Hi tech battle field ... heck yes go get em Master Chief!

Wow i can totaly see are army guys going into battle with bumble bee at there side

We are already able to kill our enemies in mass quanti-ties from great distances, though we rarely do and, for some reason, we still persist in putting ground troops in harm's way in countries we aren't even trying to con-quer. . .

Maybe it's better if we just replace all the soldiers with robots, but we'll have to dispense with concepts like heroism and courage alto-gether.    

Before we know it, "SkyNet" will be up and running, and all our front-line troops will be unfeeling "Termina-tors." How efficient and cost-effective.  

War has always been the chief pastime of human beings, despite all the horror, blood-shed, and death. How much more popular will it be once we've converted it into a remote-controlled game and all our "heroes" are pimple-faced video-game junkies scoring real kills instead of virtual ones? We can elimi-nate boot camp; every kid in the world is already train-ing to be the future warrior.

Maybe we can base military promotion on remote kills, like game points. Hell! Let's just make it a competition: millions of "Halo" players will enter, to find how who can kill the most people.

As long as they're killing terrorists, I'm all for it. But what happens when "Robo-Cop" comes along? That's the inevitable development of this technology. S.W.A.T. teams already use military hardware and tactics against American citizens. It's all right, though, because they only kill criminals, right?

So much for heroism. So much for upholding the peace.  

Be carefull what you ask for

These cute lttle R2-D2's wont seem so cute when they are sticking an AK-47 up our sides rear ends! If we attempt to depersonalize warfare, we must recognize our little allies may be a far bigger threat than any terrorist is

CRY HAVOC! AND LET SLIP THE BOTS OF WAR!

I doubt it will be as cool as that. Rather scary and disturbing with the fact that we'll get to the point that we can kill all kinds of people with robots on the enemy side and not risk the lives of our troops. This kind of warfare can warp the minds of the future military and the outlook of war and kill for future soldiers.

I suspect the posting detractors of robotic warfare have never held a combat weapon nor slept in a foxhole.  So, all you armchair analysts, walk a mile in the grunts boots and THEN post.  As for me, I am all for killing the enemy without giving them any chance in hell of paying me back.

Hunter killer bots! Woot! Lets get this Terminator show on the freaking road. It might be a good idea to add chrome skulls to our bots to boost the intimidation factor. They are to clean and non threading atm.
How are our nmys supposed to fear us if our killer bots look like kids toys? I believe it was Julius Caesar who said: "They do not have to love us, only fear us...

Cruise missles have been killing for years, the V-2 was used in WW2 back in the 40's.

Here is a chance to exchange a dangerous thankless job performed by our most apt countrymen and give them a better chance of coming home outside of a body bag.

Policeing citizens is a seperate issue, and a military device SHOULD NEVER be used on our own citizens. Sadly it does happen.

For a government should fear it's civilians and not the civilians fear the government or military.

A more likely scenario for the evolution of fighting machines than the Terminator is the Bolo of the stories created by Keith Laumer.  Programmed with an incorruptible sense of honor and discipline they form emotional bonds with their human commanders.  Sound familiar?

It doesn't matter the technology - someone in power will pervert it.  Nuclear power could provide elecricity to everyone for pennies a day, but instead it is used as a fear tactic to contol populations.  Battle-bots will be no different - with one exception - when a man pulls the trigger he has a conscious to deal with.  A maze of wires and servo's does not, so it will not hesitate to kill, and from what I've seen thus far regarding AI, battle-bots will most certainly wind up killing the wrong people from time to time.  Maybe they should all be employed by Blackwater...to ensure they won't be liable in court.  Hah, probably will be if we don't get BushCheney the hell out of the white house.

Hey Orbis - um, cruise missles can't kick in doors and ID innocent from enemy.  The old saying "nothing ever changes" is very pertinent in this case.  We won WWII by one soldier with a rifle kicking in one door at a time.  We can't win the war in Iraq or Afghanistan with robots.  It takes one man at a time, kicking in one door at a time.  It always has and probably always will.

If we ever employ robots as front line soldiers, or police forces, then I hope I'm far gone from this world.  Human being's are so cold, malicious, and evil (even with a soul) I don't want to imagine a world where the ones with the guns don't have a soul to account for.  If people would just stop for a minute and think about it, I'm sure they would agree.  God help us......

As a famous general said heroism is not dieing for your country it's making the other sob die for his. Any technology that can help friends of mine come home in one piece is money well spent.

War is a Human endevor.  Robots will never replace war.

Dr. W (if you are indeed a doctor), you sicken me.  You would place concepts like "heroism" and "courage" over the lives of our soldiers? You quote movies and say that our front line troops will be unfeeling.  It sounds like you would rather have our boys there, "feeling" the combat and dying, just so you can generate sympathy for our enemies.  I don't care whether or not you support this war, but any opportunity we have to lessen our men's exposure to danger should be taken.  But hey, you just seem to care about your doomsday scenarios, not the lives of our troops, so you can just sit there and be an armchair analyst (good call, J Long.).

First off, war is not a "pastime." You are a fool if you think that people choose to do this, or do it for fun.  You also apparently seem to think that the country embraces it as a whole, and that every "pimple-faced video-game junkie" (way to make a sweeping value judgement!) is a mindless killer at heart and completely lacking in the ability to tell real from false.  Can you honestly be so ignorant?  Are you truly that far removed from society and real life?
So much for heroism? Those heroes are the people who fight and die to protect your right to say these things, despite how pathetically ungrateful you may be.  These robots can keep our men alive.  Can you imagine if no American soldiers ever had to die in war? No notices ever had to be sent home?

But maybe that's too efficient for you.

Wouldn't it be great if we didn't need any soldiers and weapons at all? With greatest respect to those who have sacrificed, wars have never really been a worthy cause.
If we just use our heads a little more each day we might just figure out how to prevent all this and then use our cleverness for something worthwhile.

when do i get to pilot my Gundam and blast everybody off the face of the earth?

Robots are only the next step.  If people are so worried about them, maybe we should stop using guns.  The bullet only does what it is told to do.  When the twisted creativity of mankind gets bored with robots, something else terrifing will come along and we will ask why.

Hopefully, we can save some saveable lives with these things.
But it doesnt have to be that complicated. Attach a metal detector the a remote control car, add a hearing device and thats about it.
Logic.
280 Million dollars..

I cant wait to get my hands on a robot with guns! The army will definatly recruit me for that job. I play there game they released for the PC. I have the highest stats in the game. I will perefect for that job.

Seriously what an idiotic idea !
It's not going to become some kind of i-Robot (movie)
thing but it's not going to solve more problems than it creates robots break down and have no morals ethics or conciousness therefore cannot make decsions that a human could.

Robots are coming whether we like it or not and the Iraq/Afghanistan war like all wars has simply accelerated the development of new technologies and tactics. Future Fact: After the Iraq war is over(which is going to be very soon) police agencies across the nation will adopt unmanned drones to replace helicopters and military style bots for smoking out criminals. Be good and you wont have to worry - ha. Technology is neutral, its the people operating it you have to worry about, so the emphasis should always be on coupling morals/accountability with the use of power and technology. The future of war is robot vs robot with no lives lost just heavy economic loss for the losers. Let the games begin.

Civilization marches on.  There has never been an advance in technology that hasn't been perverted to the advance of war.  gun powder, TNT, and atomic energy, to name a few, all were envisioned as technology to benefit people, but the benefit of greater power for war was quickly utilized by the powers-that-be.  Robots will certainly be no exception.  Coupled with other technologies that are already in use to keep power in the hands of the powerful, a truly nightmarish scenario is easy to imagine.  "The bravery of being out of range" will enable those robotic operators to make life and death decisions without the moral penalty or depth of insight necessary.  I'm not talking about bomb sniffing, I'm talking about offensive operations, be they directed against an enemy combatant or a restless civilian population.  

What happened to Asimov's dreamy "Three Laws of Robotics"  I'll bet the Pentagon isn't worried about that part.

I too, do not want to see anymore of our soldiers in harms way.  Hey, I have an idea.  Let's bring them home.

Back in the late 1980's I took a history of technology course.  I took on a paper about the cannon's affect on technology.  It effectively removed the safety of castles by being able to destroy them from a distance.  As cannons became small enough to carry (i.e. muskets) they changed the battlefield.  The musketeers were seen as cowards because they would not come close enough to look you in the eye and raise a sword or club against you.  Once all of those guys that were calling them cowards had been shot, the other side had to find musketeers to defend themselves.

Guns are a great way to defend yourself against guns, and any other lesser type of weapon.  However, they give the shooter the ability to make a permanent affect on what may just be a temporary situation.  Hot tempers may cool over time, but hot lead kills long term.  Am I anti-gun? No, because having a gun to shoot back makes the would be shooter think twice in most cases since I belive most cases of shooting by a criminal (or enemy soldier) is pre-meditated.  (Remember the musketeers?)

My conclusion is that the robot soldiers are another form of "gun" that the other side will soon have in order to keep the balance and that those without these guns will call us cowards until they killed off or get their own better guns or give up fighting. (Remember the cold war and the "Star Wars" project?) Even the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was considered by many as a more humane end to a bloody war that would have killed many more people without that new "gun" scaring the enemy into defeat.  The scary thing to remember is that the Axis forces of WWII were also developing this new nuclear gun as well as long range missiles (think cannon on castle), so it was them or us.

So what do we do to keep "big gun" madness from destroying us? I think the solution has already been placed before us. You must think of your enemy as your brother (or at least an equal in value) and find a way to persuade him with reason, diplomacy, and charity.  Charity is key, for it is well said that no one cares what you think unless they know that you care.  Apathetic charity does not count. We must show up on the doorstep with food and fellowship of the most human kind, not send a mass-generated "Please know that we care" message.  Remember the last time you had a serious loss in your family? Who do you think cared more, the person on your couch serving you the $5 plate of cookies they brought and crying with you, or the person that sent the $5000 floral arrangement with your company's logo? This is the reason people get mad, and then they get a gun.

What a lot of you don't seem to realize here is that these robots are NOT completely autonomous; they need human input and always will, so all of you foreseeing a terminator scenario are completely wrong, we do have to technology to make them autonomous but choose not to for a reason.

Continue to develop new weapons for the enemy surely does! Already men die by robotic means...

From American Heritage Dictionary -
ro·bot
(rō'bŏt', -bət)
n.  
1. A mechanical device that sometimes resembles a human and is capable of performing a variety of often complex human tasks on command or by being programmed in advance.
2. A machine or device that operates automatically or by remote control.
3. A person who works mechanically without original thought, especially one who responds automatically to the commands of others.  

Both our enemies and the car bombs, mines, and other weapons they use are robots, by one definition or another.

In escalation of conflict survival is dictated by your ability to maintain escalation. For if the enemy can improve and develop methods of death and destruction more efficiently than you victory becomes an all but insurmountable task. If the enemy is using robots, we must as well or face the very real possibility of defeat.

Yes, removing humans on our side from the field will save the human lives of our side. And yes, it also makes the enemy more anonymous, removing emotion from the conflict and easing the ability to kill and destroy them without thought to their human condition. But that is what we must do.

We must develop robotic warriors as well. We must anticipate what their new weapons will be, and meet them in their challenge by developing better weapons and methods ourselves. We must win.

We must not waiver from our imperial directive! The enemy is very real, they would see us destroyed and their ideology replace our own. So we must conquer them, grind them back in to the very dust from which their beliefs and lives came. And the environment that spawned the notion of bringing down our empire or our way of life must be molded in to one that will embrace our ideas whole heartedly! Be that through diplomatic or militant operations, it must be done.

We can not tolerate the presense of an enemy to how we live or what we think, for any of those enemies could be the catalyst to the destruction of what we've built.

Obviously our way is best and we must see that it does not change. So we will fight these enemies and many good men and women die to remind us of that every day. Our way is best and no other way shall be allowed if it could take that from us.

America is at war, and the worst part is we are not fully honest as to why we are at war. This has become a war of ideas.

It is our right to remove those that would threaten our way's survival. It is our right to subjugate or kill those that threaten us, seek to kill our citizens or destroy our government or our way of life. And it is the right of other countries to do the same.

Further, this has always been a war of resources. These same organizations, governments, religions, or idealogical groups that oppose our way of life also control resources we need to ensure our survival. The most immediate to come to mind is of course oil.

And it is the right of every country to claim what it needs to survive. We need oil, and so we will take it by what ever means grant us the greatest control over what we need.

So it is our right to take that resource by force, if that grants us the greatest control over the resource needed for our survival. And it is the right of other countries to try to stop us by any means necessary and take these same resources for themselves.

These are truths of war. War is fought over ideas, resources, or both, and the cold truth is its win or lose.

What of diplomacy then? Diplomacy is a part of war. Sun Tzu observed that "The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities... It is best to win without fighting."

The lives of all are precious, and it should be attempted to bring them around to your way of life. But in the end, it is the conversion that is important, less so the means by which it is achieved.

American imperialism will last until it too is conquered by a stronger enemy. Be that the Islamic Extremists of our day or another way of life yet to challenge ours.

In closing I'd like to highlight further the observations of Sun Tzu on war, all still true today. I leave you with the following quotes...

"You cannot stop innovation."

"What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations."

"Treat your men as you would your own beloved sons. And they will follow you into the deepest valley."

"In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them."

"The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected."

"The general that hearkens to my counsel and acts upon it, will conquer: let such a one be retained in command! The general that hearkens not to my counsel nor acts upon it, will suffer defeat: — let such a one be dismissed!"

Sources.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/robot
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu

i hate robots

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):