drtyrm
Lord Nagafen Raider
- 1,991
- 155
Libertarianism - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
- Thread starter OneofOne
- Start date
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
- 75,634
- 150,130
chaos
Buzzfeed Editor
- 17,324
- 4,839
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 55,854
- 137,953
They have autopilot for travel and loiter time. and the x-47b is an experimental un-manned that can take off and land from an aircraft carrier, they use the autopilot for long peroids of the mission already, I could see now an operator watching multiple drones.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 45,454
- 73,543
Virtually all US commercial and military air vehicles have auto-pilot. Manned or otherwise.
We're a LONG way from being comfortable with or wanting fully autonomous air vehicles. Capability wise we're already there.
We already have missiles with guidance systems, but those operate on coordinate or energy accumulation data rather than onboard pattern recognition like most people think of fully-autonomous UAVs.
We're a LONG way from being comfortable with or wanting fully autonomous air vehicles. Capability wise we're already there.
We already have missiles with guidance systems, but those operate on coordinate or energy accumulation data rather than onboard pattern recognition like most people think of fully-autonomous UAVs.
AladainAF
Best Rabbit
- 12,867
- 30,828
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 55,854
- 137,953
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan...drone-20120126
The Air Force wrote in an 82-page report that outlines the future usage of drones, titled "Unmanned Aircraft Systems Flight Plan 2009-2047," that autonomous drone aircraft are key "to increasing effects while potentially reducing cost, forward footprint and risk." Much like a chess master can outperform proficient chess players,future drones will be able to react faster than human pilots ever could, the report said.
And with that potential comes new concerns about how much control of the battlefield the U.S. is willing to turn over to computers.
There is no plan by the U.S. military - at least in the near term - to turn over the killing of enemy combatants to the X-47B or any other autonomous flying machine. But the Air Force said in the "Flight Plan" that it's only a matter of time before drones have the capability to make life-or-death decisions as they circle the battlefield.
---
harkey and others believe that autonomous armed robots should force the kind of dialogue that followed the introduction of mustard gas in World War I and the development of atomic weapons in World War II. The International Committee of the Red Cross, the group tasked by the Geneva Conventions to protect victims in armed conflict, is already examining the issue.
I'm not saying skynet is here already but I can see the road to it. The military at some point will put pressure on the issue by saying it degrades their ability to fight, and say another major player like china starts doing it, the gloves will come off. discussion is warranted.
The Air Force wrote in an 82-page report that outlines the future usage of drones, titled "Unmanned Aircraft Systems Flight Plan 2009-2047," that autonomous drone aircraft are key "to increasing effects while potentially reducing cost, forward footprint and risk." Much like a chess master can outperform proficient chess players,future drones will be able to react faster than human pilots ever could, the report said.
And with that potential comes new concerns about how much control of the battlefield the U.S. is willing to turn over to computers.
There is no plan by the U.S. military - at least in the near term - to turn over the killing of enemy combatants to the X-47B or any other autonomous flying machine. But the Air Force said in the "Flight Plan" that it's only a matter of time before drones have the capability to make life-or-death decisions as they circle the battlefield.
---
harkey and others believe that autonomous armed robots should force the kind of dialogue that followed the introduction of mustard gas in World War I and the development of atomic weapons in World War II. The International Committee of the Red Cross, the group tasked by the Geneva Conventions to protect victims in armed conflict, is already examining the issue.
I'm not saying skynet is here already but I can see the road to it. The military at some point will put pressure on the issue by saying it degrades their ability to fight, and say another major player like china starts doing it, the gloves will come off. discussion is warranted.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Even if drones are operated by people, that's basically one step removed from playing a video game. Regardless of how they are operated, it is not OK to blow up large numbers of innocent civilians who have absolutely nothing to do with your fucking war. "Sometimes there's collateral damage and that sucks" doesn't cut it for me. "It's better than us sending in our soldiers to die" doesn't cut it for me either (as if one or the other are the only choices). What the fuck do you think you're protecting yourselves from? How's a country, any country, going to attack you?
Canada's not going to attack you, so any military would have to arrive by ship or air. You've already got pretty strong naval and airborne forces that could stop any military in the world from ever even getting close to setting one foot on American soil. In fact, THAT would be a pretty good use of drones! It's a pretty moot point, though, since no military would dare attempt to attack you head-on on your own land.
Are you worried about nuclear strikes? I'm not an expert on how to intercept and disable nuclear strikes, but if it's possible you guys are able to do it. If it's not possible you're not going to reduce the chances of it happening by killing a ton of innocent people. As you are well aware, America poses the biggest nuclear threat in the world today, so if you want the rest of the world to put their nukes away you might want to set an example and start disassembling your own.
Or is it terrorist strikes you're worried about? Another 9/11? This is the worst possible reason to use drone strikes, as terrorist attacks are caused by small groups of people driven by their ideology, an ideology you feed into every time you blow up another innocent family. Hell, if you're really worried about terrorist strikes, why don't you offer to give up more of your rights since you're obviously not all that attached to them anyway? Random waterboarding, anyone? I remember seeing a lot of bitching about what's happened to airport security, but recently all I hear is "I wasn't using those rights anyway...". Random terrorists/psychos (local or foreign) are always going to be able to kill people out of the blue. It can't be stopped. We're just kidding ourselves if we think changing gun laws or doing naked body scans at the airport is gonna do it, and killing innocent families certainly isn't going to do it.
I think it's great that the technology exists to send a deadly strike anywhere in the world without putting your own people at risk, I really do. But there's a time and a place for such technology, and repeatedly depending on drone strikes as the only way to get the (supposed) bad guys while the innocent bodies continue to pile up is disgusting, irresponsible, and very likely to end up biting you in the ass. I know some of you (a lot of you?) couldn't care less about killing brown people, but you've got to evolve beyond this "kill or be killed" mentality if you're going to stand any chance of getting back control of your government. The 1% want you to be scared, they want you to kill civilians, they want you to keep spend-spend-spending on the military. Stop being suckers to their propaganda and try a little empathy and common sense, for fuck's sake.
Canada's not going to attack you, so any military would have to arrive by ship or air. You've already got pretty strong naval and airborne forces that could stop any military in the world from ever even getting close to setting one foot on American soil. In fact, THAT would be a pretty good use of drones! It's a pretty moot point, though, since no military would dare attempt to attack you head-on on your own land.
Are you worried about nuclear strikes? I'm not an expert on how to intercept and disable nuclear strikes, but if it's possible you guys are able to do it. If it's not possible you're not going to reduce the chances of it happening by killing a ton of innocent people. As you are well aware, America poses the biggest nuclear threat in the world today, so if you want the rest of the world to put their nukes away you might want to set an example and start disassembling your own.
Or is it terrorist strikes you're worried about? Another 9/11? This is the worst possible reason to use drone strikes, as terrorist attacks are caused by small groups of people driven by their ideology, an ideology you feed into every time you blow up another innocent family. Hell, if you're really worried about terrorist strikes, why don't you offer to give up more of your rights since you're obviously not all that attached to them anyway? Random waterboarding, anyone? I remember seeing a lot of bitching about what's happened to airport security, but recently all I hear is "I wasn't using those rights anyway...". Random terrorists/psychos (local or foreign) are always going to be able to kill people out of the blue. It can't be stopped. We're just kidding ourselves if we think changing gun laws or doing naked body scans at the airport is gonna do it, and killing innocent families certainly isn't going to do it.
I think it's great that the technology exists to send a deadly strike anywhere in the world without putting your own people at risk, I really do. But there's a time and a place for such technology, and repeatedly depending on drone strikes as the only way to get the (supposed) bad guys while the innocent bodies continue to pile up is disgusting, irresponsible, and very likely to end up biting you in the ass. I know some of you (a lot of you?) couldn't care less about killing brown people, but you've got to evolve beyond this "kill or be killed" mentality if you're going to stand any chance of getting back control of your government. The 1% want you to be scared, they want you to kill civilians, they want you to keep spend-spend-spending on the military. Stop being suckers to their propaganda and try a little empathy and common sense, for fuck's sake.
Zodiac
Lord Nagafen Raider
- 1,200
- 14
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Even if that's true, that changes nothing. Your choices are not restricted to "boots on the ground" or "drone strikes".
Clearly.
There appeared to be some kind of debate as to how big of a difference there is between human-operated VS completely automated drone strikes. All I'm saying is the difference is minimal at best. Someone pressing the "auto-kill" button and someone pressing the "kill" button after waiting for the cross hairs to scroll over the target on the monitor are pretty much the same fucking thing.
You're both, by the way, completely missing the point. What are you protecting yourselves from?
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
- 75,634
- 150,130
I dont plan to "restrict my choices" to satiate some arbitrary moral handwringing from a foreign national. If you got a better way to assassinate terrorists on foreign soil, I'd like to hear it.
Selix
Lord Nagafen Raider
- 2,149
- 4
Actually yes that was what our choices were reduced to. I like many others wish there were no troops there at all but I don't live in fantasy world were all my ideal dreams come true.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 45,454
- 73,543
Between trusting a UAV operator to make a life-death decision vs a soldier on the ground making that decision I'll take the UAV operator everytime. Not just because they may be more levelheaded at the time of decision and are likely to be recorded but also because they don't have to worry about dying as a result of a false choice.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Jesus Christ, guys, answer the fucking question: What are you protecting yourselves from?