Big Dog is back... and he's hurling cinder blocks at your head.

[SunnyD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jvLalY6ubc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I for one welcome our new... Oh who the fuck am I kidding? We're dead.

 

[Baked]

Make more of those, add RC, send them to NK. Game over.

 

[2timer]

There's no joy in seeing technology being used mainly for killing and subjugating. I don't care what side you're on.

 

[destrekor]

There's no joy in seeing technology being used mainly for killing and subjugating. I don't care what side you're on.

Would you rather being on the side of technology when humans are in conflict?

Or would you rather human conflict is as brutal, merciless, and direct as possible?


Besides: BigDog isn't about technology to cause harm. It's about making the tasks of humans who must do the harm a little easier, so that they can more efficiently dole out said harm. 😉

That, and it's also going to be a terrific agent for search and rescue teams.

It's all about it being an extremely intelligent, extremely capable Mule - as in, something to shoulder the burdens of man (luggage, towing, etc), but in this case, also able to do other things while carrying out the primary task.

 

[1sikbITCH]

There's no joy in seeing technology being used mainly for killing and subjugating. I don't care what side you're on.

I agree. Send more of our children and spare the robots!

 

[2timer]

Would you rather being on the side of technology when humans are in conflict?

I wouldn't justify the development of weapons by saying "if it's on our side, it's alright." That's just ethically constrained.

Or would you rather human conflict is as brutal, merciless, and direct as possible?

:hmm: I'm not sure how a killing robot is less brutal than a killing human, are you?

Besides: BigDog isn't about technology to cause harm. It's about making the tasks of humans who must do the harm a little easier, so that they can more efficiently dole out said harm. 😉

That, and it's also going to be a terrific agent for search and rescue teams.

Wow, you're really justifying the BigDog pretty well, aren't you? 😉

 

[destrekor]

I wouldn't justify the development of weapons by saying "if it's on our side, it's alright." That's just ethically constrained.

Wait... warfare has always been about having an upper hand in some way.
Should we, after developing a new technology or other sort of improved armament, share that with current and/or potential enemies so that "all is fair" on the battlefield?

Besides - the best situation is to have one side overwhelmingly out ahead of the other side (in ALL factors: technology/arms is not the only variable... this has been demonstrated a few times 😉). The better that gap, the lower the total number of casualties. If everything essentially is even (one side has better technology, perhaps, but the other side has to defend and has the most defensible territory: think Japan and the defense of islands), it just turns into one big slaughterfest that leaves little gain and disastrous losses.
Even if you can have such an upper hand and slaughter an enemy, if total casualties (both sides) can be far lower than in other circumstances, it really benefits everyone. Sure, the losers still get the short end, but that's war.

:hmm: I'm not sure how a killing robot is less brutal than a killing human, are you?

You never specifically stated "robots" - you simply stated technology. Thus, what came to mind was also better armaments, better communications/mapping, better human physical capabilities (exoskeletons, anybody? 😀), even better field meals ("rations") and better logistical support for everything necessary. Improvements in all of that can make warfare a little less brutal, a little more efficient, with better results for recovery and long-term health for all parties involved, including non-combatants and innocent bystanders.
Sure - not everyone wants to live after having their appearance completely disfigured/scarred (think: fire), or suffering a loss of two or three limbs... but that it is even possible now is a major advance in what can be summed up as "medical technology", whereas in World War 1 and earlier the outlook was less than stellar.

If we did narrow it all down to robots in particular, yes, it could very likely result in less brutal killings. Why?
A learning robot would have superior precision, and likely come equipped with weaponry/arms that are superior to that which is available today.
The more efficient death can be doled out, the less the victim must suffer, than that can be labeled as "less brutal."
Is it still "brutal", in that death is occurring for rather shitty and, in the big picture rather pointless reasons, all in a rather artificial method (as opposed to, say, age, disease, falling off a cliff, etc)? Definitely.

Wow, you're really justifying the BigDog pretty well, aren't you? 😉

BigDog was never about being a weaponized platform (not to say it won't become one). It was all about being a Mule that is better than any Mule out there.

But it's also about being a new technology vehicle, a testing grounds for new ideas that will be far more effectively used in other applications, for many purposes that aren't related to the military.

 

[CrimsonWolf]

Shit, now where did I put that gravity gun. Can't play fetch until I find it.

 

[2timer]

Wait... warfare has always been about having an upper hand in some way.
Should we, after developing a new technology or other sort of improved armament, share that with current and/or potential enemies so that "all is fair" on the battlefield?

I never meant to suggest that one nation should share its defensive technologies with other nations freely. My intention was that rather than spending so much resources on developing weapons, those resources could be better allocated to other programs and more engagement with nations pursued over warfare.

Besides - the best situation is to have one side overwhelmingly out ahead of the other side (in ALL factors: technology/arms is not the only variable... this has been demonstrated a few times 😉). The better that gap, the lower the total number of casualties. If everything essentially is even (one side has better technology, perhaps, but the other side has to defend and has the most defensible territory: think Japan and the defense of islands), it just turns into one big slaughterfest that leaves little gain and disastrous losses.
Even if you can have such an upper hand and slaughter an enemy, if total casualties (both sides) can be far lower than in other circumstances, it really benefits everyone. Sure, the losers still get the short end, but that's war.

You seem to be obsessed with the idea of warfare. The "best situation" would be to avoid war entirely. But sure, if war is inevitable, it would be great if one side was the United States and the other side was Grenada.

Again, my point is that pointing at hypothetical scenarios and then reasoning "well the more powerful weapons we have, the better" isn't really that great of a justification for weapons programs, if you ask me.

You never specifically stated "robots" - you simply stated technology. Thus, what came to mind was also better armaments, better communications/mapping, better human physical capabilities (exoskeletons, anybody? 😀), even better field meals ("rations") and better logistical support for everything necessary. Improvements in all of that can make warfare a little less brutal, a little more efficient, with better results for recovery and long-term health for all parties involved, including non-combatants and innocent bystanders.
Sure - not everyone wants to live after having their appearance completely disfigured/scarred (think: fire), or suffering a loss of two or three limbs... but that it is even possible now is a major advance in what can be summed up as "medical technology", whereas in World War 1 and earlier the outlook was less than stellar.

If we did narrow it all down to robots in particular, yes, it could very likely result in less brutal killings. Why?
A learning robot would have superior precision, and likely come equipped with weaponry/arms that are superior to that which is available today.
The more efficient death can be doled out, the less the victim must suffer, than that can be labeled as "less brutal."
Is it still "brutal", in that death is occurring for rather shitty and, in the big picture rather pointless reasons, all in a rather artificial method (as opposed to, say, age, disease, falling off a cliff, etc)? Definitely.

Good point. I suppose I never thought of it that way, the more computerized and robotic a process is, the more precise it becomes. So I suppose, in some weird and twisted way, having robots fight wars would be more precise and therefore *might* avoid certain scenarios like collateral damage and friendly fire and massive arbitrary destruction.

And yet, with all that said, it STILL doesn't make developing killer robots a good idea!

BigDog was never about being a weaponized platform (not to say it won't become one). It was all about being a Mule that is better than any Mule out there.

But it's also about being a new technology vehicle, a testing grounds for new ideas that will be far more effectively used in other applications, for many purposes that aren't related to the military.

Please. The point of the BigDog program is for one purpose and one purpose only, that's to be used in the United States military for it's purposes. I find the idea that BigDog is a good thing because it has "potential" for rescue and other types of work to be kind of flimsy, really. Do you really suppose that technology will be just be freely made available to commercial sectors for their use? Hardly.

*Edit* Much better for the private sector to lead the way in terms of innovation and technological breakthroughs, and then have those applied to the military *when needed.* That's the way it used to be in this country, World War II and prior. Now it's the exact opposite: a massive military-industrial complex using tons of resources to create these implements of killing. It's totally f***ed up if you ask me.

 

[TheVrolok]

BigDog is so fucking cool.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Send one of those to Iraq, they'll probably drop their guns and surrender. Robots are probably completely unheard of for those people and they'll think it's some kind of god.

 

[jlee]

I never meant to suggest that one nation should share its defensive technologies with other nations freely. My intention was that rather than spending so much resources on developing weapons, those resources could be better allocated to other programs and more engagement with nations pursued over warfare.




You seem to be obsessed with the idea of warfare. The "best situation" would be to avoid war entirely. But sure, if war is inevitable, it would be great if one side was the United States and the other side was Grenada.

Again, my point is that pointing at hypothetical scenarios and then reasoning "well the more powerful weapons we have, the better" isn't really that great of a justification for weapons programs, if you ask me.





Good point. I suppose I never thought of it that way, the more computerized and robotic a process is, the more precise it becomes. So I suppose, in some weird and twisted way, having robots fight wars would be more precise and therefore *might* avoid certain scenarios like collateral damage and friendly fire and massive arbitrary destruction.

And yet, with all that said, it STILL doesn't make developing killer robots a good idea!




Please. The point of the BigDog program is for one purpose and one purpose only, that's to be used in the United States military for it's purposes. I find the idea that BigDog is a good thing because it has "potential" for rescue and other types of work to be kind of flimsy, really. Do you really suppose that technology will be just be freely made available to commercial sectors for their use? Hardly.

*Edit* Much better for the private sector to lead the way in terms of innovation and technological breakthroughs, and then have those applied to the military *when needed.* That's the way it used to be in this country, World War II and prior. Now it's the exact opposite: a massive military-industrial complex using tons of resources to create these implements of killing. It's totally f***ed up if you ask me.

Would you rather live in a country where your military is armed with muskets and swords?

 

[Ruptga]

Would you rather live in a country where your military is armed with muskets and swords?

You barbarian! Real, honorable men kill each other unarmed and wearing only their body hair.

 

[2timer]

Would you rather live in a country where your military is armed with muskets and swords?

No, not my point. I'd say I'd prefer a country where arms are developed in defense of realistic threats, not to maintain a higher level of military dominance.

 

[JulesMaximus]

AMEE?