currently associated with war.

Saving lives would be a wonderful thing to do. But in reality the richest country will always win since they can build more and better "robots". So that means that the USA could basically keep every country at bay

I agree with Defcon. The same thing happened, in a sense, with the cold war, where the russians and americans were facing off. it happened with nukes, and eventually, something similiar might happen with robots. in my opinion (again, agreeing with defcon), no matter how many justifiable reasons you have, no matter who or what you fight with, war is war.

HannibalRoosevelt wrote:lets be realistic, death goes hand in hand with war.

To say that introducing "robots" into a war would make it more "safe" and make it a "game" is complete ignorance. We are all humans and war will be war forever.

not sure if your referring to what i said, but that was my point. While using robots may eliminate death in the sense that people go and shoot each other there would just be something new that comes up after, whether its more effective terrorism or poor countries getting steamrolled because flesh and blood soldiers are no match for mechanized ones. No matter how it plays out our human nature will just screw over any "civil" type of war we can invent and degrade it back into death and injury filled skirmishes

you also have to keep in mind that any radical change in warfare like that is years away due to things like EMP technology
and yes the richest country could hold monopoly over the rest of the world

Timmy wrote:
No matter how it plays out our human nature will just screw over any "civil" type of war we can invent and degrade it back into death and injury filled skirmishes

War can never be "Civil", it;s war

DefconRed wrote:War can never be "Civil", it;s war

thats what the quotations are for. What im saying is that no matter how much we think we have fixed war or improved upon it to save lives it will just degrade back into the kind of war that we are familiar with

you also have to keep in mind that any radical change in warfare like that is years away due to things like EMP technology
and yes the richest country could hold monopoly over the rest of the world

EMP has already been underminded