Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zolian
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 01:09:00 -
[31]
Originally by: MooKids
Personally, I am against unmanned combat vehicles, nearly to the point that I think their use should constitute a war crime, but I doubt that will happen.
Some may argue that using them keeps the operator safe from harm, but tell that to the guy on the receiving end. Not to mention if they are "safe from harm", it may encourage their use even more, to the point that unmanned vehicles are used for all conflicts and making it easier to wage war. No more need to worry about sending home our young in a coffin.
They're a tool for asserting the dominance of developed countries over others.
And I'm fine with it v0v.
|
Jhagiti Tyran
Mortis Angelus
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 01:28:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Scrym
Since when did the powers that be think about who they are putting in harms way in order to achieve a goal? I'm not saying this is always bad of course because sacrifices must be made in some situations, but I don't see how this has been different at any point in our history. People will start wars and not take into consideration the human costs if they are sending 100,000 troops or 100,000 robots.
Since the second world war western governments are put under huge public pressure when casualties start to rise and the political fallout has cost many politicians their careers and swung elections. -
|
rValdez5987
Amarr Imperial Guard.
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 06:57:00 -
[33]
Originally by: MooKids
Quote: It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it
-Robert E. Lee
Personally, I am against unmanned combat vehicles, nearly to the point that I think their use should constitute a war crime, but I doubt that will happen.
Some may argue that using them keeps the operator safe from harm, but tell that to the guy on the receiving end. Not to mention if they are "safe from harm", it may encourage their use even more, to the point that unmanned vehicles are used for all conflicts and making it easier to wage war. No more need to worry about sending home our young in a coffin.
Of course I have no problem with their use in a non-combat role, such as recon, logistics and stuff like that.
You side with the terrorists then who feel that death even if its their own is necessary in war.
Technology is the future. Embrace it, or you will die/live miserably for the rest of your life. Whether you want this to be a war crime, or you disagree with it, etc, does not matter. It saves American lives, and we have a job to do.
It's your job as an American citizen to ensure that you don't vote a war mongorer into power. Stop that from happening and the technology won't be abused. |
goodby4u
Valor Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 07:20:00 -
[34]
Originally by: MooKids
Quote: It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it
-Robert E. Lee
Personally, I am against unmanned combat vehicles, nearly to the point that I think their use should constitute a war crime, but I doubt that will happen.
Some may argue that using them keeps the operator safe from harm, but tell that to the guy on the receiving end. Not to mention if they are "safe from harm", it may encourage their use even more, to the point that unmanned vehicles are used for all conflicts and making it easier to wage war. No more need to worry about sending home our young in a coffin.
Of course I have no problem with their use in a non-combat role, such as recon, logistics and stuff like that.
Sure its not safe for the guy on the receiving end of such a machine, but does it matter?
Dead is dead whether it is from a marine holding a rifle shooting you in the face or a guy 100 miles away telling a machine to shoot you in the face.... And if the enemy wishes to avoid the casualties inflicted they should either avoid messing with us or develop the technology themselves.
Also, I dont care about our combatants, from a marine's(or any other core for that matter)perspective he is getting shot at, whatever we can do to ensure that said marine is safe from getting shot at I wish to do, and I am sure the enemy is doing the same.
Lastly, before you say anything about morality of the wars we are fighting, remember that is the burden of our government to bare, all the marine is suppose to do is complete the objective with minimal casualties and minimal civilian casaulties and thats it, not whether we should be there or if they are giving the enemy a chance or any of that.
|
Ratchman
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 08:58:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Ratchman on 22/05/2009 08:58:21
Originally by: rValdez5987
Originally by: MooKids
Quote: It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it
-Robert E. Lee
Personally, I am against unmanned combat vehicles, nearly to the point that I think their use should constitute a war crime, but I doubt that will happen.
Some may argue that using them keeps the operator safe from harm, but tell that to the guy on the receiving end. Not to mention if they are "safe from harm", it may encourage their use even more, to the point that unmanned vehicles are used for all conflicts and making it easier to wage war. No more need to worry about sending home our young in a coffin.
Of course I have no problem with their use in a non-combat role, such as recon, logistics and stuff like that.
You side with the terrorists then who feel that death even if its their own is necessary in war.
Technology is the future. Embrace it, or you will die/live miserably for the rest of your life. Whether you want this to be a war crime, or you disagree with it, etc, does not matter. It saves American lives, and we have a job to do.
It's your job as an American citizen to ensure that you don't vote a war mongorer into power. Stop that from happening and the technology won't be abused.
Whoah, that's a bit harsh. To disagree on the legitamacy of a tactic is to side with terrorists? That's like saying: "Oh, so you don't like the Royal Family. What should we do then? Bring back H-i-t-l-e-r?"
The guy was making the point that remote warfare could make it too easy for people to kill without thinking. Consider this, to use in knife, or sword, in combat, you have to be up close to your enemy. To kill someone with a blade, you have to be in close intimate contact with your victim, and liable to physically end up with blood on your hands. Now take the gun. You can kill your enemy from a greater distance, so you don't have to stare them in the eyes, or listen to their last rasping sounds, or have to wipe their blood off of you. In this respect, brandishing a gun is easier than wielding a blade. Now using bombs makes you even more remote, and the ability to kill becomes easier, only know you can do it to many people simultaneously. Having a remote gun like this tank could render your emotional attachment to your enemy to little more than a videogame, and when humanity is stripped from the enemy, it becomes far easier for people to become monsters.
I think this is the point that Mookids was trying to make.
Personally, I am a realist. Humanity will always have wars because it is in our nature, and war will never been anything other than horrific. It should be horrific, because anything else would make it too easy, which was the point of that Robert E Lee quote. Sometimes, we need to fight to defend and protect, and there is nothing wrong with that. But if you fight because other people tell you too, you should always be asking yourself questions about whether it is right or necessary. Having a 'job to do' isn't too far off 'I was only following orders'.
That said, the competition that war provides does inspire rapid advances in technology. Much of the luxury we are accustomed too now are fruits borne from technology developed by the military. War does have some benefits, but we should always remember that our progress is built upon the dead.
|
Ratchman
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 09:03:00 -
[36]
On a different subject to my previous post, I do like the engineering that has gone into this tank, and it shows how inventive some people can be in resolving old problems. It won't ever beat the situational awareness of a soldier in the field, as there are things you can only really appeciate when you're actually there, but it can be used in many roles to cut down unnecessary risk to the soldiers.
I can remember reading about plastic tanks being constructed that could travel as fast, but with the armour and firepower of conventional tanks, but I never saw anything following that up. Guess they haven't been fully successful in that. Yet.
|
goodby4u
Valor Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 15:58:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Ratchman Edited by: Ratchman on 22/05/2009 08:58:21
Originally by: rValdez5987
Originally by: MooKids
Quote: It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it
-Robert E. Lee
Personally, I am against unmanned combat vehicles, nearly to the point that I think their use should constitute a war crime, but I doubt that will happen.
Some may argue that using them keeps the operator safe from harm, but tell that to the guy on the receiving end. Not to mention if they are "safe from harm", it may encourage their use even more, to the point that unmanned vehicles are used for all conflicts and making it easier to wage war. No more need to worry about sending home our young in a coffin.
Of course I have no problem with their use in a non-combat role, such as recon, logistics and stuff like that.
You side with the terrorists then who feel that death even if its their own is necessary in war.
Technology is the future. Embrace it, or you will die/live miserably for the rest of your life. Whether you want this to be a war crime, or you disagree with it, etc, does not matter. It saves American lives, and we have a job to do.
It's your job as an American citizen to ensure that you don't vote a war mongorer into power. Stop that from happening and the technology won't be abused.
stuff.
The reason the guy said he supported terrorists is because he doesnt want our soldiers to be safe, its all well and good to lecture on how to avoid war but would you say such things to the families of the fallen marines?
Such logic as we would avoid war if it were bloodier is problematic, your points were if a soldier had to use his knife and nothing else we would avoid war at all costs but if I remember correctly in the middle ages we declared war on eachother all the time(whether just simple skirmishes or full scale)... Also I dont accept quotes from a man that decided instead of flanking his enemy he decided to fight an entrenched enemy that also had higher ground.
Its impossible to avoid war because its a human condition, atleast for the time being, so would it not be in a best interest to make war less bloody?
|
Scrym
Ministry of War
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 16:04:00 -
[38]
Well OP I guess your plan worked. You show us a story about a robo tank and you successfully revealed the identities of the terrorists that play Eve. Well done soldier.
|
mamolian
Cruoris Seraphim
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 16:11:00 -
[39]
Guiz i know! we all owe something like $90,000 per family to the world bank.. but lets go make jumping tanks..
aweeeeesome rite?
-----------
|
THE L0CK
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 16:12:00 -
[40]
Hey that's a really cool ta....WHOA WHAT THE HELL WENT UP THIS THREADS ASS AND DIED?
|
|
Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 16:16:00 -
[41]
Originally by: THE L0CK
Originally by: MooKids When someone has nothing to lose (in this case a life) and everything to gain, why not attack?
Would you like to play a game of Global Thermonuclear War?
Fixed ___________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|
EliteSlave
Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 17:02:00 -
[42]
Edited by: EliteSlave on 22/05/2009 17:04:47
Originally by: Intense Thinker
Originally by: goodby4u Also keep in mind that if an rpg hits a humvee or something it can penetrate the vehicle might still be able to move, but the people inside are hamburger.
With an unmanned vehicle while you can damage vital things atleast it isnt chock full of small squishy beings that burn easy.
It might be immobile, but it still has that .50 mounted to it
unfortunately it doesnt have a .50 mounted to it... jus a measily 7.62mm round =\
|
BlackDragonShadow
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 17:49:00 -
[43]
Quote: Oh and misleading thread title - that little sucker is not going to jump over a two story building
Well it says it can jump 50 feet. A two story building is 40 so I just figured it could.
And to all these people talking about how this will make soldiers impassive to killing and so forth remember that that has absolutly nothing to do with war what so ever. Because while the grunts on the ground and doing the fighting may get messed with and have night terrors and die and all sorts of messed up stuff they will always be replaced by fresh troops. The ones that SEND them to war will never stop war because they are the most impassive of all. All they have to do is point to a point on the map and say "Blow that up." The military says YES SIR! And proceeds to make plans to blow that remote spot straight to hell. If the people that make these chooses to go to war ever actually fought in one you probably wouldn't have as much war in the world.
"I have seen war. I have seen war on land and sea. I have seen blood running from the wounded. I have seen the dead in the mud. I have seen cities destroyed. I have seen children starving. I have seen the agony of mothers and wives. I hate war."
~Franklin Delano Roosevelt
This sig was awesome but needs more EvE related content. - Mitnal
Fine. EVE Online |
THE L0CK
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 18:00:00 -
[44]
Originally by: BlackDragonShadow
Quote: Oh and misleading thread title - that little sucker is not going to jump over a two story building
Well it says it can jump 50 feet. A two story building is 40 so I just figured it could.
er vertically not horizontally. Title threw me off as well cause I thought it had like a spring loaded system or something like what the new batmobile has. But alas all it really can do is jump a canal in a single bound.
|
Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 18:20:00 -
[45]
Originally by: THE L0CK
Originally by: BlackDragonShadow
Quote: Oh and misleading thread title - that little sucker is not going to jump over a two story building
Well it says it can jump 50 feet. A two story building is 40 so I just figured it could.
er vertically not horizontally. Title threw me off as well cause I thought it had like a spring loaded system or something like what the new batmobile has. But alas all it really can do is jump a canal in a single bound.
I think you have Vertically and Horizontally mixed up. Jumping a canal would involve jumping Horizontally. Jumping a building would be vertically.
(Unless i'm reading your sentence from the wrong perspective and you are aiming it towards his 40ft building comment) ___________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|
THE L0CK
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 18:36:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Blane Xero
Originally by: THE L0CK
Originally by: BlackDragonShadow
Quote: Oh and misleading thread title - that little sucker is not going to jump over a two story building
Well it says it can jump 50 feet. A two story building is 40 so I just figured it could.
er vertically not horizontally. Title threw me off as well cause I thought it had like a spring loaded system or something like what the new batmobile has. But alas all it really can do is jump a canal in a single bound.
I think you have Vertically and Horizontally mixed up. Jumping a canal would involve jumping Horizontally. Jumping a building would be vertically.
(Unless i'm reading your sentence from the wrong perspective and you are aiming it towards his 40ft building comment)
No you're right. This may be the reason why I wasn't given a pilot's license and why the instructor quit.
|
Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 18:38:00 -
[47]
Originally by: THE L0CK No you're right. This may be the reason why I wasn't given a pilot's license and why the instructor quit.
Did he quit or did you heave him in no position to resume ___________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|
Kyguard
Amok. Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 19:44:00 -
[48]
Someone look up how it compares to other Unmanned Ground Vehicles. It's certainly not a tank so to compare it to one is misleading.
Still impressive nonetheless. -
|
BlackDragonShadow
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 20:01:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Kyguard Someone look up how it compares to other Unmanned Ground Vehicles. It's certainly not a tank so to compare it to one is misleading.
Still impressive nonetheless.
Your avatar and mine look like brothers.
This sig was awesome but needs more EvE related content. - Mitnal
Fine. EVE Online |
Crimsonjade
Amarr Secret Service
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 21:07:00 -
[50]
Originally by: EliteSlave
unfortunately it doesnt have a .50 mounted to it... jus a measily 7.62mm round =\
Its in Testing phase so it will be waaay different when it see's full on production.
as a ex-infantryman the thought of some geek 300 miles away in a air-conditioned bunker roaming around with these, scares the hell out of me. RPG's and even Tow's have one problem. need someone to aim it and i really doubt someone can hit it while its moving 60mph between trees and such. really cool idea for unmanned recon, but someone said recon wasnt a combat role.
LOL to your knowledge of recon then.
|
|
MooKids
Caldari The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 21:50:00 -
[51]
Edited by: MooKids on 22/05/2009 21:52:20 Comparing me to a terrorist? I seriously hope that is a joke. Kind of like the rhetoric "If you don't (insert crap here), the terrorists win" or we should use nukes to destroy their nukes because nukes are bad and nobody should ever use them.
And yes Ratchman, that is what I was going at. Using UCVs will only turn war into a game, not the gruesome killing it should be.
Not to mention the inherent problems of using a remote combat vehicle. For one, you aren't going to win the hearts and minds of the populace you are invading if you use an impersonal machine to do your job. Way to tell them we don't care about you, so we won't send in our people to protect you.
There are also other problems, such as overreliance of their use when they are quite vulnerable. A powerful enough EMP and your expensive toy is scrap metal. There is also the threat of the enemy jamming or worse, intercepting the signal and taking control of your machine and having it turn on your allies.
It may "save lives" but your typical foot soldier does a lot more than shoot things.
EDIT: Crimsonjade, I meant recon that is not direct combat, like the use of radar, just an eye in the sky. -------------------------------- CCP can patch away bugs, but they can't patch away stupidity. |
goodby4u
Valor Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 22:31:00 -
[52]
Originally by: MooKids Edited by: MooKids on 22/05/2009 21:52:20 Comparing me to a terrorist? I seriously hope that is a joke. Kind of like the rhetoric "If you don't (insert crap here), the terrorists win" or we should use nukes to destroy their nukes because nukes are bad and nobody should ever use them.
And yes Ratchman, that is what I was going at. Using UCVs will only turn war into a game, not the gruesome killing it should be.
Not to mention the inherent problems of using a remote combat vehicle. For one, you aren't going to win the hearts and minds of the populace you are invading if you use an impersonal machine to do your job. Way to tell them we don't care about you, so we won't send in our people to protect you.
There are also other problems, such as overreliance of their use when they are quite vulnerable. A powerful enough EMP and your expensive toy is scrap metal. There is also the threat of the enemy jamming or worse, intercepting the signal and taking control of your machine and having it turn on your allies.
It may "save lives" but your typical foot soldier does a lot more than shoot things.
EDIT: Crimsonjade, I meant recon that is not direct combat, like the use of radar, just an eye in the sky.
Why should war be bloody and gruesome?
For one we arent doing much of a job winning their hearts and minds as it is but if I had a choice whether to be protected with a single marine or a terminator like robot, I will take arnold thank you very much.
Meh emp might not be a problem.
Intercepting the signal is a plausible problem, unfortunately I dont know enough about that type of stuff to give a decent argument as to how we can ensure it doesnt happen, but I am sure it can be done.
|
Riki Halcyon
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 07:46:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Akita T I say skip the middlemen and just build Skynet already
Yeah I was going to mention something about this as well. I love the agility and look of the little buger, but the idea and the progress still scares the **** out of me I guess I shouldn't be that much more scared than I am today - I don't think we'll much more destructive than nuclear bombs.
|
Greenlike ish
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 15:26:00 -
[54]
Can you imagine a fight between two of those robots? The would be tearing up the ground speeding around each other at high speed, while using that silly .50 to shoot at the other, whose armor is equally capable of withstanding the bullets as the other one. First one to run out of fuel wins?
|
Greenlike ish
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 15:32:00 -
[55]
What about this then? Since a lot of ppl here don't mind the use of robots in war because they replace possible human casualties (which is bad, yet good, since it makes us think about how sucky war is) why not fight conflicts like that old show on tv. Think it was called Robot Wars? The warring countries both build their own robot, and fight it out in a ring. Winning robot wins the 'war' and all is well again.
Unfortunatly we will most likely never develop towards this more peaceful warfare. Instead countries with the financial possibilities will wage war by sending in autonomus robots. These can be actively killing people 24/7 (yay?) And you won't have trouble back home with the families that lost a loved one (No offense to ppl on here that did lose a relative in war conflicts, my sincerest respects to you)
War is ment to be terrible, to hurt and kill people. If war loses that aspect, it becomes like a game: no consequences, just ... fun?
|
Drakolus
Amarr Canadian Imperial Armaments Aggression.
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 15:49:00 -
[56]
The thought of "fighting" a war with a joystick in one hand and a coffee cup in the other...sign me up :).
Anyways, these guys stand to make a mint as is. If this works out and Unmanned ground vehicles start proving their worth there is nothing to stop an upgraded version from being built. Figure each one of these little ones costs 750k roughly? Figure 1-1.5 mil for an actual line combat model (think TOW missiles or some other form of heavy hitter) and you could have a pack of Unmanned Fighting Vehicles for the cost of 1 traditional tank. Add into that you won't have to have a crew compartment or all the protection systems. The UFV would be considerablly smaller having a smaller cross section making them harder to hit and kill over all.
All the while our fighting men and women are snug and comfy directing these beasts from safety. Sure, some poor SOB is still going to have to be an infantryman and follow these things up but with a horde of these UFV's and UGV's the infantry's job should be that much easier.
Oh oh, and best of all. If these things end up being light enough...PARATANKS! I can't wait to hear someone in the actual army use the phrase "Elite Tank Paratroopers!" :obscure reference: _____________________________________________
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 15:56:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Sokratesz on 23/05/2009 15:57:35
Originally by: Greenlike ish Can you imagine a fight between two of those robots? The would be tearing up the ground speeding around each other at high speed, while using that silly .50 to shoot at the other, whose armor is equally capable of withstanding the bullets as the other one. First one to run out of fuel wins?
Don't think it'll be long til they mount a gatling / TOW or hellfire on these if they prove succesful.
|
Xen Gin
Solar Excavations Ultd. Black Sun Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 16:11:00 -
[58]
War is hell, it's shouldn't be impersonal or remote controlled. Using remote operated machines to kill other people turns hell into a video game, and war should never be that.
|
goodby4u
Valor Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 17:06:00 -
[59]
Edited by: goodby4u on 23/05/2009 17:08:18 Edited by: goodby4u on 23/05/2009 17:06:45
Originally by: Xen Gin War is hell, it's shouldn't be impersonal or remote controlled. Using remote operated machines to kill other people turns hell into a video game, and war should never be that.
Then if the enemy doesnt want to be in hell they should develop this technology themselves, and if they do, then hurray only machines die in war.
Even if war is horrible it will still happen regardless, if the only way to kill your enemy is chewing his face out you will still see wars everyday, the only difference is humanity would just be more callus to daily reports of people getting their faces chewed off.
For instance, if what your saying is true then we shouldnt have had any wars in the middle ages and before, but we did have alot of wars.... alot and even more simply skirmishes between countries.
Where your logic falls flat is when you take away alot of the blood from conflicts then people become more sensitive to losing troops, so war seems like hell just the same when you lose 1% of the troops we are losing now,
The same logic you are using was the same logic that people used when snipers were first being used in combat, it isnt face to face nor is it horrible and thus war would be more widespread they said.... But the fact of the matter is we are humans and we are adaptable, if war is hell we will make ourselves callus to ensure that doing what has to be done is done without us weeping every time the news comes on the television.
What I am beginning to believe is war can atleast be less bloody if it is a game to all partipants, that is using unmanned vehicles to fight unmanned vehicles and the enemy gives up when they reach his capital where the controllers are located, would this not be a better alternative to our soldiers coming back in coffins by the thousands leaving families behind?
|
Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 17:34:00 -
[60]
Man should never rely on machines to fight our wars. Cause you know, skynet and all. ___________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |