The flipside of this argument is that wars happen anyway. We might as well use the machines to save lives. (I don't necessarily believe this; I don't know what I believe, but this is the other side of the debate).
The prolonged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan happened despite the repercussions for lost sons and daughters. We're losing people right now, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis lost their lives because we didn't have enough manpower (or weren't willing to take the risk) to enforce order. If we could spin up machines the way we spin up dynos, these problems would go away. No American soldiers would die. We'd spin up production and deployment to enforce near total order. We could reduce Iraqi deaths by orders of magnitude. The machines don't necessarily have to act like terminators. They could act like military police too.
This might be a scary future, no doubt. But it might be a bright one too. If we trust our values and trust that our elected representatives won't go on mindless killing sprees, the machines might be a blessing in disguise. (Also note that by the time we get machines with this capability, our government, social structure, our entire economic model, and our appreciation for civil liberties will evolve quite far from where it is now too).
We might as well use the machines to save lives...No American soldiers would die. We'd spin up production and deployment to enforce near total order.
The mistakes made in Iraq which led to rebellion are complex, but they didn't have to do with manpower alone. Disbanding the army and most of the administration are the two largest mistakes IMO - those have nothing to with US manpower and meant a huge supply of Iraqis with nothing to lose, military training, and access to huge arms dumps. They could equally well fight and subvert machines as they could people.
It's interesting the society you propose for Iraq as a bright new future - total order = totalitarian dictatorship imposed by force by a proconsul directing machines. Would you accept that for your own country? Would you rebel against it if a foreign army invaded on a pretext and occupied the country using robot warriors? We've already half-glimpsed that future with the use of drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen - and it isn't pretty, resulting in many more civilian deaths.
I agree machine soldiers are almost inevitable, but it will not be a good thing - it'll be a further step in abstracting away warfare so that those ordering killings a world away risk nothing but money (easily reproduced) and domestic reputation (easily managed).
i personally think that it is a GOOD thing that we lose sons and brothers in wars. It makes everyone think twice before engaging in war. It also gives you an incentive to stop (or to your citizens to pressurize you to stop).
If these machines are allowed to be used, war would be a push of the button away. And that is never a good thing.
Sure ideally, war should be ONLY between machines so no one on either side dies, but as the parent pointed out, this tech is for the rich kids. The poorer countries would suffer immensely in such bloodbaths
It is true that this could be _one_ of the flip side arguments in favor of using machines. However, as we probably know, it's a pretty weak one. I don't think any human beings should be subjected to having somebody else's idea of a "brighter future" shoved down their throats regardless of whether they agree with it or not. This is especially true when the people deciding this future is half way around the globe and does not actually have to live that future.
Remember "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Comments
The flipside of this argument is that wars happen anyway. We might as well use the machines to save lives. (I don't necessarily believe this; I don't know what I believe, but this is the other side of the debate).
The prolonged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan happened despite the repercussions for lost sons and daughters. We're losing people right now, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis lost their lives because we didn't have enough manpower (or weren't willing to take the risk) to enforce order. If we could spin up machines the way we spin up dynos, these problems would go away. No American soldiers would die. We'd spin up production and deployment to enforce near total order. We could reduce Iraqi deaths by orders of magnitude. The machines don't necessarily have to act like terminators. They could act like military police too.
This might be a scary future, no doubt. But it might be a bright one too. If we trust our values and trust that our elected representatives won't go on mindless killing sprees, the machines might be a blessing in disguise. (Also note that by the time we get machines with this capability, our government, social structure, our entire economic model, and our appreciation for civil liberties will evolve quite far from where it is now too).
We might as well use the machines to save lives...No American soldiers would die. We'd spin up production and deployment to enforce near total order.
The mistakes made in Iraq which led to rebellion are complex, but they didn't have to do with manpower alone. Disbanding the army and most of the administration are the two largest mistakes IMO - those have nothing to with US manpower and meant a huge supply of Iraqis with nothing to lose, military training, and access to huge arms dumps. They could equally well fight and subvert machines as they could people.
It's interesting the society you propose for Iraq as a bright new future - total order = totalitarian dictatorship imposed by force by a proconsul directing machines. Would you accept that for your own country? Would you rebel against it if a foreign army invaded on a pretext and occupied the country using robot warriors? We've already half-glimpsed that future with the use of drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen - and it isn't pretty, resulting in many more civilian deaths.
I agree machine soldiers are almost inevitable, but it will not be a good thing - it'll be a further step in abstracting away warfare so that those ordering killings a world away risk nothing but money (easily reproduced) and domestic reputation (easily managed).
i personally think that it is a GOOD thing that we lose sons and brothers in wars. It makes everyone think twice before engaging in war. It also gives you an incentive to stop (or to your citizens to pressurize you to stop).
If these machines are allowed to be used, war would be a push of the button away. And that is never a good thing.
Sure ideally, war should be ONLY between machines so no one on either side dies, but as the parent pointed out, this tech is for the rich kids. The poorer countries would suffer immensely in such bloodbaths
I would like to cite the entirety of human history as evidence to the contrary.
Yes look at that mankind and imagine making it EASIER for them to wage war. See my point?
It is true that this could be _one_ of the flip side arguments in favor of using machines. However, as we probably know, it's a pretty weak one. I don't think any human beings should be subjected to having somebody else's idea of a "brighter future" shoved down their throats regardless of whether they agree with it or not. This is especially true when the people deciding this future is half way around the globe and does not actually have to live that future.
Remember "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
War is peace, right. The faster and more we kill, the quicker we will be at peace?