• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Robot Aircraft Carrier

wetech

Senior member
Jul 16, 2002
871
6
81
it's actually a robot plane capable of landing on an aircraft carrier. but still cool.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
It's amazing how people want to make killing more and more like a video game, and less and less like actual murder.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,591
23,700
136
Originally posted by: manowar821
It's amazing how people want to make killing more and more like a video game, and less and less like actual murder.
It's not really amazing at all. There is a really interesting book on the subject called "On Killing". Pretty much the author finds that (non psychopathic) people have a strong innate desire not to kill other human beings, and that soldiers in war frequently would either ineffectively engage the enemy (miss on purpose) or refuse to engage at all. In particular it was found that the proximity to the enemy was a primary cause of the reluctance to kill. In orther words it was far far easier to fire an artillery piece from a mile away to kill someone then it was to stab someone in the neck with a knife.

Ever since coming to this realization armies all over the world, and ours in particular, have been attempting to isolate the soldier from his victim as much as possible in order to increase the kill rate... because it makes soldiers far more effective.

So I guess that's why I don't think its that amazing.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: manowar821
It's amazing how people want to make killing more and more like a video game, and less and less like actual murder.
It's not really amazing at all. There is a really interesting book on the subject called "On Killing". Pretty much the author finds that (non psychopathic) people have a strong innate desire not to kill other human beings, and that soldiers in war frequently would either ineffectively engage the enemy (miss on purpose) or refuse to engage at all. In particular it was found that the proximity to the enemy was a primary cause of the reluctance to kill. In orther words it was far far easier to fire an artillery piece from a mile away to kill someone then it was to stab someone in the neck with a knife.

Ever since coming to this realization armies all over the world, and ours in particular, have been attempting to isolate the soldier from his victim as much as possible in order to increase the kill rate... because it makes soldiers far more effective.

So I guess that's why I don't think its that amazing.
My point was that perhaps the reason why have that desire to not kill is because we SHOULDN'T KILL. It's pathetic that monsters and sadists are constantly looking for ways to separate us from our victims so that we can "get around" our own feelings toward killing, and finish their mission like good little robots.

What better way to do this than literally build robots, eh?

Sick.
 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
0
0
I for one think that all this high tech military stuff is pretty silly. A bunch of military thinkers developing technology to better fight wars of the past and not the wars of the future. Aircraft carriers are obsolete pieces of equipment for future wars. They worked great back in WWII and work great not fighting a bunch of third world countries whose militaries aren't much developed past WWII technology. But against modern militaries they are sitting ducks. One tiny tactical nuke can take out a carrier group in seconds, 10 such nukes could destroy our entire carrier fleet. In wars of the future nuclear weapons will be the deciding factors and they key will be keeping your military assets diffuse such that nuclear weapons cannot kill them all. Sure these robots will make it even EASIER to beat the cr@p out of third world countries, but it already is easy enough now that we don't need to make it any easier, these third world countires aren't shooting down any planes planes to begin with, so its not like we are saving any lives removing the human from the equation. And just for those thinking "oes noes" your wrong nobody will nuke someone else. Thats BS, no weapon has ever been left off the table in war before and the nuclear bomb is no exception. China isn't just gonna sit back and watch while US carrier bomb its cities they are gonna strike back with WHATEVER it takes , same goes for the USA being the one getting bombed.

EDIT: and oh yeah, insert obligatory "I for one welcome our new robotic killing machine masters" joke here.
 

wwswimming

Banned
Jan 21, 2006
3,702
1
0
i like the scene in Phantom Menace when Anakin takes out the
control ship that is controlling all the drone soldiers.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
An aircraft carrier is a rather large target. They are rather vulnerable to attack from large missles. The soviets had developed an underwater ,high velocity, nuclear missle designed for the purpose of destroying aircraft carriers. Iran was test firing such an underwater Missle minus the nuclear warhead about a year ago. While a good ICBM may be able to take out such a vessel, most nations fear using suche nuclear devices.

I think it was a British ship that was destroyed in the Faulkland Islands with a Missle of French Design. Only took one missle.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,563
3
0
Would wars fought without human casualties encourage aggression?
Heck, yes.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
An aircraft carrier is a rather large target. They are rather vulnerable to attack from large missles. The soviets had developed an underwater ,high velocity, nuclear missle designed for the purpose of destroying aircraft carriers. Iran was test firing such an underwater Missle minus the nuclear warhead about a year ago. While a good ICBM may be able to take out such a vessel, most nations fear using suche nuclear devices.

I think it was a British ship that was destroyed in the Faulkland Islands with a Missle of French Design. Only took one missle.
That was a small ship hit by an Exocet missile.

HUGE difference between a 410 foot long 4,820 ton destroyer and a 1,040 foot long 78,280 ton carrier.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Would wars fought without human casualties encourage aggression?
Heck, yes.
Probably, and yet to try and ward this off by saying "let's keep our vulnerability mangeable to promote perspective", I think that won't sell.

1000 years ago if two countries went to war, the weak one could still smart the strong one because in the end it was person vs pers on the battlefield. Nowadays the richer countries can extricate themselves from this intimacy and all they will lose is money, at least for bombing campaigns. In time, the troops-on-the-ground requirements will wane as they are replaced by more competent armed robots, too, like we already have coming down the line (little tracked vehicles with guns on them).
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,414
616
126
Originally posted by: manowar821
It's amazing how people want to make killing more and more like a video game, and less and less like actual murder.
i think its amazing that we are developing technology so the other guy gets killed and not ours.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator and Elite Member
Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
22,823
4,221
136
Originally posted by: BrownTown


EDIT: and oh yeah, insert obligatory "I for one welcome our new robotic killing machine masters" joke here.
While it is a running joke theme akin to "in Soviet Russia", I've always liked the premise used in the day the earth stood still. Gort is large and in charge, and as long as you remain peacful, a non-threat, but become violent and he or one like him, obliterates you. So, perhaps we really should welcome our robot overlords? Stupid humans. :D
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY