Slashdot Mirror
US Military Moving Closer To Automated Killing
Doofus writes "A recent article in the Washington Post, A future for drones: Automated killing, describes the steady progress the military is making toward fully autonomous networks of targeting and killing machines. Does this (concern|scare|disgust) any of you? Quoting: 'After 20 minutes, one of the aircraft, carrying a computer that processed images from an onboard camera, zeroed in on the tarp and contacted the second plane, which flew nearby and used its own sensors to examine the colorful object. Then one of the aircraft signaled to an unmanned car on the ground so it could take a final, close-up look. Target confirmed. This successful exercise in autonomous robotics could presage the future of the American way of war: a day when drones hunt, identify and kill the enemy based on calculations made by software, not decisions made by humans. Imagine aerial "Terminators," minus beefcake and time travel.' The article goes on to discuss the dangers of surrendering to fully autonomous killing, concerns about the potential for 'atrocities,' and the nature of what we call 'common sense.'"
Given the amount of friendly fire deaths in recent wars it would be interesting to see if software has a better rate of IDing enemies than humans do.
Landmines do automated killing every day!
When these are combat ready, there will be many unemployed soldiers.
See, I told ya, John Connor's mother was right about our future
Come with me if you want to live!
People are becoming increasingly irrelevant. The machines can just fight each other, while we get fat and die.
Move all violence to online simulations.
The 'automated recognition' in this case was a large orange tarp. The difficulty of creating an automated recognition algorithm for an orange object in a natural background is extremely low. Wake us up when this thing can recognize camouflaged tanks in a forest.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Science fiction writer Cordwainer Smith called them "manshonyaggers" in a story published back in the 1950's. The word was supposed to be a far-future corruption of "menschen" and "jager", or "manhunter".
It looks like his future is going to get here a lot faster than he thought.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Where does it say that? The article is discussing systems that don't require human approval for a kill.
Why don't we, instead of perfecting our killing methods, simply stop initiating economy destroying pointless wars?
I'm excited about all the trickle-down technology that'll eventually become consumer grade fare, and I appreciate the advancement in various technology that war brings, but I would much prefer it if the US stopped economically destroying itself (while giving the Middle East a "Great Satan" to fight) and instead let them get back to killing each other over tiny differences in interpretation of fundamentalist Islam.
Not even Bob the Builder can fix the Middle East at the moment. Not when you have God handing out the real estate titles and commanding the thousands of various splinter cells to annihilate everything that's not exactly identical to themselves, as trillions of dollars of oil money pour into the region to feed and fund it all.
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
He is one of these guys...
Oh yeah, you're right lol. Mod me braindead. I read 'unmanned' and somehow converted that in my brain to 'manned.'
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The purpose of the American military is to provide jobs to the lower classes and keep the money circulating. Automating target identification defeats the purpose, however it does push money up towards the geniuses that come up with this stuff.
Someone should make a movie about this. . .
...of a whatcouldgowrong tag, this would be it.
War will always be about killing people. That's what the military is for. Killing. This is not a bad thing. I want the best military in the world protecting my liberty.
All power comes from the barrel of a gun. Aimed at you - to make you comply. Willingly, or otherwise.
Read some history. The approval rule will be circumvented - it is only a matter of time. The reason why you need autonomous killing robots is that comms systems can always be jammed with relative ease. An autonomous system is not vulnerable to external jamming threats, or at least, is more easily hardened against them.
Interesting times.
..don't panic
...Or at least some honesty? I'll admit that I'm not too fond of the mechanization of warfare, or warfare at all for the matter, but one look at the article and I can tell this summary is a gross oversimplification of the actual testing and procedure in order to help support the poster's personal views. I was under the impression that this was a news site, not a blog for users to upload stories to support their personal views.
As long as the soldier who pushes the button to activate the drones is equally responsible as the one who pushes the button to drop a dumb bomb then I don't really see the issue.
As long as someone mucking and and causing friendly fire or collateral damage is equally liable then I think this is just an arms race that has the potential to avoid casualties.
When you can start shoving blame around so soldier blames the programmer and vice versa is where this becomes dangerous I think. If the soldier can blame someone when a done behaves unexpectedly and not feel or be held responsible there is the potential for miss use.
Don't use the technology if it has the potential to go wrong.
Yep, autonomous machines are certain to make mistakes and kill people who aren't the target, who are innocent, don't really deserve to die, etc.
So what?
Humans make those mistakes now, in abundance: friendly fire, massacres, genocide, innocent bystanders... you name it. What difference does it make whether it's a human or some artificial pseudo-intelligence that makes the mistakes?
I'll tell you what the difference is: one less human on the battlefield, and thus at the least one less human that can die from a mistake.
Could it kill 9 people and wound 14?
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki/
I read somewhere recently a quote that, IIRC, was from Churchill. It was something about avoiding war, but if you must fight, fight with severity, for that is the most humane. I think that applies here. Though it sounds incredibly cruel, if people are not dying in your war, there will be no incentive for either side to stop.
Of course, Gadhafi, Hussein, Stalin, and similar madmen are somewhat of a counter example in that they don't give up no matter how many of their side are killed. Yet Japan in WWII is an example of the ruthless severity (nuclear bombs) causing an immediate and complete cessation of any attempts to create war.
Even modern times with Gadhafi and Hussein, the invasion of Iraq was much more severe than the Libyan rebels, thus the shorter amount of time to cause the government to capitulate. (Getting the rest of the population to stop fighting, much harder... we'll see how Libya does without the outside intervention.)
Anyway, the point is that robot vs robot is war by proxy. Without the violence, the bloodshed, the impetus to end the war just won't be the same. They'll drag on for longer and longer, and resolution will be even less certain than it is today. I'm not sure that's necessarily such a good thing.
Looks good on paper but for now they are just expensive toys which may be more useful as recruiting tools (look war is just like a video game, come play with us!). Barely useful in an asymmetrical warfare conflict like the one in Afghanistan and useless in a war with a country that has a modern air force and an integrated air defense system. They'd be shot out of the sky immediately.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
the purpose of attackwatch.com
But they forgot to leave a way to upload pictures of the targets to be terminated. Oops.
Between globalization and robots it appears the golden age of leisure* is closer than ever.
* Where golden age of leisure = mass unemployment and food riots
This will be more like the old Star Trek episode where war is so impersonal that no one bothers to resolve them (then Capt. Kirk destroys the war computers). However, I doubt that automated killing machines will ever exceed the human capabilities for atrocities and the lack of common sense. War in general implies both anyway.
Anyway, the point is that robot vs robot is war by proxy. Without the violence, the bloodshed, the impetus to end the war just won't be the same. They'll drag on for longer and longer, and resolution will be even less certain than it is today. I'm not sure that's necessarily such a good thing.
There will always be conflict. War is just one method to resolve conflict. Legal fights are another method. Negotiation is another method. Robot wars is on future potential method. In my opinion, machines killing each other is vastly preferable to people killing each other, people who would be brothers in a different situation.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If a machine can identity and kill another machine, can't we make war a virtual reality scenario where the software fights it out and one one really gets injured?
Like food, this sig will also pass
There is no way that the military is going to permit autonomous combatant units. At least, not without having a stake put through its brain.
For starters, the PR would be through the floor if even one of these things killed a civilian (though I guess with how callous the US has been towards civilian collateral casualties for the past ten years, that might not be a big deal.)
The other main reason is that there's no way a manly man is ever going to give up on the idea of manly soldiers charging manly into battle. Basically, it'll take a total discrediting of the entire War College and Army general staff to see ACUs see any sort of serious use on the battlefield, in much the same way that Gates disenfranchised the 'fighter mafia' from the USAF a few years ago. The difference is that the 'combat arm mafia' (not that there actually is one) is a hell of a lot more entrenched. The idea of big burly virile men shooting the hell out of some amorphous Enemy is too much part of the military self-image.
Then again, the fighter jocks had a pretty strong self-image, too, and they've lost a lot of ground in the Air Force to the transport "pukes" (Who's a puke now, Roger Ramjet?) and the drone operators (who are mostly CIA anyway), so who knows?
The ironic thing is that, ideally, you get drones and ACUs on both sides, let them beat the snot... er, silicon out of each other, and call it a day. Pity that won't happen anytime soon. Plus, random freedom fighters^H^Hinsurgents probably won't be able to afford such things, so it'll still come down to bloody gobbets strewn across some hellhole.
"I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
Examples:
IF a target is a unique type of vehicle that can be easily identified by target recognition software that _already_ does this for normal pilots AND said target is within a set of coordinates that are known to only contain hostile vehicles of that type, THEN kill it, otherwise seek human double-check and weapons release confirmation.
If a target is in an area known to not contain friendlies and is detected firing a missile or weapon (like an AA gun for example), then kill it.
If there are friendlies or non-combatants anywhere NEAR being "danger close," then require human double-check and weapons release confirmation.
And a zillion other parameters that all must be satisfied before servicing the "target."
You people act like they're going to just send 'em out to kill anything that moves. I'd argue that these things, with the assistance/confirmation/guidance real-time of educated people who know what they're looking at in the sensors and can see the battlefield "data" from a god's-eye view, we will actually REDUCE the number of friendly-fire or collateral damage incidents versus all-human situations. Computers don't get tired. Humans in an air-conditioned bunker drinking a cup of coffee aren't under stress to make a decision before they get shot out of the sky.
Seriously. Think before you post these invalid-or-negatively-slanted-editorials posing as food for thought.
Is the US military's increasing dependence on high tech weapons systems a threat to national security?
Who manufactures the components for these things? Where do they get the raw materials like rare earth elements? Are there any chip fabs left in the US?
I haven't seen a lot of wars about liberty lately. Most were about economics or territory, some were about religion. To my knowledge, the last time the USA was attacked on own territory was Pearl Harbor and the last time the US mainland was invaded was well over 100 years ago. In the end, only the weapons manufacturers get a good deal out of war, the people just get another sock puppet ruling their countries.
There are a lot of treaties that try to limit the number of nukes, land mines and other non-discriminatory weapons on the planet. Adding new weapons to the list to have treaties about isn't really productive if we ever want to stop innocent bystanders dying in war.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
If ever there was an appropriate time for the "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag, this is it.
You've got it the wrong way around.
The idea of winning a war by way of killing so many of the opposition that the rest will surrender or retreat is viable some of the time, but horrific. And truth be told, it doesn't work nearly as well in real life as it does on paper; people are unpredictable creatures at the best of times, and there are plenty of cases of soldiers or entire armies fighting to the very last, horrific fate be damned, rather than surrender. In particular populations and politicians may fall prey to the sunk cost fallacy i.e. "We've already lost N soldier fighting this war, we can't give up now, else they died for nothing." You can't expect to win a war if you assume your opponents are rational actors who prioritize self preservation, because that isn't always going to be the case.
The right way to do it, and in fact the way that's had a better track record of making wars end, is to destroy the ability of the enemy to make war altogether. For a protracted conflict, you get more bang for your buck destroying logistic, communication and supply capability than you do killing enemy soldiers in a fair fight. Any modern national military is only as capable of making war as they are capable of supplying, commanding and reinforcing their armed forces. Obviously this doesn't work in a guerrilla engagement, where supply lines may be nonexistent, or against a foe who hides among civilians. Iraq is a good example of where this strategy does and doesn't work; the official conflict ended rapidly, with the army defeated in short order (and without massive casualties; many Iraqi soldiers never even saw action), but the same approach cannot be used to maintain an occupation.
For a hypothetical conflict between two nations armed with robots, this form of conflict is even more likely; infantry forces require less logistical support than drone forces. In order to win, you don't grind your enemy's robotic forces into dust in a fair fight and you don't try to terrorize their populace into surrendering; instead you destroy their communications so they can't send in the drones, you destroy their factories, airbases, munitions dumps and whatever else they need to build and maintain their robotic fleet and you prevent them from doing the same thing to you. You don't have much chance of occupying a country with a robotic army any more than you can occupy a country with tanks, aircraft or warships; occupation pretty much requires men on the ground. This does mean that a robot armed nation might win a conflict without casualties, but must be prepared to suffer losses if they plan on conquering rather than letting their foe surrender and retain their own government.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
How soon can we send it into FATA in pakistan? Time to just target the high level taliban/AQ. I am fine with using automation to do this. In fact, I think that we should send these ppl into Mexico as well once it is working decently. Lots of Cartel there.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
When both sides start using drones, we may see a future of bloodless wars that only involve machines. I can't imagine after losing a large scale drone-battle, a country sending out it's citizens to try to tip the scales.
Does this (concern|scare|disgust) any of you?
Why am I limited to these choices? Groupthink much?
Advice: on VPS providers
We're quite likely to see systems that kill anybody who is shooting at friendly troops. The U.S. Army has had artillery radar systems for years which detect incoming shells and accurately return fire. There have been attempts to scale that down to man-portable size, but so far the systems have been too heavy.
Sooner or later, probably sooner, someone will put something like that on a combat robot.
The most dangerous thing is about this is that now when a glitch or bug or malware causes a plane to blow up a wedding, it means no one is responsible. No one ordered it, and no one can be punished for it.
Some hard-line Japanese had wanted to keep fighting even after the atomic bombs were dropped.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_Incident, for example
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
the way that's had a better track record of making wars end, is to destroy the ability of the enemy to make war altogether.
Indeed, that's precisely what Allies were doing with those firebombings of Germany and Japan back in WW2. Keeping in mind that (civilian) workers manning the factories are a crucial resource required for making war...
Yet Japan in WWII is an example of the ruthless severity (nuclear bombs) causing an immediate and complete cessation of any attempts to create war.
Even so, it almost didn't work. There was a coordinated attempt by some in the Japanese military to kidnap Emperor Hirohito and prevent him from capitulating to the United States.
#DeleteChrome
The reason why it won't be that way is because the side which will not bother with this kind of thing, will win a robot-vs-robot war.
I need to remove my "Gone January 20th, 2013" with the Obama logo for the "o" bumper sticker from my bumper... http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B00228KSPU/ref=dp_image_z_0?ie=UTF8&n=15684181&s=automotive
I am not left-handed, either!
I'm sure they will only use this in countries populated by brown (non-white) people that speak in funny languages.
Funny languages - you mean like French?
#DeleteChrome
Genius is not in those people finding automated ways of killing. Genius is in those people able to find a way to avoid beginning a war. Reading this kind of news makes me have no fear of the day I will pass away: there's nothing better than to stop being a human.
When we take the risk out of war, it loses all meaning. You America haters think we're too quick to go to war now, wait until there is no risk to our own people. No bodies coming off planes at Dover AFB, no funerals, no news reports about another young widow with children to raise without a father (or the other way around). If we remove the risk, then war becomes merely a cost item on the budget, and much easier to jump into. Take out the Sci-fi stories of the war robots turning on their Human masters (and the Governator isn't the only such story.) and I still have great concern about war becoming too easy for a technological society. We need the risk of death to keep us in check. War isn't going away, in fact with our growing population your going to see much more as land has always been one of the great prompters of war. Let the machines aid it identifying the target and locking onto it, but always, always keep a human operator in the loop. And preferably not one on the other side of the world. Robots are great for tedious slow flying patrol routes, they are perfect for EOD work, but let's not make them autonomous killing machines.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Didn't Star Trek have an episode similar to this? A centuries old war fought by computers and proxy? It only ended when war was made ugly again. The future is here and parts of it scare the crap out of me.
Landmines do automated killing every day!
So, someone doing one unconscionable thing justifies someone else doing another unconscionable thing? For example: someone robs someone else and it is therefore OK for me to beat the hell out of you for no particular reason?
Is this what we've come to in America? I'm going to be sick. And people still wonder what happened in Germany under Hitler?
At some point i think we're going to have an iRobot moment that makes us question the harmlessness of computers. Either we'll figure something out about how to deal with civilians killed by machines, we'll just call them casualties like we do when an innocent gets caught it crossfire, or the military will write a personal "i'm sorry we killed you" letter.
I'm just surprised no one's made a connection to iRobot yet.
http://hackaday.com/2011/08/16/i-have-seen-the-future-and-it-has-swarmanoids/
Where is the Soviet Union now?
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker_(Saberhagen)
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
More like Hunter/Killer than terminator, IIRC
~clearcutting prevents forrest fires
What bothers me is these things make war easier to wage. When Americans aren't coming home in coffins, it's a lot easier for the public and politicians to accept war, therefore we're more likely to start wars.
If we're risking our own soldiers and pilots, at least we might think twice and look for other solutions before starting a war. However, once you've made war palatable to your own public, too often it becomes the first resort especially amongst the hawkish (and religious right versus non-Christian enemies)
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Soon the US will be invading countries for stockpiling on EMP grenades.
As long as killer robots only target humans and vehicles, I see no problem with this at all. In fact, as a dolphin, I'd say it's a downright positive development.
Anyway, the point is that robot vs robot is war by proxy. Without the violence, the bloodshed, the impetus to end the war just won't be the same. They'll drag on for longer and longer, and resolution will be even less certain than it is today. I'm not sure that's necessarily such a good thing.
Isn't the problem with this really that robot v robot doesn't actually resolve anything? I.e., one side will simply destroy the other side's robots eventually, but then what happens? Just because their robots are gone, doesn't mean the loser of that part of the war simply surrenders. Instead the humans then pick up guns and fight the remaining robots/other humans from the other side.
E.g. if China is invading your homeland, and their robots beat your robots, does your homeland just surrender after the robot phase? I think not. For the same reasons that wars aren't decided by cricket matches or playing poker, they won't be decided by robots blowing each other up. War, by its nature and implications, will ultimately still require the killing of humans.
I suppose one plausible scenario is that robots get so good that once your robots kill the other robots, it would be pointless for the enemy humans to resist further (i.e. or they'll just be massacred by your death drones and T-800s). I find it hard to imagine that though.
And of course behind all of this, there'll still be nukes. No major power is going to start a serious war with any other major power while the possibility of being nuked remains. Proxy wars in unstable/valuable regions will remain the norm.
Read Pynchon.
I do hope everyone knows it is against the rules of war. It is required that a human "pull the trigger" (or whatever is equivalent in the case of remote-controlled vehicles). No, that rule doesn't apply to landmines and probably not fixed emplacements. So no, it isn't going to happen just yet - unless someone else does it first.
"Anyway, the point is that robot vs robot is war by proxy."
When I was a little kid, I read a sci-fi story (in an anthology, more then likely--I devoured them so fast I rarely remembered the authors names) that was based on the premise that humans had spread throughout the stars, and in the process discovered a planet that had an indigenous race of diminutive humanoids. This race of humanoids was divided into clans and was in a multi-fronted, never-ending state of war--a total free for all. If I remember correctly, the little-people clans were used as proxies to settle differences back on Earth by manipulating the clans into battles--the sponsor-nation of the clan that won the battle would have a conflict back on Earth decided in their favor. Reading this caused me to look at my box of plastic toy army men in a whole new light.
I may have this story mis-remembered (I think I was about 7 when I read it). Regardless, this essentially describes, in analogy, what we are headed towards in terms of Automated War--proxy wars that serve no purpose but to consume valuable resources, and possibly decide some disagreement that could have been decided in a more civilized fashion. This won't even decrease the level of personnel costs--the machines will still need humans to maintain them--but rather adds to the costs of war by requiring both a human "service" army and a mechanical "task" army.
I
"our military has an unusually high percentage of people "with brown skin" both doing the killing and in positions of leadership".
Because soldiers are historically recruited from the lower classes.
When President Harry S. Truman desegregated the military in 1948, African-Americans saw the Army as a key avenue for advancement. Joining up became "a way out of a worse situation," said Gregory A. Black, a retired Navy dive commander and creator of blackmilitaryworld.com, a website devoted to the history of African-Americans and the military.
By the Vietnam War, the Army had a full complement of black combat troops, including Colin Powell, who did two combat tours as a captain and major and later became secretary of state. But civil-rights leaders complained about the disproportionately high casualty rate among black soldiers, arguing that the Pentagon was drafting young black men and sending them directly into combat.
"A lot of African-Americans are still messed up over Vietnam," said Black. Yet Defense Department statistics show African-American soldiers today are more likely to work in clerical or support jobs than fight on the front lines.
Despite the sharp decline in enlistments, the percentage of blacks in the military still slightly exceeds that of the general population: 14.5 percent in the military, as of 2005, versus 12.8 percent in the US population. Nonetheless, recent Pentagon-sponsored surveys suggest that attitudes among military-age African-Americans may have changed for good.
Adult influencers of all youths, such as parents, sports coaches, or mentors, say Iraq makes them less likely to recommend military service, according to Pentagon surveys. Of all racial groups, African-American influencers are the least likely to suggest enlistment, according to the surveys.
At Oxon Hill High School, located in a predominantly black Washington suburb, guidance counselor Kabir Tompkins is also an Army National Guard sergeant wounded in Iraq. He tells interested students the Army can lead to better life: a good salary, health benefits, and tens of thousands of dollars for college. But their parents are harder to convince, he said.
"They see it from the aspect of . . . 'I don't care about the benefits, I don't care about the money, I don't care about nothing. I don't want my child going to Iraq,' " Tompkins said.
Lieutenant Colonel Irving Smith, a sociologist at the US Military Academy at West Point, isn't surprised the war "has had its toll" on black enlistment. But Smith, who is black, said he fears that a proud legacy of black men and women is at risk, and could be lost in a generation.
"We fought for many reasons, we enlisted for many reasons," Smith said. "Particularly in early times, we fought because we thought we'd get all the opportunities of citizenship . . . The fewer African-Americans that enlist, the fewer African-Americans there are that can tell their stories in the future. The fewer that get commissioned as officers, the smaller the leadership pool will be in the future."
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
President Merkin Muffley: General Turgidson, I find this very difficult to understand. I was under the impression that I was the only one in authority to order the use of nuclear weapons.
Isaac Asimov (the creator of the three laws of robotics) actually added a fourth, which took precedence over the other three -- and that law is the scary one that basically allows anything to happen:
0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
Think about it: If, as the "robots" see it (i.e. are programmed), NOT killing a few gazillion people would harm humanity -- well, then we'd better kill them! No?
The morale of this: You cannot program morals! (At least not easily.)
... in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya etc. I don't think US military gives a crap about civilians. Albeit they don't tend to shoot them on purpose, they don't give a shit about collateral damage when bombing their 'suspected targers'. Sorry for being trollish, but I suspect that filtering out civilians isn't on the top on their priority list.
It is worth mentioning that it was not immediate and that a Russian force was preparing to invade. The Japanese had a very good idea of what a Russian occupation would be like and that was a major influence in surrendering to the USA.
History is too messy to be told as a simple fairy tale with no substance other than cheering for your home team.
This sounds like a bad idea to me as far as fighting wars go.
War is supposed to be up close, personal, and horrific. Letting machines handle the dirty work removes a large amount of the deterrance that should be inherent in pursuing a war. Knowing the horrors of war should be a big motivator in seeking alternatives to war.
What's next? Just have computers simulate attacks, calculate damage and casualties, and then those on the casualty list report to a termination center?
This space unintentionally left blank.
The biggest problem I can see is that when military leaders order atrocities, it wont be the rank and file soldiers who get the blame; itll be the people who made the drones. Easier to replace technicians than frontline soldiers. Ultimate Military Result: Unchanged.
How many more millenia will we keep fighting with guns to end war?
http://youtu.be/VGWsGyNsw00
Stupidity is its own reward.
Or if you don't want to watch the video:
Universal Soldier Lyrics
He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
Been a soldier for a thousand years.
He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill,
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me my friend and me for you.
And he's fighting for Canada,
He's fighting for France,
He's fighting for the USA,
And he's fighting for the Russians,
And he's fighting for Japan,
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.
And he's fighting for Democracy,
He's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one who must decide,
Who's to live and who's to die,
And he never sees the writing on the wall.
But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.
He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,
His orders come from far away no more,
They come from here and there and you and me,
And brothers can't you see,
This is not the way we put the end to war.
Stupidity is its own reward.
We soldiers of all nations who lie killed
ask little; that you never in our name
dare claim we died that men might be fulfilled
The earth would vomit us against that shame.
We died, is that enough
Many died well, of both sides
Most of us died senselessly
Ask soldiers who outlived us
They may tell, how many died
to make men slaves or free
We died, none knew, few tried to guess just why
No one knows now, on either side the grave
If you insist you know by all means try
that being your trade, to make the knowledge save
but never use, not as you honor sorrow
our murdered days to garnish your tomorrow.
Stupidity is its own reward.
Wouldn't politicians killing other politicians be even better, less pollution and your not feeding the ravenous beast, "The Global Military Industrial Complex" (apparently they are now colluding together upon a multinational basis to keep mass murdering high profit wars going). All you need is a bunch of clubs and some campaign contributions and let them go at it and, the winner is, the general public.
Those chicken hawk politicians that want war, let them fight it themselves.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
I'm reading a disturbing number of nationalist comment here on Slashdot. I would have thought nerdy people would have known better.
Check out my cross-platform apps
I will admit that we do have a few bad apples (any large population will have outliers). But to use those as a basis to excoriate us as a whole...my friend, you are sorely mistaken.
My, have things changed. I was always taught that the honor of the unit lies with each man...
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
a future where war is limited to robots killing other robots, and not humans killing each other, is a GOOD THING.
That is true in a naive way, the question is which countries is the US going to attack that can afford drones? The reality is going to be drones killing brown people with ak47s, and of course people with random objects that resemble ak47s, and people who are standing in the wrong place at the wrong time. Like the status quo I guess.
Isn't the problem with this really that robot v robot doesn't actually resolve anything? I.e., one side will simply destroy the other side's robots eventually, but then what happens? Just because their robots are gone, doesn't mean the loser of that part of the war simply surrenders. Instead the humans then pick up guns and fight the remaining robots/other humans from the other side.
E.g. if China is invading your homeland, and their robots beat your robots, does your homeland just surrender after the robot phase? I think not.
Not that I am for robot soldiers, but if robot soldiers get advanced enough, then it is viable. If losing all robots means and strategic advantage similar to what losing, say, all the air power and/or armour, then a surrender could be likely.
Of course, generalizations are bad. It would not be the same an China-USA war over Taiwan or Korea or Japan than a war with the aim of annexing one of the participants homeland. It would not be the same if the one of the sides claimed that it wanted the physical anhilation of the other side population (or if the other side feared that). It would not be the same if the people involved were highly indoctrined before and during the war to fear the enemy than if no previous tensions existed. It would not be the same if the winning side asked for inconditional surrender (even Japan was ready for a conditional surrender long before atomic bombs and soviet intervention, and Germany wanted a separate peace with the western allies). It varies also with the international situation (some historians think that the real cause for Japan's surrender was the risk of a Soviet occupation against the risk of an American one). So, apples and oranges.
Why can't
If they move towards this, then your enemy will end up hacking your automated wounded soldier recovery systems and make them drive off the nearest cliff.
For starters.
So many trolls per character!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This is inevitable and should be applauded. (Hehe - how sick is that!?) No - seriously.
The problem we face is not one of automated killing but the requirement for serious advances in the ability of humans to forgive, understand and cooperate with each other. War is only required when (1) human understanding breaks down, (2) some idiotic dictator has a mental problem, (3) enslavement.
It is amazing how easy it is to mold a square meter of solid granite and how difficult it is to change the mindset of a stubborn person. This applies to a wide range of people from any form of religious fanatics to any form of political fanatics... in actual fact - any form of fanatic. Stubbornness in the face of reason, logic and facts perpetuates unnecessary arguments.
I'm not american but there are fewer countries that have stronger political institutions and there is noone else i'd rather have with automated killing devices. Now AK devices in the hands of North Korea - different story.
Scientific advances in medicine, chemistry, computing... and war... will proceed. I unfortunately do not believe that our ability to cooperate has moved forward much.
-Tim
Humans aren't good as soldiers: not only do they have bad aim, but they often have poor judgement. They'll get drunk, freak out, rape, pillage, and kill the wrong people. By having a mechanized military, so much of the bad behavior is factored out of the system. The precise 'surgical strikes' as opposed to bulk 'carpet bombing', there will be less civilian casualties as 'collateral damage'. The economic effects are good as well, where a few well-paid engineers can design, skilled technicians can assemble, and operators operate, replacing the need for grunts to sweat in the jungle or burn in the desert.
Computers, if programmed correctly, are a lot more reliable than people. Perhaps with fully automated weapons, the number of innocent being killed accidentally will be minimized.
In short most of these new superweapons being developed are kinda pointless as we already have a weapon stronger than all of them: nukes.
(I'm trying to decide if the question is pedantic or rhetorical. Never could keep those straight.)
I've been in and around the military for years. I can't see them giving up critical decision making to machines.
I can see a system like this being used to present potential targets to an operator who will touch on the screen each one he wants destroyed.
But right now permission to hit these targets isn't even at the operator, but much higher, since they're so worried about the repercussions of hitting a civilian.
> the steady progress the military is making toward fully autonomous networks of targeting and killing machines.
There are automated sentries (with weapons) on the Korean DMZ, it has been like that for years. IIRC those robots have been designed by Samsung.
lucm, indeed.
Just politically correct. The US already has policies in place that effectively meet and exceed the goals of the Ottawa treaty.
We stopped selling mines, we destroyed old stockpiles. we have spent over a billion dollars clearing mines and helping victims (usually not our mines). Our new mines are self-destructing or self-disarming, and policy is to not place one without its position being recorded, and that it be removed from any battlefield after its need has passed.
Even with that, the only place we actually use them is in the Korean DMZ. The last time we used them in combat was the Gulf War, in limited use. These were scatterable mines, fired or dropped to a specific grid coordinate to deny use of that small area to the enemy. Since this was their first use we did make mistakes, as apparently not every shot was recorded and reported for later easy cleanup. Rules for their use have since been changed, and by now they should be converted to self-destructing or self-dearming anyway.
More to the point, Asimov imagined a world in which the populace sensibly feared the concept of intelligent robots, and forced the political class to impose those safeguards as a condition of being allowed to make them. It would appear today's populace hasn't figured that out yet.
I believe the OP is the third person I've run across on the Tubes who thought those laws existed for real...
rj
"It is well that war is so terrible - otherwise we would grow too fond of it." -- Robert E. Lee
Things like drones and missiles make war less terrible, at least for one side, increasing the likelihood we will not be so averse to war as we should be.
(concern|scare|disgust) ?
How about:
(Thrill|Please|entice)?
For those of us the can delineate between reality and fiction, this is a good move.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
These systems are expensive. Contractors want to be paid to (try) to build them. They forge political networks to facilitate this using lots of money derived from weapons sales.
Listen to the Republican debaters falling all over themselves arguing for "defense." What do you think they really mean?
The book Here goes into great detail about the implications of using robots on the battlefield. The points I can remember off the top of my head are some echoed here, like will it become easier for American society to wage war etc... One point that surprised me was that the insurgents thought us weaker for using robots, we couldn't even defend our own ideals and beliefs with a human presence on the battlefield. There are interviews with many military brass, CEO's of robotic companies creating the robots, the pilots in Nevada engaging enemies in Iraq, etc...
Humans are much cheaper (to make and maintain) than robots.
That is clearly not true, at least once the economies of scale kick in. While humans are cheap to produce initially, the approximately eighteen years of care, feeding and education they require is, in military terms, a huge liability. Then there is the cost of training them for the task at hand.
Contrast this with say, fighter drones (autonomous fighter aircraft). Not only can they be mass-produced, but they will all instantly be equally skillful with no training flight time required. New tactics or information will only require a download. They will last far longer than manned aircraft, since there's no need to stress the wings or airframe with frequent training/practice flights. This will also as well as being much less expensive to operate. The final plum is that no dollars need to be spent on ejection seats, oxygen systems, cockpit glass, displays or any other item catering to the needs of humans - which also saves weight and ups performance.
Oh yeah, and they also don't require a limit on turn G forces, so autonomous fighters will be able to massively outmaneuver piloted fighters.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
The concern is not robot vs. robot war, it's robot vs. human-without-a-robot war.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
This will also make them much less expensive to operate.
Sorry I didn't catch it before the post.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Looking back at air to air missiles with 100 mile range (Phoenix missile launched from F-14), you really need that pilot to get visual confirmation it is either an enemy aircraft or friendly aircraft. And same with target on the ground. Two cases of mistaken targeting was in Iraq in 1990s when a USAF fighter shot down a UH60 carrying UN officials. And other case where a laser or GPS glided bomb was dropped on a group of Canadian troops.
mfwright@batnet.com
have access to networks of killer drones that we can call upon to protect us as we walk down the street or to get revenge for infractions against us. It's a simple matter of exercising our second amendment right to bear arms. I think it will make us a more polite, respectful society. In such a society no one will risk offending or harming someone else because of the potential for retaliation. We will be free to focus on creative and productive activities. Imagine, no more crime, no more insults, no more dogs pooping on your lawn. The golden age is nigh!
...someone more like Stanislav Petrov.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Ever heard anyone complaining about of a piece of shit [insert machine here]?
The misconception at play here is that the lives of people who have more stuff are less valuable than the lives of people who have less stuff.
Ergo, it is perfectly moral for people with more stuff to relieve the people with little or no stuff of their lives - without risking their own lives, or even their reputation and moral standing among their own people.
After all, how can you say it was a "bloody war of conquest" if there are no veterans of such a war - on both sides?
Only a pile or two of corpses of very little value.
Such mental and moral exercise would allow the "1st world" country to kill off all combat-able humans in a "3rd world" country on Monday, only to come with care packages and a straight face by Friday - calling the whole thing a "humanitarian effort".
Or an "action of freedom".
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Remember the original version of "Aliens", did not have the scene with the sentry-guns. And the director's cut re-added this scene that had been edited out.
Seems to me, they may need to remake the whole film now. Gosh. Aliens vs. Robots.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
At least the robotic killing machines wouldn't kill simply for fun and amusement which is currently done by human soldiers...
Some might argue that mistakes will be made by machines, killing innocents... Well guess what humans make mistakes also. At least with machines you can keep improving the algorithms, with humans you can only train so much.
So bring on our robotic killing overlords...
Our scatterable mines are a serious tactical advantage, and we should be allowed to use them. For example, we used them in Desert Storm to divert attacking Iraqi units to entry points easier for us to defend and counterattack.
I just looked up our latest tech. They're fired from a howitzer into an area, where they deploy. They have a battery-powered fuse that will self-detonate between 2-48 hours (set in advance) if it's not already tripped by the enemy. After several days the battery runs out, rendering it inoperable. Couple that with a requirement to record location and retrieve after a conflict, and that doctrine is to not use them in populated areas, I'd say they're pretty safe.
The people in countries the US has invaded would disagree with this portrayal. Vietnam alone estimates that removing US mines and unexploded shells will take 300 years and 10+ billion dollars (see also: Hearts and Mines documentary). The automated killing in Vietnam, Cambodia, Indochina, Yugoslavia, Iraq, and the use of murderous drones in Afghanistan/Pakistan, continues.
"...by now they should be converted to self-destructing or self-dearming anyway." is a PR phrase of no value.
For decades we have have not used any of the old-style mines you are talking about. But even back then, many of our mines were chemically self-deactivating.
You mention Yugoslavia, where we didn't use mines. Don't let the facts get in your way.
What's the difference to the enemy between a drone and an airstrike? Nothing. Both strike a target from the air. It has nothing to do with the issue of mines. But thanks for trying to drag it in.
The mine issue is related to cluster munitions, but drones don't use those. Drones use missiles, which are not a problem in the way old-style mines and cluster munitions are. In any case, this is about the Ottawa treaty, which doesn't cover cluster munitions.
No, it's the technical design of the mines. After a specified time (a few hours or two days) the mine explodes on its own. If the mine finds its battery power dropping below a set level for proper operation, it explodes. Should both safety mechanisms fail, the mine becomes inert when the battery eventually dies after several days (no power to trigger the battery-activated fuse).
These mines deploy on top of the ground and are intentionally easily detectable. They're designed to keep an enemy from entering an area when he sees the mines, or to slow him down due to the need to clear the mines. It is not designed to be hidden so a person accidentally steps on one.
And that's aside from the fact that policy dictates the mapping and recovery of ALL mines.
As usual, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
But we still make the final decision on whether they actually do the killing.
The UAV operator can still say "Hell no, I'm not doing it."
And I hope it stays that way.
But even back then, many of our mines were chemically self-deactivating.
If the mines were self-deactivating, Vietnam would not have 300 years and $10 billion dollars in clean up costs. And a lot of dead and dismembered people. Which continues as we type.
You mention Yugoslavia, where we didn't use mines. Don't let the facts get in your way. What's the difference to the enemy between a drone and an airstrike? Nothing....But thanks for trying to drag it in.
What's the difference between unexploded ordnance and a mine to a child playing on the ground? Do your rationalizations apply to your own arguments?
The mine issue is related to cluster munitions, but drones don't use those. Drones use missiles, which are not a problem in the way old-style mines and cluster munitions are.
Killing people automatically is the problem. Whether it's missiles or cluster bombs. Well, really the problem is killing people.
After a specified time (a few hours or two days) the mine explodes on its own. If the mine finds its battery power dropping below a set level for proper operation, it explodes. Should both safety mechanisms fail, the mine becomes inert when the battery eventually dies after several days (no power to trigger the battery-activated fuse).
And the measured, not theoretical, MTBF of these devices is? Anyone ever killed by a mine say 1 week or after its deployment? The phrase "what could go wrong" comes to mind. And the bigger issue, by what moral, humane, and legal right are these mines and drones being used? And the bigger picture, why is the US invading, attacking, and occupying these countries.
And that's aside from the fact that policy dictates the mapping and recovery of ALL mines.
So that's the policy. What's the independent observer actual measurement versus the proposed 100% clean up? If Vietnam is an example of policy, the policy is a lie.
As usual, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
Agreed, facts are important.
Yes, landmines do automated killing every day. So do Harpoon missiles - give them a general location, they search, select a target (if there's more than one), and attack and destroy it, all without any human intervention whatsoever. So does the Phalanx system - you turn it on, and it tracks everything flying in the vicinity of the ship. It decides what it's going to shoot. So do all the various homing torpedoes. The Aegis Combat System has fully automated modes.
In short, "robotic" weapons have been in use for DECADES. Did the WaPo just notice?
But a humans would send robots to kill the people who manage the Robot Control Center (TM) or whoever operates, works out the tactics, codes the algorithms, etc. The objective won't be the robots (maybe and obstacle) but the human factor that allows for a continuation of violence and opposition.
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
Many mines, not all. And that is aside from the grossly inflated anti-mine activist cost you quote.
1. Because we're talking about mines in context of the Ottawa Treaty, not UXO.
2. Because an old-style mine still has a trigger ready to go, while UXO is hit and miss as to whether it'll go off when handled despite warnings not to do so. I know of a guy who stupidly carried unexploded cluster munitions in his HMMWV's passenger footwell for miles before one went off.
3. Because you brought up drones, which fire missiles that blow up or are destroyed on impact, and don't drop bombs.
Then we have no problem, because we don't do that.
Good point. Convince those people to stop trying to kill us, and we'll stop killing them. Otherwise, it's obvious you have a larger objection, and will say anything, true or false, against the use of any ordnance to further your goal of total disarmament.
Failure is built into the design even after one active and one passive failsafes fail. The battery WILL die, unless you know of a battery that lasts forever while powering an active electrical circuit. That battery power is the only thing that will actuate the fuse.
Think of it in terms of a nuclear warhead (or not, because it'll probably send you into a panic). A nuclear explosion is very difficult to achieve, everything has to go right. Failure of a part of the denotation system results in the lack of a nuclear explosion.
The policy is post-Vietnam. More recent policy is post-Desert Storm after we had experience with scatterable mines. Even then, policy says to not use them indiscriminately as in Vietnam, but for specific targets with specific tactical goals just as we would use artillery. We only shot about a thousand groups of these in Desert Storm, and none since.
But I have a feeling all of these facts will fall on deaf ears/blind eyes. You've made up your mind that all of this is EEEEEEVILLLLL! and no facts will get in the way of that.
The idea isn't to eliminate bloodshed. The idea is to eliminate bloodshed on our side. The robots aren't targeting robots.
Press Release: All residents exercise extreme caution. An unforseen vulnerability allowed the Notus hacker group to seize control of the (now unclassified) DeathRay 9.0 botnet. Head for the bunkers now!
The US almost completely complies with the treaty, yet will not sign due to reasons of the DMZ where the whole point of the treaty (civilian injuries) is irrelevant. We were willing to join the treaty had that exception been granted, but it wasn't. Even though we still technically have mines, we haven't used them in over 20 years, and likely won't in the future except in extremely specialized cases*. In this case, our not joining the treaty is pretty much a non-issue in a practical sense.
Phosphorus and cluster bombs are not covered by the Ottawa treaty, yet you bring them in. First, the US never purposely targets civilians. Unfortunately, during war, and especially war with people who think it's okay to use civilian human shields, civilians do get hit. Accidents and any unauthorized use aside, we abide by the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons on the use of WP.
* For example, the Special Forces have an anti-pursuit mine. It's the same as the scatterable mine, but it's used more as a delayed grenade against the people in pursuit. Pull a pin, throw it out behind you, it deploys the trip wires and arms a minute later. It self-destructs after four hours if not tripped, becoming inert in a week or two if that fails.
In this sense it's no different than a claymore with a trip wire. Claymores aren't covered under the Ottawa treaty since they are primarily triggered devices, although their use with a trip wire would. So we could make as many claymores as we want, and the soldiers can improvise their own trip wires. The sad part, and one place where the Ottawa treaty fails, is that the purpose-built mine has safety systems against civilian casualties that the claymore does not, yet we would not be allowed to manufacture and deploy the mine.
People wonder why we don't sign onto treaties. Sometimes it's because the treaties are useless or even counter-productive. This is a good example of that.
I worked in the Defense industry for nearly 20 years. The software that the big contractors produce is terrible and many years behind private industry. Saying that the software will be capable of doing all this killing in an automated fashion is never going to happen as long as the current procurement processes are in place.
Like when we recently got Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, the #2 man in Al Qaeda, an organization sworn to our destruction and constantly threatening us.
I like such strikes better than anything else. They don't endanger our troops. They are highly targeted, killing positively identified known enemies and those around them. Yes, those around them. If you're hanging around with Al Qaeda's #2, you're fair game. If it's his wife and kids, it's his fault for using them as human shields, not ours.
Obama's increased use of such strikes is one of the few things I actually like about his presidency.
Oh, yeah.
Did you know the British massacred American prisoners of war at Dartmoor Prison after the War of 1812? I really don't hold that against them these days, and don't equate it with modern British policy.
The reality is that this is a good thing for everyone. Until very recently warfare has been an exceedingly haphazard and indiscriminate affair. Literally millions were killed using lower-tech methods. Smart weapons have allowed at least the reasonably conscientious nations to carrying out military actions with less harm to non-combatants. (Of course some mass killers still prefer the old methods.) These new developments also allow for the development of warfare more along the lines of law enforcement--something I would have expected users of this forum to appreciate. That certainly seems to be the way the Obama administration is using it.
Not for any altruistic reasons, just for the sheer insanity of giving this over to an AI (however crude) and the potential abuses of a system without conscience or mercy. All joking aside, this does leave the door open to having it bite us in the ass.
In other words, not well at all.
In any case, the political power structure will never let either of them achieve a position of real power. For now they're just the clowns of their respective parties, marginalized or ignored to the best of the party's ability.
Too bad, because they're the only two in Congress that I really admire. And this isn't about ideology. I admire Kucinich, although I disagree with him on almost everything.
Because we're talking about mines in context of the Ottawa Treaty, not UXO.
You keep bringing up the Ottawa Treaty, which bans land mines. Your support of clever designs in land mines violates the treaty you keep mentioning. Do you know the the US has not signed the Ottawa Treaty?
Then we have no problem, because we don't do that.
1600-2600 people in Pakistan killed by drones from 2004 to 2011 (for a specific event: NY TImes).
Good point. Convince those people to stop trying to kill us, and we'll stop killing them.
Let's take Iraq as an example. No one from Iraq attacked the US. From 2003 to 2006 the US military killed some 600 000+ people in Iraq, mostly civilians. During which time Iraqis killed some 3000 US and UK soldiers. A reasonable interpretation of the sequence of events is that the US started the killing. This leads to the view that the Iraqis defended themselves against aggressors. A typical ethical position would be for the US to stop killing Iraqis, with the result that Iraqis would probably stop killing their attackers.
So the US attacked Vietnam and used a huge number land mines, similar with some kind of policy modifications in 1990s Iraq, and "only shot about a thousand groups of these" during the 2003 invasion of Iraq (emphasis added). Therefore, by your own admission, the US kills people indiscriminately, automatically. The opposite of what you say above.
And the above would put the US is in violation of the Ottawa Treaty, which you and I agree is a pretty good treaty, if the US were a signer.
But I have a feeling all of these facts will fall on deaf ears/blind eyes. You've made up your mind that all of this is EEEEEEVILLLLL! and no facts will get in the way of that.
Comments like this show an emotional attachment to your position. Such attachments make you vulnerable to selecting data, misinformation, and opinions that agree with your position. Facts which disagree with your position make you feel even stronger that you're right. You would like me to consider your views, and reassess mine. I have done so and learned about mine history and policies, and am a little less ignorant thanks to you. Are you willing to do the same?
I know we haven't signed it, because it's a stupid treaty. The goal is no more civilian deaths from anti-personnel landmines, and paying to clean up old mines and help civilian victims. We are paying for cleanup and help, and our current mines (outside of the closed-off DMZ) are designed according to the goal of the Ottawa Treaty -- no civilian casualties.
We probably would have signed a treaty that actually reflected the realities of the world.
Drones don't "kill automatically" as you stated. They kill by direct command from a human, just as pulling the trigger on a gun. But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
I am glad we are much more effective than they are. As to whether the war was a good idea from the beginning, that's a different issue and quite debatable.
No similarity. Most Vietnam mines were dropped and forgotten soon after. I have never heard of significant contemporary cleanup efforts.
1991 Gulf War as stated, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant. We have not since used mines in Iraq, or at all.
These were fired out in the desert ahead of specific Iraqi Army troop movements, away from population centers. That is targeted, not indiscriminate. It's called area denial, a valid military tactic designed to make the enemy go where you want him to go, or to make him stop and be a sitting duck. Within two days those mines posed a hazard to no one, since they no longer existed. Any that may have malfunctioned twice posed no hazard within a week or so, having lost the ability for the fuse to activate the explosive.
No, it's a pretty crappy treaty with a good goal. Guarded and marked minefields and self-destructing or dearming mines should have been allowed since they still achieve the goal.
I am not willing to take a kumbaya position that conflicts with the harsh realities of the world. No more killing would be great, but that's not the world we live in. There are people out there who want us dead no matter what we do.
I am glad we are much more effective than they are.
Your indoctrination is complete, Winston, you are free to go.
Simple statement: If there is going to be a war -- which there is -- I prefer that fewer of our people die than theirs. Quite rational.
You conveniently leave off the next sentence, "As to whether the war was a good idea from the beginning, that's a different issue and quite debatable."
Those who have undergone successful government indoctrination do not question the validity of their leaders' wars.
However, those who have undergone successful liberal indoctrination do unerringly question the validity of any military action, although there are exceptions for when the liberals are in power.
Simple statement: If there is going to be a war -- which there is -- I prefer that fewer of our people die than theirs. Quite rational.
Not so simple. If there is going to be a war, there had better be justification. Proof and overabundance of evidence for the necessity of invasion, even.
You conveniently leave off the next sentence, "As to whether the war was a good idea from the beginning, that's a different issue and quite debatable."
Left off because it could only be supportive or tangential to the point, and your use of the shifting standards fallacy is frequent. But hey, maybe your support, opposition, or mixed-feelings neutrality on the Iraqi invasion somehow makes calling the killing of 600 000+ innocent civilians "efficient" is something other than an indoctrinated abstraction.
Those who have undergone successful government indoctrination do not question the validity of their leaders' wars. However, those who have undergone successful liberal indoctrination do unerringly question the validity of any military action, although there are exceptions for when the liberals are in power.
This presumes people are government indoctrinated or liberal indoctrinated, a false dichotomy since many people are not indoctrinated. (Your skill with fallacies is strong, Winston!) If you want to try baby steps, how about this: Those who have undergone successful indoctrination do not question the validity of their leader's military actions. Those who have not undergone indoctrination always question the validity of any military action. (See how that second one leaves out "leaders," which avoids the "appeal to authority" fallacy?)