Killer Military Robot Arms Race Underway?

coondoggie writes to tell us NetworkWorld is reporting that one researcher seems to think that a military robot arms race may be imminent between both governments and terrorists. "We are beginning to see the first steps towards an international robot arms race and it may not be long before robots become a standard terrorist weapon to replace the suicide bomber, according to professor Noel Sharkey, from the Royal United Services Institute Department of Computer Science. [...] Currently there is always a human in the loop to decide on the use of lethal force. However, this is set to change with the US giving priority to autonomous weapons - robots that will decide on where, when and who to kill, according to the professor."

Comments

Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

These aren't the droids you're looking for...

Thank God

[copponex]

Hopefully the terrorists never get advanced enough to build any kind of robots or technology that would allow them to deliver munitions from long distances, high altitude, or even space, indiscriminately killing hundreds of thousands of US civilians. I can't imagine what we'd do to retaliate, but we'd never resort to terrorism.

I'm just glad we're not terrorists! Go freedom! Go democracy (unless you vote Hamas)! Peace in the middle east! Long live the USA, and Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and... oh wait, Pakistan isn't doing what we told them anymore. Go Saudi Arabia, anyhow!

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

Re:Meanwhile, in Baghdad

[GreyyGuy]

A person requires a lot of work to be convinced to end their life. They require a decent sized support group to reinforce the message.

The description above is not too much more involved then Mythbusters gets each week.

Re:Meanwhile, in Baghdad

[misleb]

Go fuck yourself. The US gets its own troops killed all the time because they maintain an ROE that trades the safety of US troops for the safety of Iraqi civilians.

They also enjoy the luxury of being able fire cruise missiles and call in air strikes from miles away. Tell me, how many US soldiers died during the initial attack on Iraq compared to the number of Iraqi civilians that died from collateral damage? Ok, maybe killing civilians wasn't the goal, but it happened. Can you just wave that away by saying "Sorry, they got in the way of the bombs meant for Hussein." I can't.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't then compare them to people whose only purpose is wholesale slaughter of civilians. Call them immoral if you want, but don't call them terrorists.

You do understand that the so-called "terrorists" chose the World Trade Center as a target for a reason, don't you? And the Pentagon. It wasn't because they contained civilians. I'm sure they could have come up with better targets if their "only purpose is wholesale slaughter of civilians." They're symbols. Symbols of what they feel they are fighting against. Personally, I'd rather get rid of the stupid term "terrorist" altogether because it trivializes the enemy and what they believe they are fighting for/against. I can't say that I sympathize with them, but I also can't say it doesn't make sense in a "the world is a fucked up place" kind of way. They're fighting against a huge military superpower. Going head to head with the US military just isn't an option. So we end up with so called "terrorism." But really, it is the same kind of stuff that any small group does when up against overwhelming odds.