Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Army Robots Break Asimov's First Law

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!

8 of 821 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Off Topic - dumbass by tomstdenis · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    How is murdering people in Iraq "defending our country"?

    Last I checked Iraq was not sending people over to the states to kill your civilians.

    "defending it's principles"... are you fucking kidding me? You're defending oil fields, no more, no less.

    Where were you guys in Rwanda? Somalia? Basically anywhere in Africa where a coup is actively going on?

    If you're so righteous about defending apple pie and the american way why are you not fighting against the patriot act? The dmca? The private secret courts? Why are you not fighting for education funding, health care for all? etc etc etc.

    It seems on the one hand you think murdering civilians in Iraq is "defending the USA" while on the other hand you'll sell out all that made your country so great in the process.

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  2. Re:Off Topic - dumbass by tomstdenis · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Where were you guys in Rwanda? Somalia? Basically anywhere in Africa where a coup is actively going on?

    Where were you?


    It's thinking like that I love. Because I don't endorse the misappropriation of the military I should go fight injustice myself.... Does that make sense?

    First off, I'm Canadian so I'm not about to fix mistakes for the USA.

    Second, I do my bit for the world [or at least I did] by writing public domain software that yes, even the military used.

    Third, the big reason [after WMD] for fighting in Iraq is to liberate the people and bring democracy there. Or at least that's what CNN keeps telling me and you guys seem to be supporting. So my question about Rwanda was why the US [and the U.N.] didn't get involve? It's just a total fucking coincidence that Iraq has oil fields right?

    That's my whole point. To the rest of the world it's fairly transparent that the military [even the British military] is used essentially to further the goals of capitalism. That is, protect oil fields.

    If it really was about fighting injustice you wouldn't invent the patriot act, secret courts, etc, etc.

    So ... so .... so long story short is when young kids sign up for the military to "fight the injustices" it's because they don't know better and the government takes advantage of it. The kids end up in some hellhole fighting people who live in utter squaller then they come home with nightmares to last a lifetime [if they come home alive at all]. At the end of the day you didn't "win" the war, you didn't liberate a country and you haven't saved any lives. You just made sure the "greatness of our empire" is maintained.

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  3. Re:Not really... by greenegg77 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    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.

    Hmmm, I've got a couple of answers for you:

    1) So Tom, why don't you sign up and raise the average level of education and bring your wonderful morals to the Corps? I'm sure they would appreciate your threshhold for the sanctity of life in the middle of a firefight.

    2) Today's military is the highest educated it has ever been. Officers are frequently less educated than the men they command.

    3) All soldiers and marines are grunts first. Even the doctors and engineers. They are all expected to know basic combat skills in addition to their primary job. None of the soldiers I was stationed with enjoyed the misery of others, none of us wanted to be shot at, and I'm pretty sure that most of us really didn't want to kill anyone. But failing to do your job doesn't just kill you, it kills the man next to you as well.

    4) Oh, and fuck you, asshole. I may not have been a jarhead, but they were my brother's in arms.

    --
    --- This .sig for sale - $500 OBO.
  4. Re:Not really... by Fordiman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Actually, far as I can tell, the war on terror is the US's excuse to enforce the acceptance of the US dollar for oil. Each time a country with oil resources has threatened to accept only, for example, euros for oil, they've gone on the terrorist watchlist.

    Personally, I find this a bit despicable; the 9/11 attack was from afghani citizens that were disgruntled about our actions in the 1970's; we put a bunch of dicks in power, gave 'em weapons, told them to fight the russians, and kinda didn't want to know them afterward.

    That's bad enough, but using this as an excuse to support your currency is really horrible.

    That said, it's the most life-efficient war in world history, if you don't count bloodless coups.

    Additionally, it has done some good; getting Hussein out of power WAS a good thing for the citizenry of Iraq. It's just a shame that it took selfishness to execute the liberation.

    For example, it's appalling that our dependance on the stable influx of natural diamonds has prevented every nation on the planet from doing something about the shit DeBeers is pulling off in South Africa.

    Unfortunately, such is the way of the world; if you want something done, you either have to make it profitable to do or make it threatening to not do. Even if that something is morally right.

    For example, if DeBeers decided they wouldn't sell diamonds for US Dollars or Euros, and stay with only Kugerands (South African one-ounce gold coins) and their like, the UN wouldn't hesitate to have security forces move in to stop the 'sudden' atrocities.

    I am not a liberal or a conservative (in fact, I think you're both idiots). I am a realist.

    --
    110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
  5. Re:The problem is... by -ryan · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    but people don't value the lives of Iraqis the same


    Iraqi's don't value the lives of Iraqi's. When we'd get in a fire fight people would come out of their houses to watch. Would you come outside if there was a fight with machine guns going on in your front yard? They also like to blow each other up, indiscriminately. They attack each other as much as they attack us (US).

  6. Who cares? by stlhawkeye · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Asimov's "laws" are a thing of fiction. Slashdot violates my First Superior Law of Nerd Containment which states that ignorant dorks shouldn't be allowed to run blogs about technology that are really just places where pathetic geeks gather to romanticize their great fight against the evil system that expects them to actually pay for other people's property if they want it.

    What a bunch of bullshit.

    --
    "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
  7. Troubled teenagers + Sadists + A few good men... by drgonzo59 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Good point. The US military, especially in the past during the Vietnam days, was a dumping ground for troubled teenagers, that small towns and "peaceful" suburbs wanted to get rid of. Often a teenager facing prison for violent, drunken or otherwise criminal behavior, would be given a choice of prison vs. army. With prison, the local county had to take him in, spend tax payers' money on feeding him and letting him lounge all day. Or they could hand him over to the Feds in a way, by asking him to join the army. The other part of the problem is that it is a volunteer army (not that I would want it otherwise) but what that means is that people who have sadistic and violent tendencies will be more likely to sign up. So one ends up with a bunch of mostly good people but mixed with a large number of potential violent offenders and/or a group of sadists, who find pleasure in the pain and even death of others. So whatever comes out is what we have now, good or bad -- I'll let others be the judge, perhaps some of those troubled teens eventually shape up with the discipline and all

  8. Re:QED by timeOday · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    There is a very strict and narrow definition of "Enemy Combatant". The term is defined in the geneva convention. Part of the definition is controlled by the government, wears identification (the reason for "Dog Tags") and a standardized Uniform.
    Does that mean we can't complain when the militants kidnap behead or burn the American civilians contracting in Iraq?