For example would a moral robot have refused to function in the Vietnam War?
The decision whether to fight in the Vietnam War is political. A robot does not have a vote, so should not participate in politics at all.
Would a drone take out an enemy in Somalia knowing that that terrorist was a US citizen?
If the enemy is judged to be seriously threatening US interests, the drone should take him out, just as a police officer would take out a dangerous criminal.
How many innocent deaths are permissible if a valuable target can be destroyed?
In this case the drone should weigh human lives against other human lives. Can it be estimated how many human lives are at risk if the valuable target remains intact? Not just the numbers but the probability of harm should be taken into account. This type of decision is usually up to the higher level commanders that have more information on hand.
If a robot acts as a fair player could it use high tech weapons against an enemy that had only rifles that were made prior to WWII?
There is no ethical issue here. Use the most effective weapons. Minimize losses on your side. Try to make the enemy surrender with minimal losses on their side (i.e. don't nuke them).
If many troops are injured should a medical robot save two enemy or one US soldier who will take all of the robot's attention and time?
The robot must assume that we will fight until we win. Treating a US soldier contributes to the success of the war campaign, potentially saving many lives in the future. Treating injured enemy soldiers may actually cause losses because the enemies may fight again (if they can't be taken into custody). When including the probability of future losses of human lives, the choice is clear: treat the US soldier.
When it comes to moral issues and behaviors there are often no points of agreement by humans so just how does one program a robot to deal with moral conflicts?
Use utilitarian ethics. Not many rules are required. When estimating potential future human lives lost, assume your side is going to win. Do not venture into politics. (Of course there could be something terribly wrong with this reasoning, so fire away.)
There is potentially a Scenario 4:
Most of the content of the website is user-generated. The main costs are for hosting. There are free accounts and paid accounts. The paid accounts bring in the majority of the revenue. They differ from free accounts by relatively minor, but convenient perks, like greater bandwidth from the server, or ability to post more often. Free account holders still have access to all the content. People eventually value your service enough to pay a small monthly fee and get the perks. There are no ads, period.
This model can work for Slashdot, Facebook, YouTube and many others.
To eliminate the wire-like or metallic nanotubes, the Stanford team switched off all the good CNTs. Then they pumped the semiconductor circuit full of electricity. All of that electricity concentrated in the metallic nanotubes, which grew so hot that they burned up and literally vaporized into tiny puffs of carbon dioxide. This sophisticated technique was able to eliminate virtually all of the metallic CNTs in the circuit at once.
Bypassing the misaligned nanotubes required even greater subtlety.
I would suggest that such aliens have something better than radio to use.
I'm curious what can we imagine the aliens could use to communicate. I found this bit on neutrino communication. It also mentions axions (which might not even exist). Gravitational waves are suggested in the comments. Are there any other potential communication technologies we can read about?