U.S. Army Robots Break Asimov's First Law 821
buanzo writes "The US Army is deploying armed robots in Iraq that are capable of breaking Asmov's first law that they should not harm a human.
SWORDS (Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems) robots are equipped with either the M249, machine gun which fires 5.56-millimeter rounds at 750 rounds per minute or the M240, which fires 7.62-millimeter rounds at up to 1,000 per minute.
" update this story refers to this article from 2005. But com'on, robots with machine guns! I don't get to think about that most days!
Not really... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are still connected by radio to a human operator who verifies that a suitable target is within sight and orders it to fire.
While they are harming a human, it's ultimately a human that makes the decision to fire. And who cares about fictional "laws", anyway?
Am I the only one... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, I am likely the biggest anti-State promoter on slashdot, so many will take my opinion with a grain of salt. Yet this is one of those cases where history shows that we the People need to be cautious in giving government weapons that we ourselves can not own or use. Tyrant dictators for thousands of years have used the new weapon of the day to keep not just their enemies under their thumbs, but also their own ruled citizens. From the bow to the gun to the airplane to the nuke, those that govern have always had an edge. Sure, most of us wouldn't trust some big corporate CEO in owning a robot that kills, but what protects us from a coup or a tyrant who finally has the ultimate way to control the citizens?
No tinfoil hat today, just an honest opinion (and fear) that these weapons will make us more hated in the rest of the world, as well as offering future dictators a tool to subjugate the citizens. Rather than helping spread democracy, I fear we'll see how slippery that slope gets when very powerful individuals are given even more power.
I'd rather return to the "No Standing Army" policy of individual state militias that can be called up to defend our borders in the event of a real declared war. We'd have more money to spend on our families and our communities (of people we generally agree with) rather than providing the future authoritarians a tool of continuing control over our descendents. All the tyrants we've fought in the past have been mere mosquito bites at the village pool compared to the shark attack we face today in our own backyard waters.
Slight revision (Score:2, Insightful)
A robot must obey any order given to it by the commander-in-chief or his appointee.
First Law:
A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, unless it conflicts with the Zeroth Law.
Second Law:
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the previous laws.
Third Law:
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the previous laws.
Re:Am I the only one... (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you being serious?
The "government" has had weapons that the "citizens" cannot (easily) gain access to for more than a century. How is this different?
Or is this just a pulpit for you since you caught the article early?
(The "government" will ALWAYS have more sophisticated weaponry, because it is pooling the resources of the citizenry to design, develop, build, and purchase such weaponry. Your discussion is interesting for a philosophical debate; nothing more.)
Re:Not really... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's this point that is the most salient. Asimov's laws are interesting, and make for good "debate over your adult beverage of choice" fodder, but they are just one persons take on a single use case for a particular technology. Those laws might make sense for industrial and domestic helper robots, but wouldn't apply for military (obviously) or law enforcement roles. Certainly a law enforcement robot could be trained to limit the amount of harm it inflicts on a perp to neutralize him, but some amount of harm may be necessary.
Bottom line is that as robots actually do start entering more into our mainstream lives, some "real" thought needs to be given to how to make them as non harming to humans as possible. These laws, while laudible, can't be "programmed" as is, making the task much more complex.
When a robot is not a robot (Score:3, Insightful)
Or is Slashdot more stuck on Hollywood myths than anyone, convinced that robots must have anthropomorphic traits, flashing non-functional lights, and a canned monotone voice...
Ridiculous Laws (Score:5, Insightful)
1. What hurting means
is it pain? death? financial impact? what about indirect effects? If I help human 1 build a better mousetrap, I am indirectly harming some other human's way of life.
2. What people are
3. Where they are
These are highly non trivial problems. In fact, they're unsolvable to any degree of certainty. They only make sense in a *science fiction* book in which a highly talented author is telling you a story. In the real world, they are meaningless because of their computational intractibility.
In the real world, we use codes of ethics and/or morality. Such codes recognize the fact that there are no absolutes and sometimes making a decision that will ultimately cause harm to someone is inevitable.
So can we please stop with these damned laws already?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not really... (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, the average marine has about a high school education, no morals and a low threshold for the sanctity of life. They might as well be robots anyways. :-)
That's a pretty insulting comment to make from somebody that has no fucking clue what he's talking about. Whatever you think about the "War" (I was/am opposed to it) saying that either side has a low threshold for the "sanctity of life" is just plain insulting and rude.
Ever hear of PTSD? Shell-shock? Do you think that Marines/soliders or even the insurgents that they are fighting take life lightly? And what the hell does the level of education have to do with anything? That's just being a snob.
The problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
End of story.
I'd rather return to the "No Standing Army" policy of individual state militias that can be called up to defend our borders in the event of a real declared war.
The beauty of modern warfare is very few people die relative to former wars. We've only lost around 2,000 men and women in Iraq so far and although it is a trajedy (not the war, but the loss) it is far less than wars of the same scale in years prior. Technology makes the difference.
Re:Am I the only one... (Score:3, Insightful)
In short: Citizens permit the government to use force to prevent other citizens from harming them.
Not the First... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey, almost any "fire and forget" missle qualifies for this distinction...
Re:Not really... (Score:1, Insightful)
Professional soldiers do whatever they're told by their superiors, give or take - where's the room for morality?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not really... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry folks there ain't no draft and it isn't a mystery that the US war machine is a "tad" corrupt. you sign up for the military because you want to profit from the misery of others. That is unless you sign up for the military to do something outside of being a grunt [e.g. doctor, engineer, etc]. Then you're ok.
These people you so casually dismiss as "robots" sign up, generally speaking, when they're eighteen or nineteen years old; they believe, almost without exception, that they are doing so to serve their country, to protect the Constitution and the flag and Mom and apple pie. And you know what? At most times throughout our country's history, they've been right.
Just a few years later, if they're unlucky enough to have enlisted at a time like the current one, they're old men, scarred by things no human being should ever have to see. That's what war (any war, including the "good" ones) does to people. That doesn't happen to robots.
I started out as one of those nineteen-year-old grunts; a couple of years later, dimly sensing what was coming down the pike, I cross-trained as a medic, in which capacity I served in Desert Storm. I had no desire whatsoever to "profit from the misery of others" -- I wanted to serve, and I was, relatively speaking, one of the lucky ones. I don't have anyone's death on my conscience. I do have memories of things that will give me nightmares and flashbacks for the rest of my life
They're not robots. They're your son, your niece, your little brother, caught up in a horrible situation not of their own making. Don't take your anger out on them. Save it for the evil old men who never exposed themselves to that kind of horror, who would never allow their own children to go through it, who casually, thoughtlessly, cheerfully send other people's kids off to hell.
Re:Not really... (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, the average marine/army recruit is between the age of 17 and 22. Second, that amounts to jack squat in life experience.
And your point is?
Third, the Military preys on the poor and least educated folk under the guise of "military education". E.g. give us 5 years of your life and we might give you a college education. These people are vulnerable in that they come from poor families and/or don't think they have any chances to make it in the real world.
Again, your point?
Fourth, it's no secret that the US goals in the middle east are far less than altruistic. You [including other UN nations of which I'm ashamed to say Canada was party to] let the Rwandans get slaughtered, you let blood diamond mining go on, etc, etc, etc, yet it's SOOOOO important to "liberate" Iraq and Iran. Despite the fact you basically brought Iraq to a civil war....
So your opposed to the war? Big shock there. Again, how the hell is it relevant? I took serious exception to your "low threshold" remark and you haven't done a damn thing to defend it. Have you ever talked to anybody who has been in a war? It doesn't matter which war. Take your pick. WW2, Vietnam, Falklands.... If you think that soldiers/insurgents have a low threshold for the sanctity of life and that they are able to take that life lightly and without being bothered by it for the rest of their lives then you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
It's people like you that give the rest of us on the left a bad name.
Re:Not really... (Score:2, Insightful)
OK, you don't really believe that do you? YOu REALLY think that the Islamic Fundamentalists / Jihad Crew / Suicide Bombers have a respect for the SANCTITY OF LIFE? They don't respect life AT ALL!
Here's why: If they die, they get the mythical gift of 72 virgins in heaven. They honestly believe this! Imagine the corruption of their belief system that they believe that dying while fighting for this WONDERFUL CAUSE will give them a reward better than ANYTHING that they have ever had IN THEIR ENTIRE LIFE.
Sounds a little like Social Security....Yeah, keeping putting in, don't worry, it'll be there when you retire, sure....
Sorry to digress, but back to the main subject: I don't think that they (they being the insurgents) respect life at all to take it so (seemingly) thoughtlessly. I could be wrong, but perception from what the media has given us is that these people are savages that don't respect anything except for dying for their cause.
Feel free to comment, I'd love to hear some THOUGHTFUL comments.
Are these REALLY robots? (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of what are called robots are just fancy remote controled cars. In this case, a fancy remote controled car with guns. Fun, but not a robot.
Re:Am I the only one... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not to worry (Score:3, Insightful)
And, by this, you mean finite ammo supply, right?
Re:Not really... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, not exactly. As it happens, there just hasn't been a war as large-scale as some of the past wars have been. Lots of people died in WW1 and WW2. WW2 killed more than WW1, partly due to more advanced methods of killing. But since WW2 we have just had relatively minor wars. Iraq War is pretty small potatoes, and even it resulted in something like 100.000 deaths. Vietnam (a lot smaller than either World Wars) caused over 2 million deaths. Korean Wars caused millions of casualties as well, but I don't know the number of deaths. So the amount of casualties have been relatively high, even though the wars have been very limited in length and/or scope when compared to the World Wars.
Conveniently forgetting all those dead Iraqis (civilian and others alike) eh?
Re:The problem is... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you meant to say 'Americans' in place of 'people' in the above statement. Superior technology and training are great for reducing your own casualties but they're a bastard for the opposition.
I assume you don't think Iraqi dead actually count as you don't even consider them worthy of mention. I can't decide what's more depressing, your post or the fact someone modded it insightful.
Re:Not really... (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, you don't really believe that do you? YOu REALLY think that the Islamic Fundamentalists / Jihad Crew / Suicide Bombers have a respect for the SANCTITY OF LIFE? They don't respect life AT ALL!
Did I say the Fundamentalists have a respect for life? Did I say that? I don't recall saying that. I recall saying that the insurgents have respect for it.
I think there's a pretty big difference between an Al Quada scumbag hiding in a cave somewhere (whose major goal is to incite a war between the West and Islam) and the Iraqi insurgent fighting for what he believes is the freedom of his homeland. You might say that blowing up cars and checkpoints isn't the best way to go about obtaining your freedom.... well, the British said that hiding behind trees and sniping at Redcoats wasn't the best way to obtain ours either. And as for them attacking "innocents"? Go back to 1776 and talk to some British Loyalists and find out what life was like for them during the Revolutionary War. In fact after the war most of them were forced to move to Canada. Was that right? Probably not. But it's a fact of history.
I have some respect for the Iraqi insurgents. I have zero respect for the religious fanatics that are over there now trying to turn it into a Holy War against the infidel west. The fact that you don't realize there is a difference between the two is a little sad and shows how misinformed you are.
Re:Not really... (Score:2, Insightful)
The political climate in the U.S. is frightening sometimes. I see so many people who identify themselves with a particular party and that's that - there's no room for discussion or the possibility that they might vote or support someone who hasn't identified themselves as a member of the party they support. People seem to treat it like they're rooting for their favorite sports team.
Re:Not really... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not really... (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the point of Asimov's stories was that they always obeyed the laws, but not necessarily in ways humans would. Most stories in "I, Robot" show that these seemingly excellent and fault-tolerant laws could have unexpected and sometimes dangerous consequences of their own, and that the real-world is too complicated to ever be dealt with only hard and fast rules.
You're right though, I never understood why people took Asimov's laws as a great thing to use as a reference for robot behavior when the same author who created them proceeds to point out their flaws for an entire book's worth of short stories.
Re:Not really... (Score:3, Insightful)
Henry Kissenger
Robert McNamara
Donald Rumsfeld
Richard Cheney
As much as Gen. Westmoreland was to blame for many of the mistakes of Vietnam, it was the first two goddamn SOBs who were most responsible.
Ditto for the last two. CENTCOM generals may be at the top of the military command structure for the US forces in Iraq, but we wouldn't be there in the position we're in now except for number 3 and number 4 on the above list.
May God have mercy upon their souls.
Re:Not really... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to break it to you, but there will always be those who seek to prey on the defenseless. You could get the entire world to lay down their arms and disband their militaries, but all you'd accomplish is to encourage the next Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, or Joseph Stalin to raise an army and conquer all those foolish enough to be defenseless. The worst part of it is that their soldiers would consist of idealists who would think that they're bettering the world by spreading Communism, Facism, Eugenics, or other political idea of the day.
A particularly ugly example of this was the conquisitors of the "New World" who sought to obtain land and slaves for Spain, all under the guise of spreading Catholic Christianity. The Crusades are another ugly example of this, though we could be here all day trying to analyze those events.
A few thoughts.... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) SWORD is remote controlled it is not autonomous like I always thought a true robot in the Asimovian sense had to be.
2) Since we are now including remotely operated vehicles in the definition of a true robot, SWORD is not that different from a Paveway bomb or a Hellfire missile except SWORD doesn't self destruct when it destroys the target.
This begs the question wasn't Asimov's first law broken decades ago, perhaps even by the V1 which was strictly speaking a remote operated vehicle?
Personally I won't begin to worry about Asimovs laws as long as Humans are on the other end. apons.
Still waiting for.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, however, this is NOT a violation of the 1st Law as the robots don't have the fire / no fire decision.
Using a human operator makes this telepresence, not autonomous killing machines gone wild. (Hey, you sexy tin can...show us your gun!)
QED (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Not really... (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, I think anyone who reads "I, Robot" and comes away with the notion that the Three Laws are a good idea should be barred from working in robotics entirely. Asimov's short robot stories drive home again and again how those hard-coded, inviolable laws are a very, very bad thing, and taken to their ultimate end, could result in the human race basically being reduced to animals in a robot zoo! Seriously, I think too many people read "I, Robot" when they were too young to grasp the serious philosophical point behind it, and haven't bothered to re-read it since.
The book uses robots as an analogy for a very serious philosophical point about humanity: codified rules are not a suitable replacement for people educated in ethics, science, and rational thinking. No set of laws, commandments, edicts, or mandates passed from On High will ever match every situation. Knowledge is the only way forward.
Re:Not really... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not really... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if we don't include the Iraqi dead/wounded (as others have pointed out,)
don't forget that tens of thousands of US soliders have been severely injured by wounds that would have killed them in previous conflicts... but thanks to the miracles of modern medicine, they are "only" missing limbs, permanently brain-damaged, etc.
many pro-war supporters like to trot out the "only 2000 killed" line, while not being quite so forthcoming with the severely-injured count.
Re:Not really... (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all, the military routinely turns down applicants trying to get in. The IQ's of people *allowed* in the military must be above the 50th percentile. In fact until recently you had to be in the top 30th percentile in order to get in. If one were to set aside their snobbery or simple ignorance, this would all make sense. Just look at the control panel of an AH-64 helo or heck even a Stryker vehicle and then you would gain a fair appreciation of what it takes to be in the military.
This will help alleviate the ignorance:
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-
Re:Not really... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if anyone actually realizes this, but the Vietnam debacle lost about twice as many lives in the opening weeks of combat that afghanistan and iraq combined. Whatever the motivations behind our incursions on other countries (mostly it has to do with what currency they want to trade for oil), we're getting better at getting the job done without killing too many people.
And yes, civillians die. As nobody's perfect, war is like that. If you wanna be bitchy and insulting, be bitchy and insulting to Bush, Cheney and their puppeteers, not the marines. They're trained with a purpose. And, like a health inspector, they're doing what they're paid - and legally required - to do.
Meanwhile, MARINES stands for "My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment, Sir!"
(I'm an ex-navy nuke. I can make jokes like that. Just not in front of a marine. Those fuckers are like Extreme Sports punks, only less stupid and more muscley.)
insurgents (Score:3, Insightful)
1 Iraqis trying to free their homeland
2 Foreigners trying to help Iraqis free their homeland
3 Sunni Iraqis who know that if the new government succeeds, they lose the privileges they had under Saddam.
4 Foreign Sunnis trying to help group 3.
5,6 Iraqis and foreigners who just want to try and kill Americans.
I can have respect for groups 1 and 2, but not the rest. I also realize that the line between Al Quaeda and groups 5 and 6 is pretty thin. I also lose respect for groups 1 and 2 if they're indiscriminate about innocent lives.
It's a REMOTE, not a a ROBOT (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Off Topic - dumbass (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit. If the US wanted oil from Iraq, they would have lifted sanctions and bought it, or they would have just abused the oil-for-food program like everyone else. The lack of logic in the blood-for-oil argument is simply astounding. A simple cost/benefit analysis of how much money has been pumped into Iraq vs how much oil has been pumped out will show anyone with more than a handful of neurons that it makes no sense whatsoever to invade for oil. Moreover, even if we accept your gormless suggestion, it still doesn't exclude the possibility of individual soldiers "defending our principles". No matter what you beleive about the US governments goals in Iraq, you'd be pretty hard pressed to show that the majority of soldiers signed on to "defend oil fields".
Where were you guys in Rwanda? Somalia? Basically anywhere in Africa where a coup is actively going on?
Actually there were US soldiers in both Rwanda and Somalia. I guess you didn't see Blackhawk Down?
Rwanda was the UN's show, and it was the UN's call to scale back the number of peacekeepers and allow the Hutus to slaughter the Tutsis. It's one of the many incidents which lead to our loss of faith in the UN, and it's part of the reason why the US was willing to go to war in Iraq without UN approval.
As for Somalia [globalsecurity.org], US forces initiated operations there early on in the conflict:
Unfortiunately, the UN took over in 1993, and shortly afterwards things took a turn for the worse. US Delta and Rangers were involved in a massive confrontation in Mogadishu, and a secrtain Democrat president decided it was no longer politicaly prudent to have US forces operating in Somalia. Basicaly, he did what the dems have been advocating that we do in Iraq. Luckily this time there's a Republican in office, so Iraq hasn't yet turned into another cut-and-run campaign.
I would suggest that you pick up a history book once in a while.
Re:Not really... (Score:5, Insightful)
Same thing obviously applies to humans, this is why Asimov's stories are such an interesting read and will never become out of date.
Not a robot (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not really... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, if I could say I learned one thing from the reaction to troops after Vietnam, it would be to distinguish between the soldiers and the mission the soldiers are sent on. It is the leaders who choose the mission, and they are the ones who deserve our contempt for using the soldier in foolish, wasteful, or evil ways.
Believing this, I find it very sad that today "Support Our Troops" carries with it implicit support for our troops' mission and the Commander in Chief who sent them on it. I despise the C-in-C, I do not believe in the mission, but damned if I don't have a lot of respect for someone willing to put themselves in that shitstorm and try to do their best.
They don't make ribbons for that though.
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps you have not been paying attention... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not really... (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean France? Germany? Russia? You know, the ones with substantial (and ongoing) cash-generating relationships with Saddam? The ones with politicians and business interests busily scraping cash off of the oil for food program? Or are you thinking more in terms of the Russian lack of any actual workable military with which to contribute, and serious hopes of still trying to be a counter-US player in that part of the world, just for the sake of being contrary (as a PR move)? Or were you thinking of the high number of Islamist-types that have set up camp in Germany and France, where it's increasingly politically difficult to do anything that might offend them, or even just give them an excuse to act offended (see recent riots in France, see the complete de-clawing of any law enforcement in Germany, as it relates to dealing with radicalized, militant foreigners living locally on the dole while they plot things like 9-11... which is exactly what happened).
Or, you could remind yourself of the number of countries that saw the same intel, and very much pitched in. You could even remind yourself of the security council votes that gave Saddam one last chance lest he face dire consequences. It's not "most of these countries," it's more like a minority of them. Places like eastern Europe, more recently familiar with living under tyrants like Saddam, were and still are all for removing him from power.
If you want to get upset about something, get upset about where all of Saddam's toys went (ahem: check in Syria, which is full of his people, his money, and many shipments of his WMD-related goodies and technology).
Re:Not really... (Score:2, Insightful)
I still hear this inane "three laws" stuff as if it were the font of all wisdom
And did Predator drones not count because they flew?
Re:The problem is... (Score:2, Insightful)
They also like to blow each other up, indiscriminately.
You dont think that if there was a war going on in America the KKK wouldnt use it as an excuse to indiscriminately kill minorities?
Re:Not really... (Score:1, Insightful)
Let's assume for the sake of argument that a "leftist" is someone who strongly opposed the Iraq war (and probably other Bush administration violations of the civil and human rights spelled out in the bill of rights in the US constitution).
You are correct that "leftists" are angry and you are correct that "leftists" are in the minority in the United States.
On the other hand, you'd have a hard time proving that "leftists" are irrational. For example, a "war crime" is conducting a war in violation of international law. It is clear that the United States invasion of Iraq violated the intent of international law. Specifically, international law only allows one country to go to war with another country in self defense or with the approval of the international community. It is clear that Iraq had neither the capability or the intent to launch a major attack on the United States so self defense is ruled out and at the time of the United States invasion of Iraq the majority of the international community was opposed to the United States invasion or Iraq.
The "rational" view, therefore, is that the United States invasion of Iraq was a war crime and the the members of the Unnited States government and the members of the United States military are war criminals.
Now the "emotional" view is that the members of the US military are "our boys" and "we love them" and maybe the emotional view is the right one to take in this case.
The plain "rational" truth, however, is that they are war criminals.
Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's another robot the Army is testing (Score:3, Insightful)
"Yesterday we ran a 100-mile test where the lead vehicle was being driven manually and the robot was following," Jaczkowski said. "We did this successfully where the average speed was about 22 miles per hour. You may think that 22 miles per hour is not that fast when operational convoys are going 60 to 70 miles per hour. But you have to take into account that we did 68 right turns.
"You don't take right turns at 50 miles per hour, especially with a 20-ton robot."
Asimov's Laws are important ideas in the field (Score:3, Insightful)
Speculative fiction is often where the implications of technological change are first addressed. The most successful practitioners are literally thought leaders, because their stories are sometimes the first to draw out concepts of the future to possible implications or conclusions. That is why science fiction authors are often sought out as consultants to private or public enterprises that push tech barriers. It's not because they are necessarily "right" about the future, but because they are thinking about the issues in unique or broader or farther-reaching ways.
For instance Asimov didn't create his laws as hard-nosed coding advice for modern programmers. They are just part of his larger consideration of a) what it would take for the public to accept sentient robots among them, and b) what are the practical and ethical implications of trying to hard-code rigid laws onto actual intelligence? You say they wouldn't work for law-enforcement robots, and you might be righter than you know...would the public even accept law enforcement robots, even with such laws in place? A question like this is where a science fiction story (and the public reaction to it) can be very illuminating.
Unless you've got some real sentient machines we can use for hard research, we're stuck with thought experiments in considering the implications of such machines. Asimov's stories involving robots are some of the most detailed and coherent examples. They serve as common ground upon which to start conversations...for example this one. They don't need to be "right" or "accurate" to serve that purpose.
These robots do not break the First law (Score:3, Insightful)
Less blood for more oil (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the reality.
Re:exactly my point (Score:3, Insightful)
Having big guns means you can beat the shit out of anyone you want, look at the blitzkrieg in 1939-40 in Europe.
Who are you defending? Who lives in the Green Zone? Are you liberating people in China? Are you liberating people in Africa? How about Pakistan, are they going to be liberated?
WWII was modern, and a lot of people got killed. Iraq is a puny little skirmish, that's why body counts are 'low', not because of 'modern warfare'.
Saying that warfare reduces body counts saves lives is pure Orwell. War is Peace.
Who The F Cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does he have to be a roboticist? (Score:2, Insightful)