Robots In War
Should robots take humans place in war?
-Could loose control of robot/drone
-IF improperly programed couldn't tell enemy from civilian
-If robot breaks rule of war who is responsible for the robots actions
-Affect troop morale
-Can be hacked
-Cost of robots
-Diminishes the reality of war
Robots in war. Is the world at the point were robots should be doing our fighting in battle instead of humans? By putting robots into war instead of humans human lives are spared. A robot does not feel pain or hunger and has no emotion. By putting a robot into battle in place of humans you are much more tactical with a robot. One human can control multiple robots so you can increase the efficiency of one person with multiple robots. Today robots are used as aids but not as our primary attackers in battle. Today robots help locate bombs, diffuse bombs, and detect other harms to the humans. Also predator drone, which are remote airplanes, are used to for stealth bombing and other missions an airplane is used for.
Should robots take the place of humans in war? The robot takes the place of a human in the line of fire. A robot does not feel pain, hunger, or any emotions while a human does. But a robot takes away the experience of a human on the front lines. What if the robot is improperly programed and cannot discriminate a civilian from an enemy? But if the robot is properly programed it can reduce civilian casualties. All of these are ethical considerations of robots in war in the place of humans. These things show the harms and benefits of robots in war.
I feel that having robots on the battlefield is a large advantage. By adding robots to help fight battles human lives are spared. A robot is much more tactical than a human which makes the miltltary stronger and much more adapted to many different situations.