Afghanistan Called First "Robotic War" 288
retroworks writes "Fareed Zakaria (Editor of Time, CNN GPS) writes that one in 50 USA combatants in Afghanistan is now a robot. There are more fighting robots than elevators in the country. Article has links to film of robots in action, allusions to Terminator films."
Marine Offensive, Move Out! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Drones would be much better than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkpsNw3oM0Q [youtube.com]
X-47B? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Err... The video piece described by the article starts off discussing the American Civil War. What does *that* have to do with Afghanistan?
The answer is "nothing." It wasn't intended to say anything about Afghanistan, because Afghanistan is not what the article is about. The article is about how robotics is the next phase in the mechanization of warfare. The Civil War was the high water mark of pre-mechanized warfare, the last great ware fought with muscle and fodder. The reporter might have mentioned th
Really? (Score:5, Funny)
That's the metric we're using? So all i need to do to have my own robot war is build a single robot, and find a country with no elevators for it to attack?
Re: (Score:2)
More robots than a Honda factory.
More robots than a robot factory?
More robots than elevators? Um, yeah, sure.
Re: (Score:2)
"There are more fighting robots than elevators in the country."
That's the metric we're using? So all i need to do to have my own robot war is build a single robot, and find a country with no elevators for it to attack?
There's also more robots than working toilets. Thanks, crappy military construction outsourcing.
Re: (Score:2)
Time for Jamie to bring Blendo out of retirement...bring that ratio back down.
Mr. President, we can't afford to have a killer robot-elevator ratio gap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But are they fighting?
(and no, rock-em sock-em robots dont count :P)
Re: (Score:2)
Watching elevators move is boring (Score:2)
What I really wanna get is footage of these purportedly *awesome* giant mech fights
Now! In! Camouflage ! 3D!
Thanks, Japan.
tools, not robots (Score:5, Insightful)
tools have always been used in war. when we have autonomous decision making mechanisms engaging enemies, then we can talk about robotic warfare. otherwise, the bar is being set too low for what constitutes robotic warfare
Re:tools, not robots (Score:4, Informative)
For instance, a simple mine is actually 'autonomous'. It has very limited capabilities; but it exercises those entirely without human intervention, based on sensor data. In both land and naval use, the Chinese were putzing around with recognizable antecedents of those not long after they acquired gunpowder, and various European tinkerers not too long after. Does the use of mines count as "robotic warfare"? Some of the more sophisticated modern examples are just as autonomous and have greater capabilities: a CAPTOR mine [wikipedia.org] has enough onboard computing power to distinguish between ships and submarines by sound, and launch its (homing) torpedo at the latter. All fully autonomous, and circa 1979...
On the other hand, a lot of modern combat "robots" are basically very high performance RC vehicles, albeit often with some sophisticated software handling translation of abstract operator commands into robot actions(with Predators, say, you don't 'fly' them the way you fly an RC aircraft for most of their flight time, they handle a lot of the low-level detail to allow operators to focus on waypoints and target acquisition. With the more sophisticated robotic bomb-defusers and their ilk, their fairly complex manipulators handle all the fiddly little servos internally, in order to achieve manipulator commands provided by the operator).
That's the definitionally tricky bit: there are extremely simple devices that are fully autonomous within the limited scope of their capabilities. There are also extremely sophisticated devices, with almost eerily organic levels of feedback-driven 'housekeeping' going on in order to allow the operator to give the device fairly high level commands; but which are specifically designed to do nothing of importance without the OK from a human.
Then you have the ones that can be used either way: Phalanx CIWS can do fully automatic target engagement(because puny meat-objects simply don't have the reflexes for the job) or can be kept under human supervision(because nothing says "expensive accident" like a trigger-happy Gatling-gun robot operating in the vicinity of friendly aircraft...)
As best I can tell, it seems like autonomy is less of a pure design challenge, and more a question of the practical and PR constraints that you have to abide by in terms of target discrimination... Humans are OK at that, which certainly places them above all but reasonably sophisticated automated systems; but they are hardly perfect. How much of the unwillingness to cut the robots loose is due to their inferiority to humans at this task, and how much is due to human distaste for the idea of automated hunter-killer robots is not entirely clear.(Nor is it entirely clear that they aren't being used: The CIA, for instance, loves drone strikes, and doesn't exactly issue press releases about the operator/drone ratio they are using...)
Re: (Score:2)
Wired just ran an article talking about some of the research in anthropomorphic bots. Evidently there are significant differences between the humanoid bots and the non-humanoid bots.
Operators driving human looking bots were more likely to identify the bot as a separate entity. In some simulations this led to more aggressive activities and the operators feeling less responsible for the outcomes. Operators driving the non-humanoid bots were more likely to view the unit as an extension of themselves (like a
Re: (Score:3)
And a human is controlling that at a high level whether he's sitting in the cockpit or in California with a remote joystick.
The difference is wether or not the pilot dies/gets tortured for months as a hostage after being shot down after taking too much risk.
Taking a drone on a suicide mission doesnt really matter, your boss might give you an earfull, but in the end you just go home and have dinner with your wife
Re:tools, not people (Score:4, Funny)
humans are not implements, moron
I don't know, there are some real tools out there...
And how many elevators are there? (Score:4, Interesting)
What I'm not looking forward to is what will happen when(if ever) the demand for military combat robots slackens a bit and the producers thereof start seriously targeting the home market. Through a combination of military contractors trying to avoid being vulnerable to having only a single customer and direct transfers of military hardware from the DoD [dla.mil](you may throw an SSL warning if your browser doesn't trust DoD certs) military hardware generally has a way of coming home. Even random sheriffs are burnishing their toys collection [waybackmachine.org](it's a wayback machine link because, for reasons that are completely inexplicable, the broader response to the 'The Peacemaker' was perhaps less favorable than anticipated...) I know, from observing one of their training exercises, that the supply of m16s maintained by the police force in the unbelievably boring and low crime bedroom community where I work is much higher than I would have expected.
This suggests that it is only a matter of time before we can expect to see surplussed predators and such 'protecting and serving' here at home.
Re: (Score:3)
The surprise, in that case, is that they found somebody who thinks that Matthew 5:9 refers to SWAT teams in armored vehicles(and who manages to state, with a straight face, that a vehicle equipped to fire
Tax money well spent (Score:2)
SRW (Score:2)
Call me back when the first Super Robot War happens. We're getting close to working power armor, at the very least.
No elevators because ... (Score:2)
Governator receives France's highest honor (Score:2)
In a related news, Terminator was granted France's highest honor "La Légion d'Honneur"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/schwarzenegger_receives_frances_highest_honor/2011/04/05/AF0E1iiC_video.html?wprss=rss_homepage [washingtonpost.com]
Wait t'ill 2029 for more rise of the robots news.
Obligatory XKCD (Score:3)
Obligatory 1 [xkcd.com]
Obligatory 2 [xkcd.com]
Oh, how appropriate your comics always are, Randall...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...who does not think that the USA is an evil empire, and take consolation only in knowing that it is also a dying empire?
Get the hell out of the Middle East, USA. Stop killing people. Sort out your shit at home for your own sake.
That's an interesting comment considering the Taliban in Afghanistan dictates half the population should be treated as property (women) and tramples on the rights of the Afghanis to the greatest degree of any society on the planet.
I would say to you - who doesn't think the Taliban is an evil empire and take consolation only in knowing it is also a dying political movement? Get the hell out of the lives of your citizens, stop sending terrorists across the globe to kill innocents, stop killing your own citiz
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What does any of this have to do with the US thinking it has the right to act as world policeman?
The US is not in Afghanistan to liberate the people any more than the Soviets were there to liberate it from Western Capitalist Imperialists[tm]. And the US didn't support religious fundamentalism after (and before) that to liberate Afghanistan from Godless Communist Interantionalists[tm]. Such wars are about one superpower or another fighting for control of resources and strategic locations, as well as securing
Re: (Score:2)
What does any of this have to do with the US thinking it has the right to act as world policeman?
Let me just point out that countries have powers and constraints not rights. The US has the power to be the "world policeman" and no constraint preventing it from doing so (though there are various constraints on what the US does with that power).
Be a soldier on the offensive if you want, but don't be such a damn coward about your reasons. I'd hoped hypocrisy died with the setting of the sun on the British empire, but it seems much of the US are no better.
What makes you think the previous poster was being a hypocrite or coward? Because he disagreed with you? In addition, hypocrisy is the natural state of government everywhere. I wonder why you thought it would go away with the British empire when there were perhaps
Re: (Score:3)
Yet me just point out that countries have powers and constraints not rights
Quite. Yet the US acts as if it considers itself to have some right.
What makes you think the previous poster was being a hypocrite or coward?
Because, in traditional apologetic fallacy, he responds to a criticism of an oppressor with a criticism about a subset of the targets of oppression.
I wonder why you thought it would go away with the British empire when there were perhaps a hundred or so other countries practicing it at the time.
The setting of the British empire coincided with the start of an information age and a generally highly educated population (by contrast with earlier centuries). I was dreaming that this would have made it harder to use a lie to justify one's behaviour - so America would just say "we're doing th
Re: (Score:2)
You think the US is in Afghanistan for profit? Do you have any idea how much that costs America?
In public funds, a lot. But private industry is making a killing. Literally and figuratively.
Re: (Score:2)
It might cost you, the average American taxpayer. But the war isn't being fought on your behalf. What did you expect?
Re: (Score:2)
The Soviet Union went into Afghanistan because they wanted Pakistan, in order to get a naval base that had access to open ocean all year round.
The USA, on the other hand, didn't want *any* resource from Afghanistan whatsoever. Different from the Soviet Union, it's not a strategic location for the USA. It has no mineral resources. No industry. No economic assets worth fighting for.
There was one and only one reason why the USA invaded Afghanistan: to fight the state-sponsored religious-motivated terrorism of
Re: (Score:3)
Are you arguing that the US is in Afghanistan out of love for oppressed Afghan women or something?
Re: (Score:3)
Are you arguing that the US is in Afghanistan for oil?
Re:is there anybody here... (Score:4, Insightful)
The US is in Afghanistan for the plunder.. be it oil, pipes, women, whatever. It's no different than one gang of chimpanzees attacking another. The flowery language and 'morality' is pure BS
If there was anything to plunder in Afghanistan, this might actually be a valid argument.... but there's not, and pretty much never has been, which is why most invaders eventually give up.
Re:is there anybody here... (Score:5, Insightful)
If there was anything to plunder in Afghanistan, this might actually be a valid argument
There's a trillion in resources, apparently 'found' after the invasion.
But more importantly, Afghanistan is the key strategic jewel in the New Great Game [wikipedia.org] shaped around oil politics.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever been to Afghanistan?
The only thing people there are plundering is American Tax dollars. Afghanis are collateral damage.
Re: (Score:2)
The US is in Afghanistan for the plunder.. be it oil, pipes, women, whatever. It's no different than one gang of chimpanzees attacking another. The flowery language and 'morality' is pure BS
Women? Seriously? The USA has RUN OUT of women, so it's invaded Afghanistan to get some more?
It does have some oil, though.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for all the dead relatives, violence and instability? If people really want to get rid of a dictator they will do it themselves, thank you very much. (See Egypt and Tunisia) All that international community needs to do is to end dealing with these dictators and give revolting population some moral support. Democracy comes from the people, n
Re: (Score:2)
Fair point, but history has repeatedly shown that you cannot wade into another culture and change it within a short amount of time, no matter how wrong you think it is.
The US and other countries (mine, the UK included) think that they can, which is why we have so many terrorists running around.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what history you're talking about, but the history of mankind has repeatedly shown that you can indeed wade into another culture and change it in a (historically speaking) short amount of time; controlling the change is difficult, but instigating change is fairly straightforward - you need only kill the right people. The US has directly or indirectly installed several of the world's governments. Are you under the impression that this did not change those cultures? If you trace the US's behavior
[citation needed] (Score:2)
history has repeatedly shown that you cannot wade into another culture and change it within a short amount of time
Oh, yeah? Explain this [wikipedia.org].
By hanging a few military leaders who invoked "spiritual" values in order to make warriors commit suicide in battle, a war-torn country became one of the strongest economies in the world in a few decades.
How's that for changing a culture.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes and we destroyed their entire society and their entire culture doing it. Japan was a more mature, but still errant culture: they understood things like honor and dignity, they took up arms as a mode of philosophy. Japanese warriors (samurai) spend their time meditating on life, which is why you see them wandering around tending their gardens and watching cherry blossoms bloom (how's that for manly?). Warriors are engaged in a struggle for life, and when they stop fighting they may as well lay down a
Re:[citation needed] (Score:4, Informative)
This entire post is a wonderful fantasy that is completely proven false by nearly all of the actual events of World War 2. The Rape of Nanking by itself destroys any notion that their culture had "accountability to yourself for your actions." If you weren't Japanese, you weren't
This paragraph accurately portrays the Japanese at the start of WWII.
Read some actual history. What you described isn't even close to an accurate portrayal of mid 20th century Japan.
Re: (Score:3)
This whole warrior-philosopher meme crops up a lot. Remember the Knights of the Round Table, and English Chivalry?
Here's how it works.Peasants just have a hovel, a plough, and a mule if they are lucky. They work 9 to 9, then go to bed because they can't afford a candle to read by. Only the upper class can reasonably afford the lastest military hardware (be it a tank, plate mail, or a katana and lacquered armour). They can also afford books, gardens, and servant-girls to ... shall we say ... woo.
Besides, onl
Re:[citation needed] (Score:5, Insightful)
The US did not change Japan insofar as introducing much that was extrinsic, they simply promoted the aspect of Japanese culture they preferred. Japan had been at war with itself culturally for centuries, and could be metaphorically represented by Toyotomi Hideyoshi and Sen no Rikyu. The former was a ruthless bloodthirsty tyrant willing to use bushido as the means to put the world under his feet. The latter was a serene, pacifistic and wise aesthete who wanted nothing more than enjoy the subtleties of life. On the eve of the Imjin War (almost three centuries before WW2) Toyotomi Hideyoshi ordered Sen no Rikyu to commit suicide for (what several historians believe was) his insolence in failing to support the imminent conflict. For the next several centuries, the warrior-oriented mode of Japanese culture and identity would be dominant through the end of the Second World War. (The internal cultural conflict even went so far as the outright persecution [wikipedia.org] of Japanese Buddhists/pacifists.)
Then, due to both the rapid demographic shift caused by so many bushido-bound warriors dieing in the war as well as the pressures exerted by the American occupation, the cultural pendulum swung the opposite direction. The Americans were smart enough not to try to change the Japanese into something non-Japanese, that would never have worked, instead they picked the most useful (to their purpose) aspect of Japanese culture and essentially channeled the Japanese into themselves. A very, very wise and effective strategy. The demographics are striking, the Soka Gakkai sect of Buddhism (which was the only sect in Japan to staunchly oppose militarism) saw an increase in membership [wikipedia.org] of 2500% in less than a decade. A massive and rapid cultural shift indeed, but not inside out, rather one side to another internally.
Re:[citation needed] (Score:4, Informative)
Re:[citation needed] (Score:4, Informative)
The occupational government in Japan was focused on governance - not on creating a state and the necessary infrastructure and fighting an insurgency.
This is the exact opposite of historical facts. The new Japanese constitution was drafted primarily by US Army lawyers Milo Rowell and Courtney Whitney. The Japanese constitution as passed during the occupation has never been amended.
Further while there might not have been an insurgency analogous to that in Afghanistan or Iraq, if you think the transition was some simple void to be filled, I have to go so far as to say you must be stupid as well as ignorant. Many, many forces were at work against the interests of the US occupation, including but not limited to the zaibatsu, the military and police infrastructure (see The Police In Occupation Japan: Control, Corruption and Resistance to Reform by Christopher Aldous), the yakuza, the Soviets and Japanese communists, etc. Just because the insurgency wasn't blowing shit up did not mean there wasn't one.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you know half as much as you pretend to know about history or what it 'repeatedly shows'.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you know half as much as you pretend to know about history or what it 'repeatedly shows'.
Clearly the poster meant "The bits of history that I remember because they support my point of view repeatedly shows....". Obviously. Duhhh. :)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Have you seen the pictures of the women disfigured because someone accused them of cheating or stealing? Or heard stories of the families now left without a husband because the Taliban either killed or forcefully recruited him?
And why is the U.S. the largest force on the ground over there when these atrocities are being committed? Why is the U.S. not being condemned for helping out the AIDS and Malaria riddled villages in Africa? Or helping fight hunger in any needy part of the world? I'm in no way
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree. Have you seen the pictures of the women disfigured because someone accused them of cheating or stealing? Or heard stories of the families now left without a husband because the Taliban either killed or forcefully recruited him?
Try absorbing less knowledge via propaganda and walk around your country a bit. Firstly, spousal abuse happens everywhere, including on your street right now. Next, put less emphasis on the tourist spots and more on the poverty spots. Gang violence, while always more prevalent when there is a perceived oppressor to fight, produces life expectancies even in the US which you may have already exceeded. "But it's a choice in the US to join!" I hear you cry - just as the cry of America has always been that failu
Re:is there anybody here... (Score:4, Informative)
And to speak to your other completely unrelated point, everyone in the US has the CHANCE to succeed, nothing is guaranteed, and the privileged and wealthy sure have a better shot at it than the poor.
Re: (Score:2)
The glass is half empty because THE USA FUCKIN STOLE IT!!
Evil? Yes. Empire? No. (Score:2)
who doesn't think the Taliban is an evil empire and take consolation only in knowing it is also a dying political movement? Get the hell out of the lives of your citizens, stop sending terrorists across the globe to kill innocents, stop killing your own citizens for minor infractions of your "laws".
Movement... MAYBE militia.
As for "dying"... sadly, I don't really see that. I mean... U.S. has been chasing Osama for what? Three presidents already?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I lived in a border city for years (I literally lived < 1km from the U.S.). I worked in an office that was 50% American. All of the Americans I worked with were fantastic people. Sure, we'd exchange jabs, but always in a friendly way.
I think the only time I ever saw an American at my work get really defensive was when one of the Canadians called Americans a bunch of commies (this was about the time they were bailing banks out and giving people crap loads of money for junking old cars).
As far as money; "w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah most Americans are nice people. Of those I know, I'd say only around 10% are the stereotypical "America, FUCK YEAH!" type. The problem is they are the loudest, most noticeable ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, though, have you spent any significant amount of time in the U.S.? I'm not talking about a week in NYC or a vacation at Disney[complex], but real, significant time in an average city such as Davenport, Iowa? I know it is hard to believe since the media portrays the "arrogant, self-important, fat, lazy American" as the norm, but most people here are not any different from people all ov
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't that charming Scottish accent make up for it though? I wouldn't mind being mugged half as much if the mugger had one of those pleasant, educated-sounding UK accents.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't that charming Scottish accent make up for it though? I wouldn't mind being mugged half as much if the mugger had one of those pleasant, educated-sounding UK accents.
You've never lived in Glasgow, have you? Perhaps you are thinking of highland accents, or the Irish?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Scotland the problem's so bad that the term 'NED' (Non-educated Delinquent) is actually used in newspaper headlines.
It's even become a film title : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1560970/ [imdb.com]. Might have a watch of it sometime, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And, you know, if you have to do it, try not to use soulless extermination droids. Your PR is bad enough as it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
American body bags coming home is a lot worse than expensive toy being destroyed, in terms of PR for the next election.
I think it also means quite a bit for the family of the American body not in the bag.
Whether or not we should be over there fighting is a separate question, but once we do start fighting why not send drones? It saves American lives, and discourages insurgents from actively fighting (less motivated to fight a bot than an infidel).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:is there anybody here... (Score:5, Interesting)
the progenitors of the biggest genocides in human history(who have yet to apologize for any of them btw),
I'm sorry for every time I have contributed to this country which still does some awful things to its own people and to foreigners. I very much try to be productive while minimising the support I give to my government and businesses which act on its behalf. I'm too young to have been involved in some of the popular[tm] genocides you're probably thinking of ("biggest" is an ill-defined and unhelpful term), so I am not sure it has any meaning for me to apologise for them.
Just to clear things up: it's wrong when the British/French/Spanish/Dutch/etc. empire did it, and it's wrong now the American Empire's doing it.
The difference is that Europe has learnt some (not enough - and always dangerously close to forgetting it) humility while the US is still playing catchup. This is as you'd expect: Europe's had quite a few centuries' head start and two recent world wars to shake us up.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that Europe has learnt some (not enough - and always dangerously close to forgetting it) humility while the US is still playing catchup. This is as you'd expect: Europe's had quite a few centuries' head start and two recent world wars to shake us up.
I'm confused by this. Wasn't the U.S. settled and created by aforementioned and experienced Europeans?
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how culture works. You can't just take a few men and women from one country, have them reproduce to form a new society in a new country, and expect the culture of the old place to be reflected in the new. It wouldn't even work if early US immigrants were representative of their former nations, which they certainly weren't: you're lacking everything from climate to system of government to city layout to system of education to, well, everything except a bit of genetics and some ideas.
This doesn't m
Re: (Score:2)
yes, the US was founded by europeans who thought that europe wasnt strict, religious and uptight enough
Which sort of explains the need to have a holy war on anything and everything, and the freakin out when someone shows digital rendered boobies in a 16+ game
Re: (Score:2)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, that is the most ADORABLE thing I've ever read on slashdot. Do you HONESTLY believe the Europeans gave up their colonies willingly because they all of a sudden became humble and realized how
Re: (Score:2)
No, the argument is that the loss of colonies and two recent world wars have made Europe more humble.
Failure -> experience -> humility.
It will happen to the US too. It's just a standard sequence in any human development and you're not immune to it.
tl;dr Europe didn't choose to lose their colonies as a result of becoming humble, strawman /b/tard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your point is well made, and is the "not enough" I was talking about. It's true that we're becoming more like a little America.
(And France hates to have departed this status, which explains partly why it shakes its fist across the Atlantic in hypocritical defiance so often.)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that Europe has learnt some (not enough - and always dangerously close to forgetting it) humility while the US is still playing catchup. This is as you'd expect: Europe's had quite a few centuries' head start and two recent world wars to shake us up.
It's worth noting that the US government is older than all but a few governments in Europe and as a continuously operating democracy, there isn't anything older in Europe (the UK started being one in 1832 [wikipedia.org]). Europe collectively doesn't have that much experience with democracies and what it does often comes from countries that still haven't settled on a long term government form (such as France and the PIGS). But that doesn't stop people from those countries lecturing the US, does it?
Now collectively they
Re: (Score:2)
(1) Details on the system of appointment to government do not determine the length of life of a country and its culture, and the fact that you think it does says quite a lot about the scope of your understanding of culture;
(2) If the Reform Act of 1832 determines when the UK government came into existence (what is wrong with you?), then the US did not exist in any meaningful sense before the civil rights movement of the 1960s ended apartheid in the South.
Re: (Score:2)
(1) Details on the system of appointment to government do not determine the length of life of a country and its culture, and the fact that you think it does says quite a lot about the scope of your understanding of culture;
They do indicate how much experience the culture has with democratic governments, which was my point. The US culture is younger, but it has well over two centuries of experience with democratic government, having continuously operated one from 1790 and one from 1780 (the Commonwealth of Massachusetts).
If the Reform Act of 1832 determines when the UK government came into existence (what is wrong with you?), then the US did not exist in any meaningful sense before the civil rights movement of the 1960s ended apartheid in the South.
1832 is when the UK government entered its democratic phase. I didn't claim otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's no consolation. Dying empires are the most dangerous kind.
Re: (Score:2)
It is the cold comfort that nothing has changed; that the cycle of civilisation remains in force.
In other words, it is better than finding that technology has enabled one empire to become unconquerable. With change comes turmoil, but turmoil preserves freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And what made you think that everyone else is as disgusting as your government? Your government's own propaganda?
Re: (Score:2)
In the future, please try to avoid confusing evil actors with their conquests, 'k?
Re: (Score:2)
Get off your high horse. Would you rather the Soviets have won the cold war?
Re: (Score:2)
The United States has not been an empire, if you could ever call us an empire, for quite some time. Our imperialism was fairly limited to establishing a nation that stretched from "sea to shining sea". In doing so we did a lot of damage to native civilizations and culture. If you want to criticize our history there, be my guest. I might even join in.
However, since our war with Spain have we invaded any place with the intention of making it part of our nation? I can not think of any. We have invaded places,
Re: (Score:2)
Tons killing machines and none for Fukushima. Well done.
Thats twisted. You want to send killing machines to Fukushima!
Or are you trying to make a Robot Civilization in SimEarth?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did it strike anyone else as weird that the United States is sending robots to Japan? It seems the Japanese are famous for robotic technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The US would have to pick an enemy who can afford robots in the first place. Bombing backward civilisations is so much more fun, though.
Of course the problem with this type of asymetric warfare is that terrorism is the only way they can fight back. They cannot realistically fight drones with AK47s. The choice is either give in or use terrorism to convince the other country not to send them.
Re: (Score:3)
The US would have to pick an enemy who can afford robots in the first place. Bombing backward civilisations is so much more fun, though.
Radically low-tech enemies are actually a huge mess to deal with. There is sort of a bell-shaped-curve if you consider the opponent's level of technological power to be the X axis, and the ease of dealing with them to be the Y:
On the extreme right of the curve, you have technologically superior enemies. You can't win, you can only hope to make a nuisance of yourself and hope that their tolerance for casualties is several orders of magnitude lower than yours. On the extreme left of the curve, you have rad
Re: (Score:2)
so i have internet on my swiss army knife? man those thing are versatile!