A terrorist hacker's wet dream...

Ugh. We're the worst.

Crap...I agree with Bob.

You can see it now, right...US drone wipes out Afghani village..."Wasn't our fault...it was bad programing, etc..." and then they sue some poor schmuck embedded software programmer who put a decimal in the wrong spot...

But hey..."Terminator"...another great sci-fi flick becomes potentially prognostication!

People joke that we live in a world where Idiocracy comes true, but obviously (as krellin notes) the better comparison is Terminator.

Can the word "ethical" even have any real meaning when we're talking about a programmed robot? Also, it's gonna be super cool when they deploy these things in the USA (as they inevitably will). You think cops negligently kill too many people today?

Oh no....I've posted on the brilliance of Idiocracy as well. Hell...just look at the American electorate...bunch of morons with their hands stuck out looking for a check from the government...

inb4 this topic is the most unifying political topic on webdip since KONY

I for one one zero one zero zero one one one

I agree with krellin.

So much for the First Law of Robotics.

STOP agreeing with me....you're destroying my bitch-cred...

Not that I'm in favour of this development, but how is it any worse than landmine use? On the big list of concerning military bits of kit this doesn't make the top ten.

This is truly horrifying. I often get the sense that the people making all these high-up decisions to concentrate power in the "hands" of computers must be people who have rarely if ever actually used them.

@Oct -- Landmines get placed in an area and can get cleared out...or at least the areas can be identified and avoided.

Flying drones with missiles and guns and "intelligent" camera systems CHASE YOU DOWN to kill you...

@Octavious -- the real questions is: How many were killed when we fire-bombed Dresden, for instance? We spent a few years in the 40's carpet-bombing our enemies. I.e. Civilian deaths were horrendous, can we agree? Thus, though there is collateral damage affiliated with a drone - the reality is we should much prefer drone war to carpet bombing, and thus this is (put on your Martha Stewart mask...) a good thing...

How is that the real question? Carpet bombing is a strategy of the past, along with catapulting diseased cows into a city and dropping dead bodies down wells, and no longer carries any relevance to modern warfare. What we can compare it to are the various forms of fire and forget missiles (which such a weapon would easily out-perform ethics wise) and the current breed of drones. As the drones we have at the moment can't tell a military from a civilian target all that well then ones that operate independently are unlikely to be much of a backwards step.

The question is "real" because WAR is REAL -- it is a part of the human condition whether or not Utopian fools think it should be or not. Thus - given that war is a human reality -- even a human necessity (because we have never found another way to settle our disputes...) then you MUST look at modern techniques of war and compare them to the alternatives.

"Carpet bombing is a strategy of the past" Duhhh.....you know why? Because TODAY we can target our attacks and minimize collateral damage. WHY? Because we *try* to be as moral as possible in our wars,whether you are man enough to admit it or not...but we do fight the wars we (somehow) deem necessary.

And....by the way....Republipukes....Demoncrats....Commie Bastards....Socialists...THEY ALL FIGHT WARS. So don't try to pull some "well, if we weren't so evil/capitalist" crap because EVERY form of government has engaged in war....i.e. war is essentially the ONLY constant of the human condition....and therefore, if we find ways to fight wars with less collateral damage, we are doing good!

As you're the most dedicated Socialist recruiting serjeant on this site I am constantly amazed that you haven't picked up on the fact that I am a Conservative.

I would dearly love to engage you in a counter argument but, aside from being dressed in overly aggressive tones, I can't see where your points actually disagree with me.