These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

US Military Moving Closer To Automated Killing

First post
Author
Nak hak
#1 - 2011-09-21 18:33:13 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#2 - 2011-09-21 20:23:29 UTC
Well the US truly is turning in the Gallente federation. Even the part about talking up "liberty" while doing the opposite is matched.

I have it on inside word that the guys doing the remote drones are having to look at carnage all day - right down to dead non-combatants - and then go home to their families all screwed up in the head. So the search and selection process is on for that type of person who can bomb the baby carriage for the lulz.

Bet the Pentagram ... uh... Pentagon is going to start looking at killboards.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

SpaceSquirrels
#3 - 2011-09-21 22:06:20 UTC
Autonomous capability has been here for awhile just a lack of implementation because no one quite knows what to make of it.

Had to write up a report for an evolution of warfare class on it.

This is a good book. Explains quite a lot of the philosophical debates over robotics in warfare.

^ From what i've heard people are less apt to get PTSD/a heavy conscious from launching weapons remotely. Matter of fact people are more likely to release weapons on drones that actual on station pilots. Essentially video game syndrome.
Cmdr Baxter
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#4 - 2011-09-21 22:25:28 UTC
I think the fear of computer-controlled UAVs conducting erroneous strikes is overblown. So long as the fear exists there will always be something built into the process to ensure human oversight and verification of the target before a weapon is released. It's very much that case right now with the human-controlled UAVs right now. No pilot possesses weapons-release authority from what I understand. The decision always rests with some higher-level authority.

Commander S. "Old Man" Baxter, CN (ret.)

Chief Archivist, The Synenose Accord

Zey Nadar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2011-09-21 23:09:43 UTC
BLACK-STAR
#6 - 2011-09-22 00:40:56 UTC
There isn't going to be automated drones shooting people...our AI are still decades way too stupid to figure things out on their own. No weapons release without human consent, ever. There is enough incidents where innocents are killed, so are they just going to add heaps more?

Having autopilot drones land and air patrolling is cool and less dangerous, its just going to be used to bomb for democracy for years to come. so doesn't serve any good use. meh
Azelor Delaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#7 - 2011-09-22 02:34:41 UTC
No matter how smart we make our guided munitions, no matter how much we try to use those munitions to limit collateral damage, no war is ever won without the boots on the ground. You want a war won, you send in the Marines and Army.

And it will always be that way.
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#8 - 2011-09-22 03:39:01 UTC
To all you folks who play WoT and wish to join the military, this is a good chance to hone in on you mouse/keyboard skills. Will go a long way toward controlling those drones.

Adapt or Die

stoicfaux
#9 - 2011-09-22 03:57:05 UTC  |  Edited by: stoicfaux
BLACK-STAR wrote:
There isn't going to be automated drones shooting people...our AI are still decades way too stupid to figure things out on their own. No weapons release without human consent, ever. There is enough incidents where innocents are killed, so are they just going to add heaps more?


I would expect a less ethical power to develop drone-mines. Instead of boring stay-in-place mines, you create small drones that fly around, home in on heat sources and explode. Instead of Bouncing Betties that pop up when stepped, we get get a battlefield seeded with flying mini-mines with the aggressiveness and intelligence of angry wasps. Or walking, pressure sensitive beetle mines that crawl around at night and hide in people's boots.

You could seed these across an ubran environment (provided you didn't give a damn about civilian casualties) or across an enemy's base or supply depot as an anti-personnel area denial weapon.


edit: or small insect drones that a single person can release near an airbase and the drones are smart enough to hide in jet engine air intakes as a means of damaging or destroying the jet engines.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.

Astenion
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2011-09-22 10:52:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Astenion
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Well the US truly is turning in the Gallente federation. Even the part about talking up "liberty" while doing the opposite is matched.

I have it on inside word that the guys doing the remote drones are having to look at carnage all day - right down to dead non-combatants - and then go home to their families all screwed up in the head. So the search and selection process is on for that type of person who can bomb the baby carriage for the lulz.

Bet the Pentagram ... uh... Pentagon is going to start looking at killboards.


I'd bomb a baby carriage for the lulz...why else would you bomb a baby carriage if not for the lulz? Big smile

What people need to understand is that preventing collateral damage in wartime is more of a courtesy rather than a moral imperative. It's like using your turn signal before you turn your car. Sad, but true. You don't win wars tiptoeing across the battlefield and worrying about public opinion. You win wars by annihilating the enemy's capability to wage war.

THIS is why war should always be used as a total last resort. When public opinion/hearts and minds/prevention of collateral damage all start to take a higher precedent than accomplishing the mission, things get much, much more complicated and said mission objective just became nearly unreachable.

Again, this is just a fact of war and is why it should always be used as a last resort. These days it's much easier to wage war due to all the media spin and attention to collateral damage and public opinion. In a way, preventing collateral damage by the use of smart weapons has made it that much easier to wage war; leaders today can attack someone without sending a single pair of boots on the ground. It has become more a tool of foreign policy and less a tool of war.
NeoShocker
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#11 - 2011-09-22 19:33:46 UTC
Azelor Delaria wrote:
No matter how smart we make our guided munitions, no matter how much we try to use those munitions to limit collateral damage, no war is ever won without the boots on the ground. You want a war won, you send in the Marines and Army.

And it will always be that way.


I'd have to disagree with that statement partially. While not guided and did major damage as well, it took just two nukes to end japan main land campaign and the whole WWII without setting troops on the island. I dont remember another example for ending war without troops but i am pretty sure there is one
Barakkus
#12 - 2011-09-22 20:28:23 UTC
Azelor Delaria wrote:
No matter how smart we make our guided munitions, no matter how much we try to use those munitions to limit collateral damage, no war is ever won without the boots on the ground. You want a war won, you send in the Marines and Army.

And it will always be that way.



Not really, we're batting 0-2 for the last 10 years.

http://youtu.be/yytbDZrw1jc

Azelor Delaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#13 - 2011-09-22 21:24:34 UTC
Barakkus wrote:
Azelor Delaria wrote:
No matter how smart we make our guided munitions, no matter how much we try to use those munitions to limit collateral damage, no war is ever won without the boots on the ground. You want a war won, you send in the Marines and Army.

And it will always be that way.



Not really, we're batting 0-2 for the last 10 years.


How much worse would it have been if troops weren't on the ground with the people? if we merely bombed them into the stone age (and yes, that was a technological advancement for them, I know!) and didn't send in ground forces, then there would be only the Taliban picking up the pieces. Al Queda would still be running around with bin Laden as their poster boy.
stoicfaux
#14 - 2011-09-23 04:56:05 UTC
NeoShocker wrote:
[quote=Azelor Delaria]
I'd have to disagree with that statement partially. While not guided and did major damage as well, it took just two nukes to end japan main land campaign and the whole WWII without setting troops on the island. I dont remember another example for ending war without troops but i am pretty sure there is one


You're forgetting the PBIs who had to take islands from the Japanese in order for the bombers to have air bases in range of Japan.


Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.

Mudkest
Contagious Goat Labs
#15 - 2011-09-23 08:58:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Mudkest
NeoShocker wrote:


I'd have to disagree with that statement partially. While not guided and did major damage as well, it took just two nukes to end japan main land campaign and the whole WWII without setting troops on the island. I dont remember another example for ending war without troops but i am pretty sure there is one




http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html

taken from another oope post, but but well worth a read if you truly believe that
Renius
Yamagata Syndicate
The Initiative.
#16 - 2011-09-24 16:03:56 UTC
Azelor Delaria wrote:
No matter how smart we make our guided munitions, no matter how much we try to use those munitions to limit collateral damage, no war is ever won without the boots on the ground. You want a war won, you send in the Marines and Army.

And it will always be that way.


You sound like you have vast knowledge and experience of this subject, have you ever had your boots on the ground (apart from COD)
Astenion
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2011-09-25 20:38:47 UTC
Yeah, the Balkan war was almost a complete air war...the only boots on the ground were the blue helmets sent there afterwards to screw prostitutes, get drunk, and do nothing AHEM I MEAN PROVIDE PEACEKEEPING AHEM.
CCP Wrangler
#18 - 2011-09-26 15:29:57 UTC
Skynet anyone?

Wrangler Community Team Manager - Community Arch Wizard

Although personally I am quite content with existing explosives, I feel we must not stand in the path of improvement. - Winston Churchill

Froz3nEcho Sarain
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#19 - 2011-09-26 15:32:36 UTC
The beginning of the rouge drones.

[i]~ When everything fades away, an echo is the only sound that will remain ~   ~ Chaos is a name for any order that produces confusion in our minds ~[/i]

SpaceSquirrels
#20 - 2011-09-26 16:23:02 UTC
Why would drones turn out a cosmetic red? Doesn't seem like a very tactical pragmatic idea...
12Next page