I wouldn't at all eventually. Warfare is about killing people of flesh and blood, it always has been and always will be. As soon as everyone uses drones, one guy will "cheat" and kill some civilians or whatever, thus reinventing the original concept of war.Harmor wrote:
I'm all for the remote presence that is coming on-line soon.
This is where I can goto my local military military base at 8am...control drones (trucks and planes remotely on the otherside of the world), and then come home by 6pm for dinner.
Its going to happen...sooner than you think. There is a good series on the Military Channel called FutureWeapons.
How would having a 'drone army' affect the way we conduct warfare?
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- How would a 'drone army' affect the way we conduct warfare?
if nobdoy got hurt in war, we'd be fighting them a lot more often
One wouldn't use drones to take out other drones.
They are used to kill people and break things.
If the other side had an "army of drones" we would use our drones to kill the people/facilities controlling those drones. Basic center of gravity analysis.
They are used to kill people and break things.
If the other side had an "army of drones" we would use our drones to kill the people/facilities controlling those drones. Basic center of gravity analysis.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
so a machine vs machine
the only way the war would end would be the first one to run out of money ... loses
the only way the war would end would be the first one to run out of money ... loses
like MAJ FEOS said, the machines will then just attack the living people that make the money if that were the case.SEREMAKER wrote:
so a machine vs machine
the only way the war would end would be the first one to run out of money ... loses
machine money ............. would motor oil be like gold to usGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
like MAJ FEOS said, the machines will then just attack the living people that make the money if that were the case.SEREMAKER wrote:
so a machine vs machine
the only way the war would end would be the first one to run out of money ... loses
If they were advanced enough, you'd have to get through the drones to get to the people. You know, just like they couldn't kill Hitler by storming Berlin in 1939FEOS wrote:
One wouldn't use drones to take out other drones.
They are used to kill people and break things.
If the other side had an "army of drones" we would use our drones to kill the people/facilities controlling those drones. Basic center of gravity analysis.
Exactly, the humans were meant to die, but not live like this, conventional war should happen, the world is already over crowded, and this is making millions of soldiers stop doing the thing they are good at, regardless of whether or not they will die in battle.Harmor wrote:
I'm curious on the ethical nature of using a machine to kill others. Would a military machine (i.e. a remote Abrums Tank or F-22 Raptor), change the way we think about war?
Would the Geneva Convention come into effect?
If I could send a bunch of machines controlled partially by humans into a country and there is no risk to my army...what then?
Lulz epic robot battles.
I wonder now with a Democrat as President if a "Bloodless War" is was we could expect? Or perhaps a "Video Game War"???GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
if nobdoy got hurt in war, we'd be fighting them a lot more often
We would see more targeting of civilians as that would be one of the only ways left of striking back at that country.
You mean asymmetrical warfare?Commie Killer wrote:
We would see more targeting of civilians as that would be one of the only ways left of striking back at that country.
Blowing shit up is easy and can be done with machines.
Rebuilding it is hard, and takes people. To form governments, to form a consensus, to decide what to build, to build an economy.
That cannot be automated.
To put it another way:
Tanks, planes, and ships do not hold ground. The soldier on the ground does.
Rebuilding it is hard, and takes people. To form governments, to form a consensus, to decide what to build, to build an economy.
That cannot be automated.
To put it another way:
Tanks, planes, and ships do not hold ground. The soldier on the ground does.
Last edited by rdx-fx (2008-11-15 14:46:42)
But you see what we had to do to win the war in Iraq (if you consider it a "win"). Once we pull out will the government be sustained that isn't friendly to our enemies?
But what I'm suggesting is that if we want to punish a country we could do it with no bloodshed...like if we decide to destroy all of the nuclear plants in Iran we could do it with no human beings even entering Iranian airspace.
Granted, like you said, we couldn't control any land, but that wouldn't be what our objective be...although I would like to know a day ahead so I could buy some Oil Futures.
But what I'm suggesting is that if we want to punish a country we could do it with no bloodshed...like if we decide to destroy all of the nuclear plants in Iran we could do it with no human beings even entering Iranian airspace.
Granted, like you said, we couldn't control any land, but that wouldn't be what our objective be...although I would like to know a day ahead so I could buy some Oil Futures.
You mean that wasn't already what was happening?Harmor wrote:
You mean asymmetrical warfare?Commie Killer wrote:
We would see more targeting of civilians as that would be one of the only ways left of striking back at that country.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
You mean no bloodshed on OUR side. (You can't blow up a nuclear power plant with nearby housing an NOT kill anyone.)Harmor wrote:
But what I'm suggesting is that if we want to punish a country we could do it with no bloodshed...
Economic sanctions already do that.Harmor wrote:
But what I'm suggesting is that if we want to punish a country we could do it with no bloodshed...
Look at famine in Iraq due to sanctions between 1992 and 2002.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
I don't think the Economic sanctions are working against Iran. I mean General Electric still does business with them. If I recall there's a list somewhere of 500 companies that do business with companies in Iran that are in the U.S.
If we were serious with the economic sanctions we would not let those companies do business with Iran, but we're not.
And yes, you are correct, no casualties on OUR side. All the blood shed would be on their side. And if we know anything from Saddam with the 'milk factory' photo shoots during air phase of the Iraqi War 1.0 in 1991 we know that Iran will do the same.
But what's funny is that now that Obama's President I wonder if they would have the same scrutiny against Obama, especially if none on our side are killed because of our drones?
If we were serious with the economic sanctions we would not let those companies do business with Iran, but we're not.
And yes, you are correct, no casualties on OUR side. All the blood shed would be on their side. And if we know anything from Saddam with the 'milk factory' photo shoots during air phase of the Iraqi War 1.0 in 1991 we know that Iran will do the same.
But what's funny is that now that Obama's President I wonder if they would have the same scrutiny against Obama, especially if none on our side are killed because of our drones?
Last edited by Harmor (2008-11-15 18:57:11)
Excpet that there was the whole "oil for food" production that various nations of the UN violated to take Iraqi oil for weapons and other sactioned items instead of the food they were supposed to be giving Iraq.Flecco wrote:
Economic sanctions already do that.Harmor wrote:
But what I'm suggesting is that if we want to punish a country we could do it with no bloodshed...
Look at famine in Iraq due to sanctions between 1992 and 2002.
Imortal, meet USMarine, UsMarine, meet Imortal.Imortal wrote:
How would a 'drone army' affect the way we conduct warfare?
But srsly, the best gamers would rape the world, South Korea would be THE superpower.
Fuck Israel
Thanks, we have met...Dilbert_X wrote:
Imortal, meet USMarine, UsMarine, meet Imortal.Imortal wrote:
How would a 'drone army' affect the way we conduct warfare?
But srsly, the best gamers would rape the world, South Korea would be THE superpower.
A drone army is such a seriously bad idea. Robert E. Lee once said "It is good that war is so terrible, else we would become too fond of it." Look at the US over the last decade; the primary deterrant toward going to war was the cost in casualties- How many American lives were lost? They even kept a running daily and cumalitive count on the evening news. Without that reminder, the only serious deterrent to a war would be expense. So, war would turn out to be a matter of profit alone.
Also, think of where, how, and who you would fight. Would there be international laws saying that a drone army could only fight another drone army? If so, what happens when the country in question does not have a drone army? Are they 'unfightable?' If the two nations fight via drone ad one loses, what happens then? And if you agreed to fight by drones alone, why bother building the drones, and not just have a really hugte computer game?
No, it all comes down to the very basics. If you had a drone army, they would have to be used against the people of the nation you are fighting against, and to take and hold the territory of that nation. You must reduce their ability or desire to make war, or force them into a position were continuing to conduct the war becomes untennable.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- How would a 'drone army' affect the way we conduct warfare?