Shared publicly  - 
Just order up a couple hundred thousand of these till the price drops below that of the yearly salary + medical benefits and we got ourselves a Zero casualty war. Combat is better when it feels like a video game, you act differently because you know you aren't going to die.
R. Milan Hanson's profile photoCalvin Oliveria's profile photo
The law of unintended consequences says they would just get better at bringing the war to us. Also it would make war unwinnable, since it would be extremely easy for the enemy to rally people against robots. So they would have to be used as support only.
Just for example, if we wanted a zero casualty war, the air force alone can bomb the shit out of anybody, and then leave. Buy that won't do any good. we will always need boots on the ground.
maybe I shouldn't have said zero casualty war. I was really trying to provoke a thought experiment. Calvin you have taken the experiment and ended it prematurely. So I ask, to question your assumptions if the robot is a reflection of a nations economic prowess in production? Could robotic warfare be preferable because a robot can be produced in months if not days of production and spawned with the intelligence and experience of prior operators instantaneously? This is much faster than the rate it takes to create a person, defie the probability that they are intelligent and resilient enough to be a soldier and then take on the cost of training and equipping them to be a soldier. Or should the entire army be regimented into a small class of upper class soldiers (officers) that basically control every thing that is going on in a war, ie the Enders Game ship control game.

To suppose that boots will always be needed on the ground says that soldiers are better able to predict a situation or are better able to express a message than a robot. I do agree the my robotic example does not represent a being capable of resolving sticky situations, reconosissance, or negotiate or impact and impression upon local populations that our side is more humanitarian than the other. These are purely war robots that might make us ponder the effectiveness of winning a war on the basis of casualties alone.

Is there a possibility that humanitarian robots that didn't fear death or retribution could be manufactured to spread good will instead of war?
Add a comment...