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.


America's robot army

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 02:16 PM
You want to talk 'robotic', you try and have an intelligent conversation about real politics and national needs for 'defense' with some poor muzzle mutt fresh out of BIT. It does wear off, quicker in real war than in peace. But here the U.S. armed forces have also invented such a raw bleep deal retention system that roughly 70% of those they 'hire' for a 3-4 year hitch are out before their 'cumulative skills' can poison the next bunch of armed cattle with an awareness of how primitive and easy-to-die-in real combat is.

Which again brings up the clear and present danger inherent to the notion that there is some kind of 'higher' corporate intellect involve here. There is but it is one solely designed to retain power in the upper echelons by using cannonfodder to attract mass-targets for bigger weapons systems to slaughter.

Compare this to robots which _never_ forget yet never become jaded and whose physical performance will remain largely unchanging throughout a 20year in-crate shelflife.

THIS is a 'smart' killer.

One whose combat focus as much as prowess can increase exponentially, simultaneously, across an entire force via the formulation of a single 'tape' of edited tactical software, reloaded within minutes and (via a greater payload ratio and a faster pursuit:engagement rate) thus able to deal death while CARRYING those 'major weapons systems' which do 90% of the killing on the infanryman's battlefield (MG and Explosives based).

As usual, it all comes down to logistics. The upper echelons within the military, by virtue of their 'expertise', get to say which weapons systems they will and will not spec/test/field/develop for. And if there is a dissenting (civillian) view from outside the clique, they and ONLY THEY can generate the 'testing scenarios' by which said system is found at fault or simply non-issued. This generates self-guarantees of employment as much as 'human usefulness' by emphasizing systems which require men and all the support systems which those men need to do a job. And thus those which ONLY OFFICERS (which is to say not quite deserving of the entitlement of 'men') can command those under them to take into battle. The economic fallout of which is that politicians get subtlely or otherwise 'pointed' in a direction for which money should be allocated to support those manpower intensive 'solutions' which in turn assure the empowerment of the General Officer Elite. And in turn are attaboy'd with production contracts and peacetime basing for a military which neither protects nor conquers short of war. At which point it is _TOO LATE_ to begin to question whether the efficiency of a weapons system or the hierarchy which uses it is sufficient. Because only those in uniform have them and thus only their absolute measure (win:lose) of competency can be set against itself in a 'roles and missions' preserved application of (sledgehammer) force construct to (mosquito) threat.

Such is the essential lie of capitalism in a 'representative' democracy in that once it achieves a basic economic mass, it sustains itself through /inefficiency/ of make-work projects whose validity is isolated within the sole awareness of a singular group who have no oversight and whose career motives and institutional biases are never weighed against the truth of a similar organ competing in the same role. For it is not awareness and free discourse that makes a Republic work but rather the organizational segregation of power from societies direct awareness and interventional control.

Killer Robots would circumvent the majority of such convoluted approach to self-validation. And so have NO FRIENDS within any unit that depends on deliberate deception to retain their place at the beggars table of budgetary dole.

The sweet irony being that Americas Army Of Mindless Robots are in fact already here. For they are _Us_. We The People. Chained to a drudgery supporting itself.
I'd say it was bourgeoise hypocrisy but that lie died with the reality of 'out sourcing'.


posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 02:43 PM

Sending in a machine in place of a soldier is probably cheaper.

yes you are right it would be.Lets think about this for a much is the average soldier worth,guns ammo,body armour,and all equitment per soldier.Its probley a far bit right few thousand for sure.And in combat at anytime this soldier can be killed all it takes is one bullet and hes dead no longer a fighting unite,and on top that his fellow soldiers have to collect his body.

Chances are well 1 or 2 guys are running out in the open to grab there commrad one of them will be hit or even both in witch case you now have multipul casuties (sorry i cant spell to good) more soldiers not able to fight over all you have less combat units now and thousands of dollers worth of equitment layiing onthe ground.All from a few bullets.correct? yes.

Now look at it this way in my example 3 men are allready dead 2 because theay tryed to help there friend.Now lets say the squad containes 15 men 3 dead now so 12 left.You now have 12 men to take out the enemy in this example we will say the enemy is in a neighbor hood 1 city block big in buildings (like baghdad or somthing)

Now the enemy numbers ine 25 men agenst far the enemy is when the american soldiers move in to try to kill the enemy how many more will theay loose? lets say 4 more (randomrpg attack) now 8 left and you have 7 unites dead and 8 american soldiers spred out looking for enemy.

each soldier has chance of being killed like the others.right? yes.Now if you take the amount of money that it cost for 15 soldiers guns,ammo,equitment,monthley pay ect. and add a little more...well maybe alot more and you build 3 or 4 robots.

Send in the robots.When one gets hit IF it is distroyed then the others keep fighting theay dont pick it up theay dont become casuilitys and becaue theay are machines theay can be programed to be smarter.theay can hold more strong armour better weapons and better sence of where the enemy is much greater weapons handling and can take more of a beating then humans.

it can take 1 bullet to kill a human being just 1 then hes dead money lost in the govermints eyes.With robots you spend little more money but you have less unites but the unites you do have are stronger and more better then the humans.because robots ahve more advantages then people.

When robot is distroyed you can eather try to repair it if possable or make new one no life lost.If the robots are strong enough then theay are worth the money and can be used in smaller ammounts as i said 3 robots compaired to 15 soldiers.

Sure it costs money to repair them and to mantaine them and to build them but it cost money to feed soldiers it coset money to pay them! to keep them in good health to keep them hydrated (water) cost money to transposrt them in large numbers.

Robots dont need food or water theay dont need beds and houseing like humans do.In the end its cheeper to use a few robots rather then a lot of people.Pople can fly jets and use tanks but foot soldiers as robots makes more sence.

Robots dont hestaite eather when it comes down to it theay no wut to do and theay do it.As long as people controll them yes! people must allways controll them and theay must never be able to think for them selves.

Some of you may not agree some of you may.I think it is smart to make them and to use them personley i think it would be best to use them with human soldiers but thats just me.

sorry for all the bad spelling lol

posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 04:03 PM

Originally posted by StephenR

yes you are right it would be.Lets think about this for a much is the average soldier worth,guns ammo,body armour,and all equitment per soldier.Its probley a far bit right few thousand for sure.

That cost is still part of any machine designed for the battle field. You still going to need a weapon on the robot , ammo, armour, optics etc...

Really a human can make do with a simple AK-47 a few clips or RPG a machine is not so luckly is requires equipment for everything. To see, to hear, to move everything. So equipment cost is going to be more for a machine.

The real cost is training and paying humans for combat (atleast in modern militaries) the cost of training to be a effective warfighter and to be able to use the equipment. Since robots are painfully stupid on their own your still going to have to pay and pay to train a human to remotely operate the machine.

There might be some cost savings there but your still getting a inferior platform in terms of manoverability and longevity on the battlefield. A simple 2ft wall can stop most of the best robot designs on earth while a human can simple step over it, Even the best ground combat robot designs your talking perhaps 24 hours in active modes before your batteries are dead aswell.

The tech just isnt there yet for a equal platform at a cost saving. Maybe in 20-30 years it will be.

new topics
<< 1   >>

log in