It's a remote controlled vehicle which means the operators can indiscriminately kill with it without much remorse as long as their superiors say kill. It'll probably fail miserably, but with incremental improvements, it can eventually be very effective.
I can assure you it is neither legally, morally or actually the case that a remote device would allow indiscriminate action. There are plenty of precedents in that vein. It will allow the controllers to be more aggressive without the aspect of personal danger, but not indiscriminate. Whether that is actually a good thing or not is yet to be seen.
It will allow the controllers to be more aggressive without the aspect of personal danger, but not indiscriminate.
In a war, sure, but in an occupation where these test vehicles are going? Wrong tool.
I think the nature of the vehicle is that, eventually, anything that comes near it must be seen as a threat. It's sensors can be easily countermeasured in low-tech ways, and therefore, the operators must consider anyone coming near it, including children, a threat to it. That's indiscriminate to me.
In a war, sure, but in an occupation where these test vehicles are going? Wrong tool.
I think the nature of the vehicle is that, eventually, anything that comes near it must be seen as a threat. It's sensors can be easily countermeasured in low-tech ways, and therefore, the operators must consider anyone coming near it, including children, a threat to it. That's indiscriminate to me.
I Agree.
My first instinct would be to spray-paint the occupy-o-bot pink.
Would I get shot for that? probably. By a multiple-shot-a-second chain-gun...
These units are a supplement to infantry units, not a tool that will be going out on their own. If you read the whole story, the battery endurance is only 1-4 hours. To me, that means they would be brought in to combat in specific hotspots, storm occupied buildings, etc. They would not be patrolling the streets, and like any mechanized vehicle, would be in the company of human soldiers. So the possibility of an Iraqi child be killed 'tagging' the bot is unlikely. IMHO, the level of accuracy provided is much more humane than a scared 18 year old spraying rounds at a distant target. (according to the article, it scored 70 for 70 bull's-eyes on the range, with a rocket launcher!)
Quote:
Its developers say the SWORDS not only allows its operators to fire at enemies without exposing themselves to return fire, but also can make them more accurate.
A typical soldier who could hit a target the size of a basketball from 300 meters away could hit a target the size of a nickel with the SWORDS, according Quinn.
Comments
Originally posted by THT
It's a remote controlled vehicle which means the operators can indiscriminately kill with it without much remorse as long as their superiors say kill. It'll probably fail miserably, but with incremental improvements, it can eventually be very effective.
I can assure you it is neither legally, morally or actually the case that a remote device would allow indiscriminate action. There are plenty of precedents in that vein. It will allow the controllers to be more aggressive without the aspect of personal danger, but not indiscriminate. Whether that is actually a good thing or not is yet to be seen.
Originally posted by Hiro
It will allow the controllers to be more aggressive without the aspect of personal danger, but not indiscriminate.
In a war, sure, but in an occupation where these test vehicles are going? Wrong tool.
I think the nature of the vehicle is that, eventually, anything that comes near it must be seen as a threat. It's sensors can be easily countermeasured in low-tech ways, and therefore, the operators must consider anyone coming near it, including children, a threat to it. That's indiscriminate to me.
Originally posted by THT
In a war, sure, but in an occupation where these test vehicles are going? Wrong tool.
I think the nature of the vehicle is that, eventually, anything that comes near it must be seen as a threat. It's sensors can be easily countermeasured in low-tech ways, and therefore, the operators must consider anyone coming near it, including children, a threat to it. That's indiscriminate to me.
I Agree.
My first instinct would be to spray-paint the occupy-o-bot pink.
Would I get shot for that? probably. By a multiple-shot-a-second chain-gun...
Its developers say the SWORDS not only allows its operators to fire at enemies without exposing themselves to return fire, but also can make them more accurate.
A typical soldier who could hit a target the size of a basketball from 300 meters away could hit a target the size of a nickel with the SWORDS, according Quinn.