It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Do you think that military's are starting to relie to much on machines?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 10:17 AM
I think its good we have unmanned planes, and I'm not against unmanned combat aerial vehicles. But with this tech it relies to much on signals to control it, plus all of these machines have to be powered by electricity and EMP bombs could screw them up real good. Even though there is EMP protection, what do you think would be the perfect mix of man and machine?

[edit on 18-6-2005 by blue cell]

posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 10:53 AM
Well, the US army plans to make 1/3 of their entire army robotic... but i think they will find a way to counter their weakness before replacing humans with machines and intergrade machines with humans...
yea, it is kind of riskly...

posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 11:03 AM
sure robotics would be great to have in army but they might not react as much as a displined marine would,i mean discovery channel had this thing on not so long ago about a robot aiming at a target and shooting it by it's self ,i am not to sure how old this is but ,a part of every controlled robot has a man in it

posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 06:18 PM
The army relies way to much on machines and elkectronis. It's only a matter of time until and enemy learns they can destroy virutally all electronics with magnetic power.

posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 06:28 PM
That can always be countered. Use of technology in war has been a mainstay since the dawn of man. In fact war drives alot of our progress from medicine to transportation.

US doctrine is based on expending things rather than people. Other countries have a similar mindset.

posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 07:08 PM
I would think the most effective means in which to wage war would be with entirely remote, mechanized armies. This would remove the loss of human life, continue the drive for technical excellence, and allow armies to move quicker, survive longer, and deliver a far bigger punch than one with human dependancies.

Electronic Disabling weapons have a terrible range, unless your using nuclear weapons to generate them. Im certain that we will see totally remote armored vehicals in the future, mostly because it would simply be more effective. As for the urban situation, we will have to find a way to use armored remote units to occupy such area.

May give a rather cold and unnerving idea having our army made of robots, but it is the future, and it is effecient.

posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 07:42 PM
The simplest reason we are starting to use robotics is taht the political cost of human life in a democracy is so much more then it used to be. Voters do not have a margin for Acceptable losses. Instead of sending out squads of recon teams we can send a UAV for hours on end to give ups up to date information.

Now as far as hiving a robot fire weapons in combat I think that is a ways off, since it would be stopped at first event of friendly fire

posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 08:06 PM
Robots and Clones are the perfect mix. Who has to worry about recruiting or having your casualties read on the daily news. You want 100,000 new soldier? No problem start growing a batch of 100.000 clones. Sorry if this sound to Star Warsy but in the future all of this ethical nonsense will be replaced by the need to have such a system.

posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 08:12 PM
Honestly, I think in the long run Legacy Force will STOMP the bejezuz out of Objective Force. Bias intentional, machines and robots and all the high tech gizmomajigs are nothing with out the person useing it.

Remember it isn't the equipment that makes the soldier, but the soldier that makes the equipment.

Technology vs. Soldiers

new topics

top topics


log in