Funny/Friendly Off topic discussion. Fail this test and threads will be migrated to Way Off Topic.

Moderators: sg, mods

User avatar
By jjcote
#268146
There's not much of an ethical distinction between a mine and this plane in its most problematic scenario. When somebody puts a mine on the sea floor and leaves it to make its own decision about blowing up whatever ship happens to come by, who is responsible? Or a land mine that blows up whatever person happens to come by?
By blindrodie
#268164
Hay that looks like the one the Iranians are making! :wink: :lol:

8)
User avatar
By HGXC
#268169
I love it for two reasons.

First it allows us to deliver smart bombing tactical strikes without the risk of losing a pilot.

Two it opens up a tons of movie plots for Hollywood about robot planes turning against us and taking over the planet.

I could even see a sequel combining the drones and the apes from the return of planet of the apes to deliver the message that everything will turn against us :ahh: :ahh: :ahh: :ahh: :ahh:

Dennis
User avatar
By jjcote
#268173
HGXC wrote:First it allows us to deliver smart bombing tactical strikes without the risk of losing a pilot.
Right, but that can be done (perhaps better) by a remotely-piloted plane. I really think what's going on here is not a desire to have the plane fly a mission autonomously, but just to take the remote pilot out of the loop for one particular phase of flight that's fiendishly difficult: carrier landing. That's hard enough when you're on board, and when you add in the limitations that a remote pilot has (like display or control lag), it may simply be too difficult. So you figure out how to get the plane to handle that part itself. It wouldn't surprise me if they eventually get the algorithms good enough that the plane can land on a carrier better than a pilot can, and at that point there will be pressure to install the landing module in piloted planes. I can imagine a lot of resistance to that, from pilots who either don't trust the computer, or who have too much pride in their piloting skills to relinquish the stick.

On the other hand, maybe there's something in this for us, a module that will land a hang glider perfectly every time...
User avatar
By HGXC
#268221
On the other hand, maybe there's something in this for us, a module that will land a hang glider perfectly every time...

Hey man I am all for that :thumbsup:

Dennis
User avatar
By Paul H
#268222
There is a huge difference between a programed weapon system such as the drone and a mine. An autonomous weapon system is programed to travel to and attack a designated target chosen by the controlling entity, the mine is triggered by chance.

jjcote wrote:There's not much of an ethical distinction between a mine and this plane in its most problematic scenario. When somebody puts a mine on the sea floor and leaves it to make its own decision about blowing up whatever ship happens to come by, who is responsible? Or a land mine that blows up whatever person happens to come by?
User avatar
By Dawson
#268224
jjcote wrote:... I really think what's going on here is not a desire to have the plane fly a mission autonomously, but just to take the remote pilot out of the loop for one particular phase of flight that's fiendishly difficult: carrier landing...
I'd say that's definately what their plan is - to make it easier to retrieve the drones after their mission, but that's also not their ONLY goal. Currently you need one pilot per drone. With fully automated drones, you don't need the pilot.

Now, just picture 10,000 fully armed drones on an attack run.
User avatar
By Jason
#268232
do we really want a world where war can be waged without risk


risk is the only thing that really discourages one to wage war
User avatar
By HGXC
#268234
Jason wrote:do we really want a world where war can be waged without risk


risk is the only thing that really discourages one to wage war
I don't think loss of life is working out very well as a deterent. When people strap bombs to children the value of life is out the window. But if those very same enemies see that we can fight them electronically. It may change thinks a bit. I only say may becasue it still requires the other side to think.

and BTW there will still be risk...just a little less..

Dennis
User avatar
By Mavi Gogun
#268235
Jason wrote:do we really want a world where war can be waged without risk


risk is the only thing that really discourages one to wage war
Unfortunately, our ethics technologies aren't keeping pace.

Incidentally, thousands of pilot-present pilotless drones fly in the the US every day: commercial air liners are, by-and-large, shepherded -not piloted.
User avatar
By Jason
#268237
HGXC wrote:
Jason wrote:do we really want a world where war can be waged without risk


risk is the only thing that really discourages one to wage war
I don't think loss of life is working out very well as a deterent. When people strap bombs to children the value of life is out the window. But if those very same enemies see that we can fight them electronically. It may change thinks a bit. I only say may becasue it still requires the other side to think.

and BTW there will still be risk...just a little less..

Dennis
i tend to think your right- most of the US doesn't much care how many Americans or foreign civilians are killed by our unnecessary foreign excursions- let alone what led up to them- Paul was booed at the the SC debate for mentioning the "Golden Rule"......do unto others as you would have them do unto you......by this measure the US is asking for people to attack us and kill civilians

and when the US starts (it already has) killing people in the middle east from drones......and there is no one for them to shoot at.......what do you think will happen......they will come here- be it lone gunmen trying to take out as many people as possible before being taken down, or turning cars into bombs here.


top it off with not a single person being punished for the murder of 24 civilians.....the world knows the US doesn't value life
User avatar
By jjcote
#268242
Paul H wrote:There is a huge difference between a programed weapon system such as the drone and a mine. An autonomous weapon system is programed to travel to and attack a designated target chosen by the controlling entity, the mine is triggered by chance.
jjcote wrote:There's not much of an ethical distinction between a mine and this plane in its most problematic scenario. When somebody puts a mine on the sea floor and leaves it to make its own decision about blowing up whatever ship happens to come by, who is responsible? Or a land mine that blows up whatever person happens to come by?
I'm not seeing a distinction. The mine causes an explosion in a specific place when something happens, no matter who is there. The drone causes an explosion in a specific place when it arrives, no matter who is there. Actually, we've had something that works this way for a long time, it's called artillery. The drone is just artillery that's not restricted to a ballistic flight path. Both of them allow you to blow something up without looking at it, the drone just allows you to aim better. Who is accountable for artillery, the private who loads the shell, or the officer who ordered him to do it, or the general who called for the barrage, or the politician who authorized the general to mount the offensive?
User avatar
By Jason
#268244
They only became animals after they overthrew the dictator we installed in 1953
User avatar
By Jason
#268246
sg wrote:Im CERTAIN everyone would be perfectly fine with Iranian drones flying over the US homeland and killing people. Right? RIIIIIGHT?


But the double standard is ok, because you see, THEY are animals, and we are civil. Isnt that exactly what every fascist does? Convinces the public that the enemy is a dirty disgusting animal that should be killed? How did the nazi's describe the jews? How do we describe people we want to bomb?

Pfffft, the golden rule doesnt apply to these dirty animals, right? RIIIGHTTT???
of course they are animals
a man after shooting a deer
Image



a US soilder after murdering an Afghan Boy
Image



if the US were really serious that these actions "go against our core values" some of these personal should have been executed by now
By darkcloud
#268258
Completely tasteless, Jason.
Three thumbs down.
User avatar
By Jason
#268259
darkcloud wrote:Completely tasteless, Jason.
Three thumbs down.
yes.........im tasteless......not the murdering son of a b---- in the photo and his buddies

the man in the photo got 7 years
will likely be out in 4
others in the group
Jones- 7 months
Kelly- 60 days labor
Moore- 60 days labor
Morlock- 24 years in prision- after pleading guilty to three counts of premeditated murder, conspiracy, obstruction of justice and illegal drug use. He will be dishonorably discharged from the military. He will become eligible for parole after serving 7 years in federal prison



what exactly does one need to do to to be put in prision for the rest of your life or be executed.


oh yes....release documents that show US crimes ala Bradley Manning and you face life imprision......pre meditated murder however....we'll let you out after 7 years
Last edited by Jason on Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By PilotGuy
#268260
Two scary things stand out to me with the development of each new computerized weapon:

As Jason pointed out, by removing risk to us it makes it that much easier to go to war.

And remember that it's only a matter of time until an unbeatable weapon is used against you and me, here at home, by an overreaching government and a complacent population.
User avatar
By HGXC
#268267
sg wrote:Im CERTAIN everyone would be perfectly fine with Iranian drones flying over the US homeland and killing people. Right? RIIIIIGHT?


But the double standard is ok, because you see, THEY are animals, and we are civil. Isnt that exactly what every fascist does? Convinces the public that the enemy is a dirty disgusting animal that should be killed? How did the nazi's describe the jews? How do we describe people we want to bomb?

Pfffft, the golden rule doesnt apply to these dirty animals, right? RIIIGHTTT???
Jack goes to Godwin's Rule again for drama. I didn't know that the people could protest and change Hitlers mind on a protential policy like what is happening with the US and SOPA and PIPA. I think Jack would have suffered a different outcome in Hitlers world.

I would love to never have to have any military but you first would have to garrenteet that no one outside of our boarders would ever hurt any US citizen anywhere on the planet. You arrange for that and we can lose the military.

Deal? Until then I want to be able to wipe out anyone that is a threat.

Dennis