posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:20 PM
The question has a fault. You're asking one question while implying another, and you don't realize it.
Is it ethical? I don't know. Is it ethical for one man to use superior technology against another in battle? Was it ethical for nations with legions
of archers to attack those who only utilized spears as projectiles? Is it ethical for there to be a technological imbalance in any conflict? That's
the surface question you're asking. However, that's not the real question.
The truth of the matter is this: Is it ethical for a nation/country/state to utilize automatons to wage battle in place of human soldiers in order to
preserve the life of their kinsmen while creating a starkly imbalanced k/d ratio when compared against the enemy.
Simply: Is it ethical for the opponents to lose human capital while human capital is not wasted on our end?
It's not ethical for a man to die for the cause of another in the first place. Point moot.
Let Darpa operate. Your children's future may be "unlimited" and "unshackled" because of it...that's my future too, and I won't let anything hinder
the coming revolution of mankind's evolution. Fear of technology will not be dealt with kindly. Not by me and those like me...and we're gunning for
those shadowed positions that you don't even know exist. Be kind, and support the future. Advance together, or face the consequences.
edit on 6-9-2012 by TheOneElectric because: (no reason given)