Screw this (http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/samsung_develops_machine_gun_sentry_robot_costs_200k.php)... :ranting:
I'm glad to see that we're doing something useful with modern technology... :-x
NK and SK are still technically at war with an armistice; I don't see how this could hurt SK's defense. I mean, if you were faced with spending $1 million to train and maintain a soldier or pay $1 million for 5 of these, what would you do?
if you were faced with spending $1 million to train and maintain a soldier or pay $1 million for 5 of these, what would you do?
Oh cool, now we can fight for less! Ahh, the American dream... :usflag:
Don't get me wrong, I understand that this holds promise for the justified defense of South Korea. However, the implications of this extend way beyond that of the conflict between North Korea and South Korea--what country wouldn't love to have an automated cannon doing the work of their bordering troops? The next inevitable step is to mount this stationary turret onto some sort of mobile vehicle and, of course, automate that vehicle. This sort of technology has been pushed for years by various militaries, namely, our own. In 2001, Congress mandated that one-third of all ground vehicles be unmanned by 2015; while the DARPA Grand Challenges help provide many applications to the public, there is a still a primary focus on the military perspective. I don't think this should be what's driving the research of this kind of technology for the next few years. :no:
Drone guns have existed for a very long time. This one just seems to have more advanced "human" recognition software. And even though a machine with a gun isn't a great idea, you must admit that some of the greatest innovations in man's time have been developed due to military backing.
:cry: <-- Ross
QuoteI don't think this should be what's driving the research of this kind of technology for the next few years. :no:
Sure. Why? We can send Joe next door to risk his life, and all happily work on a better microwave.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think using technology to kill people is a noble idea, but emphasis should be on "not killing people," and not on "using technology."
Unfortunately, I don’t believe we have a choice. Well, there is one. We could wait until some other countries' military technology is better than ours, and they attack first. Then we will fight them with our advanced microwaves.
QuoteOh cool, now we can fight for less! Ahh, the American dream... :usflag:
Look out!! In the trees!! Its charlie.. no wait a minute its, a microwaved hotpocket :-? NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! :gunfire:
:lame:
Does this hotpocket have poisoned needles in it? Needles so small you don't even know they're penetrating your mouth? That's a pretty deadly hotpocket.
QuoteWe can send Joe next door to risk his life
The risk of Joe losing his life provides incentive for a country
not to go to war; however, no one is going to mourn the loss of robotic ATV unit X51 for being shot to bits.
[sarcastic_rant] :ranting:
I mean, why think twice about going to war if no one cares about the losses? In the same respect, robotic units cost money--maybe that will be the significant loss that people
actually consider; ya' know, 'cuz it wouldn't be right if we delved deeper into the pockets of
everyone (i.e., the taxpayers); that wouldn't be unfair, would it?
[/sarcastic_rant] :innocent:
Quote[E]mphasis should be on "not killing people"... nfortunately, I don’t believe we have a choice. Well, there is one. We could wait until some other countries' military technology is better than ours, and they attack first."
That's what I'm getting at--if we focus on "not killing people" and we're truly successful at it, then there shouldn't be an army to fight against. Of course, I do have a rather idealistic (and, of course, unrealistic) perspective on the world. Like I said, I do think that this type of thing is inevitable--I think it
will happen. I choose to make it clear to people that the use of this technology for what it is designed for (weapons and war) is, I believe, ethically wrong.
Thanks for the feedback! :-)
If it's the enemy pointing their advanced weaponry at me because we didn't do our own R&D on killing machines or us pointing our weapons at them when the time arises, I know where I want to be. While some people find it ethically wrong to develop this, I find it even more ethically wrong to let the enemy become more powerful than your own people and then be unable to protect them.
Heaven forbid we take the high road and work on building defensive items. Nope, screw that... Let's kill stuff.
The human race is not above the other animals; we are just higher functioning and thereby have the ability to BS in a sad attempt to justify our barbaric behavior.
Seriously, â€ËÅ"The other guys are doing it’? We should not put our efforts in sinking to the lowest common denominator. We should put our efforts into raising it.
We will truly be on the path to being an evolved species when we can base our actions not on the fears, but on the hopes and ideals, in our hearts.
Quotethatguy wrote:
Heaven forbid we take the high road and work on building defensive items. Nope, screw that... Let's kill stuff.
I think they were probably going for protection like Grim was saying; not killing people.
IMO, I'd rather be safe at home fighting with a robot than risking my life. But then again, I think a good round of Mario Kart could solve a lot of the world's problems. :-D
QuoteIf it's the enemy pointing their advanced weaponry at me because we didn't do our own R&D on killing machines or us pointing our weapons at them when the time arises, I know where I want to be.
While I agree that I'd like to be the one behind this wall of protection, I'm arguing that we shouldn't be so intent on trying to establish these walls at all. What I'm trying to say is that we stress building weapons (for both offense and defense) instead of trying to actually resolve conflict in a reasonable manner. Conflict resolution takes patience, and, unfortunately, we are often unwilling (as is our opposition) to offer such patience.
Also note that I was referring to the future implications of this technology, namely, strapping it onto a mobile vehicle, which will, inevitably, become automated itself. Additionally, we must be reminded that once a robotic military makes its way through another robotic military, it eventually must contend with human beings (armed or unarmed, it does not matter). At this point, the fight becomes very one sided--and this is, arguably,
good in the case of war; however, war is, arguably,
bad in the case of the survival of the human race.
I just don't see the point where the fighting stops.
True peace does not come from threats and force, but from discussion and compromise. Admittedly, the latter system can be shown to be drastically less efficient than the first; however, it it can also be shown that the latter produces better results overall. The question is, are
We patient enough to wait?
QuoteWe will truly be on the path to being an evolved species when we can base our actions not on the fears, but on the hopes and ideals, in our hearts.
Eh, it's just a fact of life. When they stop building weapons, we can stop building weapons. However, since no one is going to stop building weapons because of the probable fact that jealousy or some other factor is going to continue to make others advance their weaponry, we will continue to advance ours. Not much to do about it; I think the best to do is to stay ahead and attempt not to use them. It's pretty much the same thing that has always been happening in nature: survival of the fittest.
About robotic armies tearing down humans, why didn't the atomic bomb do the same thing? Plenty of people have them these days, but I think I can say why: humans do not like killing other humans.
Sure, you get some crazies out there, but in situations like that, you very literally just have to kill them in war should a war be started. It sounds sadistic and evil, but it's all about protecting yourself. I'm sure if someone was trying to kill you and no one could help you but yourself and you had your chance to kill them first, you'd do it.
QuoteEh, it's just a fact of life.
A
fact... really? :-?
QuoteWhen they stop building weapons, we can stop building weapons.
Isn't this circular? Couldn't they use the same argument against us? Who takes the first step?
QuoteNot much to do about it
Why not take the first step ourselves?
QuoteIt's pretty much the same thing that has always been happening in nature: survival of the fittest.
Agreed. However, recall that "fittest" can refer not only to
physical superiority, but
intellectual superiority. Can we not flex our mental muscle and realize that there is a better way to approach our conflicts?
Quotehumans do not like killing other humans.
Again, agreed. However, I argue that we would be entering an era where it's not really
humans killing other
humans (in the sense that they are not physically pulling the trigger), but rather
robots "killing" other
robots. As I premised my argument before (and feel free to debate this), what happens when one group of robots eradicates the other group and must now move on? What are they moving on to? People, right? So now
robots are killing
humans, defeating the original "humans do not like killing other humans" idea. To nullify this statement entirely, look at the state of the world right now:
humans are killing other
humans.
I'm sure that most of us would like to believe that your premise is true (honestly, I hope that you are right about "humans do not like killing other humans" because I truly believe it), but no one seems to be stepping forward with a giant
STOP-sign to show it. Whose duty is it to take the initiative and actually "play nice"? This role hasn't been assigned to anyone, and isn't yet recognized by many. Like I said before, why not take the first step ourselves?
QuoteA fact... really?
Uh, do you pay attention to ANY news? Yes, it's a fact of life.
QuoteIsn't this circular? Couldn't they use the same argument against us?
Yes, they can and do use the same argument against us. Hence it being a fact of life.
QuoteWhy not take the first step ourselves?
Go create the most powerful nation in the world and let me know what happens when the jealous ones invade. I'll be here saying "I told you so."
QuoteAgreed. However, recall that "fittest" can refer not only to physical superiority, but intellectual superiority. Can we not flex our mental muscle and realize that there is a better way to approach our conflicts?
We already do use intellectual power to try to resolve many conflicts, president Bush aside. But you know what? We still go to war even when we have presidents who usually try to use diplomacy. Many factors are involved, and I'm not going to debate them.
Quotewhat happens when one group of robots eradicates the other group and must now move on? What are they moving on to? People, right?
If robots destroyed the mythical robotic army and attacked the land of the real people, so what? Someone gave the order and will have to deal with the psychological consequences. People just aren't going to want to give that order for just any reason as you seem to suggest.
Really, I'm done debating this now, because you live in a fantasy land of good people that don't kill each other. Even the people who try to be good and not kill one another still have to do it sometimes. We need weapons to protect ourselves.
Go ahead and continue to debate this. I'll be doing more important things like working, going to school, having a life, and maybe even someday building weapons if the need arises. Because I know that protecting life is better than destroying it, even if protecting life sometimes means that destroying parts of it is the only option. Now I can just see you debating that.. haha, that'll be great. Now we can just argue that we didn't need to fight in WW2 because we should've been diplomatic about it... oh wait, we were until we got our asses handed to us at Pearl Harbor.
Let me know when Fantasy Earth is born.
/me logs out of this thread forever.
In light of the recently signed "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007", this becomes an even more scary scenario (though certainly more remote) if these devices were used against a country's own citizens.:gunfire:
That act allows the president without anyone else's consent to declare martial law in the event of a "public emergency" and station military troops within the country "in order to suppress, in any State, any domestic violence or conspiracy."
Previously, it had been illegal for the government to use the military as law enforcement (Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and the Insurrection Act of 1807).
Sources:
http://www.thevillager.com/villager_184/talkingpoint.html
http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_95980.asp
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=25276
I think this defense system would actually save lives. I mean...it tells ya that if you keep coming it will shoot you in the head. Hmm... I think I will keep going and get shot in the head :-P
Also, if people know you have a burglar alarm, they are much less likely to even bother trying to break in. I mean, if I had a pistol and the other guy had a tank... I'm no hero ya know? A good show of superior strength will prevent MOST people from attacking.
Now, there are some people who ARE fanatics that will do everything in there power to kill someone despite any attempts to reason. One good example is the radical muslim extremists. You cannot out reason a fanatical hate for someone...it has been too deeply burned into them. Fanatical religious fervor CANNOT be reasoned with. People have been trying for years to convince religious people that there is no God...it hasn't work yet and it never will. The ONLY defense against radical extremists is an outright offense. And these future robotanks would keep the good people safe at home and the bad people either away or dead.
Sorry for getting a little off topic ... but there ARE GOOD applications of robo machine guns :-P
QuoteM-Rooster said:
The ONLY defense against radical extremists is an outright offense.
The problem is that each one you kill has 3 brothers and 7 cousins who have nothing to lose.
QuoteUh, do you pay attention to ANY news? Yes, it's a fact of life.
[sarcasm]
Unfortunately, I haven't been keeping track--are they reporting the
facts now? :smartass:
[/sarcasm]
QuoteYes, they can and do use the same argument against us. Hence it being a fact of life.
If this is regarding me saying that the argument is circular, then it does not follow that this is a "fact of life." If anyone would like to see proof of this, consider a majority of the arguments for the existence of a higher being (be it religious or philosophical); these are most often circular, and we have yet to acknowledge them as
fact.
QuoteGo create the most powerful nation in the world and let me know what happens when the jealous ones invade.
Currently, we are the most powerful nation in the world. Following your argument, I agree that, if we were to just stand down, we would most likely be invaded (eventually). However, this is due to our inability to "play nice" in the past and present; we often give deliberate reason for people to be jealous and resentful. We all have been taught the Golden Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity) since grade school: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." As we become older, I think we all forget this. Just think, if a single person is nice to you, shares with you, and tries to help you whenever they can, do you ever really feel jealous or resentful of them? I believe that if we begin to work together with other countries (through compromise rather than threats), we may be able to make up for the bad impression we've made in the past. It would take time, but I think that it would be beneficial for everyone in the end.
QuoteWe already do use intellectual power to try to resolve many conflicts. But you know what? We still go to war even when we have presidents who usually try to use diplomacy.
We go to war when people get
impatient; diplomacy takes time, and in that situation, someone jumped the gun. I did feel like something needed to be done, but I don't feel that the way we approached it was right. When the
lines of [quality] communication are broken, the opportunity for compromise closes and diplomacy fails. With recent events, we
threw in the towel.
QuoteGo ahead and continue to debate this. I'll be doing more important things like working, going to school, [and] having a life.
LOL! Ouch! grimw (http://caos.siue.edu/userinfo.php?uid=2) :box: Q-Bit (http://caos.siue.edu/userinfo.php?uid=276)
QuoteBecause I know that protecting life is better than destroying it, even if protecting life sometimes means that destroying parts of it is the only option. Now I can just see you debating that.. haha, that'll be great.
Woah there, Machiavelli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavelli)! Why should I argue when my good friends Kant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant), Locke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke), and Rawls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls) can do it for me! :-P We have here the age-old question, "Do the ends justify the means?" Anyone familiar with this knows why I'm not going to go down this long road! :lol:
QuoteReally, I'm done debating this now
And this is where all of my arguments will continue to fail. grimw (http://caos.siue.edu/userinfo.php?uid=2), by becoming
impatient with me, by
breaking the lines of [quality] communication, and by
throwing in the towel, you have generated a self-fulfilling prophecy that proves your point perfectly. I can only ask you to refute me and, thus, keep the lines of communication going. I'll take the first step--my guns are down; I'm not on offense or defense. I'm trying to compromise with you in the interest of the problem.
Quote[Y]ou live in a fantasy land...
If you return grimw (http://caos.siue.edu/userinfo.php?uid=2), you know where to find me: I'll be in the Lollipop Forest riding my unicorn. Come on, Princess... :lol:
Hi, my name is Ross Mead and I've just proven that I am the biggest nerd in CAOS.
And, I have way too much time on my hands.
QuoteHi, my name is Ross Mead and I've just proven that I am the biggest nerd in CAOS.
**pushes glasses closer to face**
[sarcasm]
Now martins (http://caos.siue.edu/userinfo.php?uid=422), I know you haven't been around long, but we've had serious conflicts with people being called "nerd" (as opposed to "geek"). Nowadays, it is good to be PC when referring to people. Please read up on the following thread (posted far before your time): Detrimental Generalizations: Geek and Nerd (http://caos.siue.edu/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=910&forum=2&viewmode=flat&order=DESC&start=15).
[/sarcasm]
LOL! :lol:
^ (it's actually a pretty funny read and is worth revisiting; you should check it out! :-) )
Look, I'm just trying to farm your thread. I'll be honest. :innocent:
*clap* *clap* *clap*
Wow! Lively discussion. I thinks some good arguments have been made on all sides. I thought I'd throw in a few cents.
First of all, Ross, God is not a religious or philosophical higher being, He is God. He is sovereign over all and His existence
is not dependant on our being able to fully understand or describe Him, let alone argue for His existence. If someone can convince
a person to believe in God, another can convince that person not to. Knowledge of God can only come from God Himself, He takes
the first step in revealing Himself to us.
That aside, I think we can all agree that war is bad, to say the least, and to be avoided to whatever extent is possible. However,
it is, at times, an unfortunate necessity. Since we live in a fallen world, there will always be fighting, and world peace is, unfortunately,
not possible. To think otherwise would be to submit to a naive and idealistic utopian view which is incompatible with the sinful nature of
man, or human nature, as some would say.
"In theory, communism works. In theory!" ~Homer Simpson
That being said, Mattguy made a good point. We should concentrate more on defense, although not exclusively. If our enemies
are building sentry guns, we should research EMP cannons.
I will say, however, that, if we had not attempted to be on the forefront of destructive weapon research during World War II,
the results may have been disastrous. The atomic bomb was going to be invented, and while I loathe the ramifications of that
invention, as well as so many others, I am still glad that we reached it first.
I do understand and heartily aggree with Ross' initial objection, that, with so many promising outlets for technological research which
are non-destructive, these are among the most pursued. I again say that, if the research is to be militarily driven, it should be driven
in the direction of defensive and non-lethal offensive technology. If we can incapacitate hostiles without killing, we are, in some ways,
satisfying both sides of the arguement here.
Anyway, I just thought I'd throw that out there.
QuoteWow! Lively discussion.
I know! I didn't see it getting this much attention, but it's awesome! :-)
QuoteGod is not a religious or philosophical higher being
It was not my intention to turn this into a creationist debate (though I would be interested to see this from the perspective of various people of faith); however, I do feel the need to clarify my statement. I spent a decent amount of time trying to choose my words carefully to best represent a large population of beliefs while not offending anyone. I was simply referring to any creation story (be it Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, evolution, physics, various philosophies, magical elves and unicorns, ...); any argument made is often (but not always), and unavoidably, circular, and thus comes down to a matter of [respectable]
faith. I apologize for any confusion and/or offense.
QuoteTo think otherwise would be to submit to a naive and idealistic utopian view which is incompatible with the sinful nature of man, or human nature, as some would say.
Hobbes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes) would agree with you. My beliefs, admittedly, reflect that of idealism, though I would still call myself a realist. I don't disagree with the
reality of the points that BlueJoe (http://caos.siue.edu/userinfo.php?uid=569) or grimw (http://caos.siue.edu/userinfo.php?uid=2) have made, rather, I argue that there are still
better ways of approaching our problems and that these idealistic point of views (heck, even communism... though I, admittedly, agree with Homer! :-P ) could serve as models for us to strive for; we may never reach a truly utopian state, but we can try to take steps in its direction.
QuoteWe should concentrate more on defense, although not exclusively. If our enemies are building sentry guns, we should research EMP cannons.
So, let me get this straight: we're going to focus on defense and, because "our enemies are building sentry guns", they must be focusing on defense to. But, because we are not "exclusively" focusing on defense, we research "EMP cannons" to thwart their "sentry guns"--and let's say that we succeed! Then they come up with some "anti-EMP sentry guns" or something. You can see how this pattern repeats. However, as I've understood your stance, we are not in a state of fighting though, correct? If that's the case, then why are we spending all of these resources trying to counter each other? If we work towards maintaining the peace (and researching things that could mutually benefit everyone!), we would never have to create such tools. If we create these tools, they serve no purpose if they are not being used. What happens? We, inevitably, use the tools.
QuoteIf we can incapacitate hostiles without killing, we are, in some ways, satisfying both sides of the [argument] here.
I think this would be a step in the right direction; we are so deep in conflict that we would have to take small steps such as this. I agree with grimw (http://caos.siue.edu/userinfo.php?uid=2) that, if we were to simply drop our weapons and say, "Heh, sorry... ," someone would most likely invade. It will take time, but it will be mutually beneficial for everyone in the end.
I made some macaroni & cheese tonight, and it was NOT very good.
QuoteIf this is regarding me saying that the argument is circular, then it does not follow that this is a "fact of life."
Yeah, except war IS a fact of life, whether you believe it or not. Step into Africa and let me know that war is not a fact of life. Step into NK and let me know that war is not a fact of life. It will continue to be a fact of life until we can have peace on earth, but considering too many people disagree with too many other people, war will continue to be a fact of life.
QuoteYou have generated a self-fulfilling prophecy that proves your point perfectly.
Really? A self-fulfilling prophecy would more likely be having a fight with you to prove my point about war. I didn't see me do that.
Oh, I also like your name dropping. What was that called in philosophy again oh grand minorer in philosophy? I can't remember the name, but the point was that it doesn't elevate your status in the argument.
Good day all, I'm off to NYC!
P.S. I made my macaroni & cheese with sharp edges so that anyone would die that tried to steal it from me. However, upon further reflection about the bad taste of the food, I decided to remove the edges and just give it to someone and prove to them just how dangerous my bad-tasting recipe was.
P.P.S. The more important question to be asking is how do we build pleasure bots with 100% realistic stimuli?!
QuoteI made some macaroni & cheese tonight, and it was NOT very good.
Any leftovers? I'm a mac' & cheese fiend; I'll take what I can get! :-D
QuoteAny leftovers? I'm a mac' & cheese fiend; I'll take what I can get!
No, I trashed them. I can't bestow that kind of nastiness on anyone.
QuoteQ-Bit said:
Currently, we are the most powerful nation in the world. Following your argument, I agree that, if we were to just stand down, we would most likely be invaded (eventually). However, this is due to our inability to "play nice" in the past and present; we often give deliberate reason for people to be jealous and resentful.
Somebody that understands! If we don't go around the world pissing people off (pretty-much like we have since the end of WW2), we don't give people nearly so much reason to hate us. Not that this means we can completely disarm ourselves, but we wouldn't have nearly so many wars. (how many wars has Switzerland had recently?) Name the wars since WW2 in which we went to war to
defend ourselves. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is possibly Afghanistan (out of how many wars and "police actions" and invasions?), and though I will not attempt to justify or defend Bin Laden, we wouldn't have gotten involved with him in the first place if we 1)weren't using him as a hedge against Russia in the 80's and 2)hadn't invaded Iraq the first time or probably just 3)got our military out of Saudi Arabia at the end of the first Iraq war.
If you want to know what exactly we've done around the world to piss off most of the Mid-East, Africa, and South America, read something by Noam Chomsky. I'm not saying Chomsky isn't biased or one-sided, but his facts tend to be well-researched.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not America-bashing. I love this country. :usflag: It's just that our foreign policy of the last 60 years has been so selfish and short-sighted. Do any of you know how many
popularly-elected governments we've helped to overthrow (that is, provide funding, weapons, and military training for the purpose of said overthrow) in South America in the late '70s and early 80's? I don't have an exact number, but several. Do you know what we supported in place of the
popularly-elected governments? Bloody dictatorships. (I'm not British, by bloody I mean they murdered any suspected opposition). Now, we invade countries and overthrow governments to "spread democracy". I call bull. If our goal were to forcibly spread democracy around the world, we would be at war with much of it. Including many of our "allies".
I know it isn't true, but sometimes I think like George Carlin that we just go to war to "play with our toys in the sand".
I also have somewhat utopian views and so I do think that world peace is a real possibility in the future. Unfortunately, we will need to seriously revamp people's view on the world. At the moment, everyone is far too jaded and unforgiving about the world and everyone else. I suppose one of the main reasons we do not have world peace is selfishness. Many people are unwilling to share and like to be selfish for themselves or their own group. One of the things that could really help this along would be a unified world government. Now, I am aware people fear this idea, since a corrupt government would rule the world, but governments can be overthrown and the United States at the moment is the most powerful government in the world so should we be fearing it then? (Hehe, I think so. :lol:)
This will take a very long time I think. It is very hard to change the way people think. The only way I could see this happening in the near future is if aliens attacked us. Then we would be able to unify as a people and help each other. Unfortunately, this would merely mean more wars and more selfishness, it would just take place outside Earth. It wouldn't really be any closer to the utopian view.
We just have to keep trying to take small steps towards a better world whenever we get the opportunity.
By the way, note that just because I graduated doesn't mean I will stop reading the forums. Does that make me a geek? (I know I am one for other reasons. :-P)
I need some data to plug into my geek-computing formula. Let's see... how often do you read the forum? when did you graduate? what's your name? ...he-he, just kidding.
Last time I went shopping in the mall, I almost bought a t-shirt that says "I love geeks," but changed my mind. That would be hysterical though to wear it on campus one day. Girls, somebody, do it. :-)
I just saw this thread and wanted to add my two cents.
I don't get why some people freak out when anything dealing with the military comes out. A few people on here and of course all over the world think that war is bad no matter what but they never think that America, Europe, and most of the modern world would not be what it is today without it. It isn't always bad.
Which is what I feel about this new weapon. If you noticed it doesn't move. This is not an offensive weapon. It is nothing more than a fancy gun turret. If you are really worried about human life, in a case such as this, you should not be worried about the weapon, you should be worried about the invaders.
If North Korea doesn't invade South Korea there shouldn't be a problem. People have every right to defend themselves and a gun such as this gives them that much more security.
You said earlier "yay America can wage war cheaper. The American way!," or something to that effect, but finances is just as much a part of war as fighting. If you go broke trying to defend yourself then you might as well never started fighting in the first place.
I guess what I am trying to get at is this. Why don't people like you stop trying to say the gun is what is killing people and start saying whom the real killers are, the people. If people like Kim Jon Il or however you spell his name, would not try to take over other countries, people wouldn't die. If people like Hitler, Osama Bin Ladin, and Saddam would not desire to kill people then the wars would never happen. So, if you want to make a difference, try to teach people compassion and remorse rather than teaching them to be scared of guns.
QuoteIf you noticed it doesn't move. This is not an offensive weapon.
Agreed,... but, I ask you, what is the next logical step?
QuoteIf you are really worried about human life, in a case such as this, you should not be worried about the weapon, you should be worried about the invaders. f you want to make a difference, try to teach people compassion and remorse...
Again,... agreed;... that was my point... :-P
QuoteI don't get why some people freak out when anything dealing with the military comes out. A few people on here and of course all over the world think that war is bad no matter what but they never think that America, Europe, and most of the modern world would not be what it is today without it. It isn't always bad.
Don't get me wrong, I like my country--heck, I like the world as a whole. I guess we did what we
had to do to get here,... and things are good. But could they not be better? Perhaps if we had compromised in the past, things would be different. I don't think we'd be as well off as we are today; these things take time, and I don't think we'd be as far as we are right now. However, I firmly believe that we would have established a better footing for generations to come; the future would be brighter. I think someday we'll reach a limit given our current trend and mindset. At this point, I would hope that people would have no other choice but to become compassionate with one another, lowering their guns, whether offensive or defensive, man or machine.
QuoteDon't get me wrong, I like my country--heck, I like the world as a whole. I guess we did what we had to do to get here,... and things are good. But could they not be better? Perhaps if we had compromised in the past, things would be different. I don't think we'd be as well off as we are today; these things take time, and I don't think we'd be as far as we are right now. However, I firmly believe that we would have established a better footing for generations to come; the future would be brighter. I think someday we'll reach a limit given our current trend and mindset. At this point, I would hope that people would have no other choice but to become compassionate with one another, lowering their guns, whether offensive or defensive, man or machine.
This reminds me of something I saw on the WoW episode of South Park. "The French just quit playing, and looked what happened to them. Are you French, Ross?"
Ha ha, I couldn't resist. I also think if we had compromised any more in WW2, we would have been owned.
Quote"The French just quit playing, and looked what happened to them. Are you French, Ross?"
Je ne suis pas... (that's right... Ross took French 101... ;-) )
QuoteI also think if we had compromised any more in WW2, we would have been owned.
I apologize for not being as clear as intended; I was arguing that it would have been nice had it never gotten to that point--in other words, it would have been nice had WW2 not happened at all. I don't think you, or anyone else for that matter, would disagree. However, it
did happen, and we did what was necessary to survive. We (humanity) should learn from our
mistakes and all become stronger and wiser from them; that's what
mistakes are for. There is no reason why something like that should happen again,... but do you think we have learned our lesson... or [will it | should it] happen again?
QuoteTonedog wrote:
Why don't people like you stop trying to say the gun is what is killing people and start saying whom the real killers are, the people.
I'm not sure if that was directed also at me or not, but I will clarify:
I agree wholeheartedly with your comment. I like guns. In fact, I believe everyone responsible enough to handle one should probably have one. You'll find few personal weapons I have a problem with. I just have a problem sometimes with the USE of weapons or one group of people having weapons and another not having them.
For example, do you think Hitler could have had the Jews rounded up and mass-murdered if the German people had firearms? Heck no! No sane soldier would go door to door rounding people up if he knew the people inside were probably armed.
But I'm only talking for use in self-defense here. Is anyone still arguing attacking Iraq was in self-defense? How much of what our military has done over the past 50 years was legitimate self-defense? Not that much. I'm not saying our leaders are nearly as bad as Hitler or Stalin, etc. but they do seem to like killing people, too.
Also, I am somewhat uncomfortable with autonomous weapons. I know people are not perfect, but I don't tend to trust an AI to decide who to kill and who not to kill. What do you guys think who have, like I, programmed robots? Furthermore, when you allow one side to wage war with almost no risk to themselves personally (i.e. they have a HUGE advantage in military technology or have somebody or something else fighting the war for them), you will have more war.
QuoteFor example, do you think Hitler could have had the Jews rounded up and mass-murdered if the German people had firearms? Heck no! No sane soldier would go door to door rounding people up if he knew the people inside were probably armed.
I see what you are saying, but think about it. Guns are not something that only rich countries can make. In some parts of the world, making a gun is almost common knowledge. If a country like America got rid of all its guns, what do you think would happen? Whoever decided not to get rid of there would take over, and you can't make them get rid of their guns unless you have guns also.
Many people don't know this, but Joseph Stalin was quoted saying that he would not invade America because "every American has a gun." If it wasn't for the fact that all our citizens have the ability to defend themselves, we would have been at war with Russia a long time ago. The fact that many people carry guns in the Middle East is also why we are having such a problem right now.
We had no problem taking out Saddam's army, and what most people don't know is that Iraq had the 5th largest military before we tore them up in Desert Strom. The problem comes when we have to go house to house and fight every single person with a gun.
So basically, guns will always be there. Everyone in the world can agree they help people kill more people and that we need to get rid of them. Every country can agree to do so, but it only takes one person with the know-how or the money to make guns and they take over. Even without guns, we would still find a way to kill people just the same. The problem isn't the guns, the problem is the people who want to kill for money, power, or what ever else they want.
QuoteThe problem isn't the guns, the problem is the people who want to kill for money, power, or what ever else they want.
That is partly true. The underlying problem is that people have different moral beliefs, which mostly (or at the very least, partly) come from religious beliefs. If everyone had good clean morals then their would be no violence, no crime, no hatred, no point for war. BUT, no two people have the exact same values and that leads to conflict. People are very unwilling to change their personal morals (because they are so personal) to conform to any standard so conflict is unavoidable.
Whole societies even have their own set of morals. That is why some countries have legalized pot and/or prostitution and some haven't. Although these differences wouldn't (or shouldn't) bring countries to war, it shows that even whole countries have different morals and therefore conflict between countries (war) is also unavoidable.
How do we stop it? Well as people we can only change our OWN personal beliefs/morals. We need to start with making ourselves "better" (have higher morals). A country full of people with high morals would naturally have a government with (ideally) higher morals. A world full of governments with higher morals would naturally be a world of high morals. A world of high morals would be a world without war.
Seems like a long way away from happening but it isn't. The world COULD be a totally different place within one or two generations if only the members of this generation take the responsibility of teaching the next generation the morals that they've learned.
Where to find "high morals"? Well a good place to look, regardless of religion, is the Book of Proverbs in the Bible. AHHHHHH the BIBLE?!?!? Yes... the Bible.
QuoteA country full of people with high morals would naturally have a government with (ideally) higher morals.
This is true, but remember Maslow’s hierarchy theory â€ââ,¬Å" morality is a â€Ã...“higher needâ€Ã, that doesn’t come in focus until â€Ã...“basic needsâ€Ã, are mainly satisfied. Someone here mentioned a â€Ã...“popularly-electedâ€Ã, government in Africa. There is no such thing as truly elected government even in countries much more developed than African, because popular candidates simply don’t live very long. The reality is, people in economically undeveloped countries do not fight corrupted government, and even when they try, they get killed.
Some of you may ask what it has to do with us. Being a more evolved society, why can’t we just let history take its course and wait until all other countries â€Ã...“evolve?â€Ã, Why take responsibility for deaths of innocent people with military interventions? We’d feel much better about ourselves, our morals wouldn’t be compromised, and some of the governments would love us if we’d just stop interfering and minded our own business. Ironically, my answer to this question is the very subject that started this discussion - military technology. In the past, a â€Ã...“bad guyâ€Ã, in charge of some country would be just a part of the history. Today, with the constant advance in technology come weapons of mass destruction, and the â€Ã...“bad guyâ€Ã, may very well be capable of ending the human history. It is important they know that they can’t do whatever they wish and remain unpunished. Maybe I’m just paranoid, I don’t know.
â€Ã...“Thatguyâ€Ã, said â€Ã...“We will truly be on the path to being an evolved species when we can base our actions not on the fears, but on the hopes and ideals, in our hearts.â€Ã, In my opinion, preemptive military actions are based not on fears, but on common sense. Just like bringing a parachute when you jump from a plane is based on a common sense and not on fear. I know, I know, parachutes don’t kill innocent people. I’m sure we all have moral believes against hurting innocent, we’ve already discussed â€Ã...“killing 1 to save 5â€Ã, here earlier. It seems to me that people who don’t believe in â€Ã...“greater Goodâ€Ã, also base their views on fear. Different kind of fear though â€ââ,¬Å" they are afraid of living with moral consequences, or being regarded a killer, or going to hell... whatever it is, seems selfish to me. I’m probably wrong though.
I do believe in the future there will be no suffering, no hunger, and no wars. I agree with everyone who already said, it might take some time.
QuoteThat is partly true. The underlying problem is that people have different moral beliefs, which mostly (or at the very least, partly) come from religious beliefs.
This statement is completely wrong. Yes religion has caused war, but not all wards or problems. Nothing Hitler did had anything to do with Religion, or at least the majority of what he did. Vietnam had nothing to do with religion. The Korean War had nothing to do with religion. Actually, probably 90% of wars were not because of religion. The current war in Iraq has nothing to do with religion. For the terrorist it is about religion, but for us it is about protecting this country, whether it be financially or physically.
The only wars that were truly about religion were the crusades. Christians used to feel they were given the world and they needed to take back the holy land, or expand to all ends of the earth, but they have learned their lesson. We no longer wage Holy War, but many people in the Middle East do. People always hate to give America credit but I believe this country is mostly responsible for that change in Christianity. In the Middle East they have never had a region where they had freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Those two basic rights is what allowed people to speak out about how things where handled in Christianity and changed it for the better. Who knows, maybe if things go right in Iraq the Middle East might actually have that region for the first time and we might see a real change for the better.
Well, I thought this was ironic:
Top 5 Robots of 2006 (http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/top_5_robots_of_2006.php)
Take a look at #1...
:no:
Looks good. Lives will be saved :) That's more than I can say for the other robots there.