[Malatant of Shadow]

Here's an article I found today that discusses robot soldiers, or "killer robots." http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/11/19/ban-killer-robots-it-s-too-late

The article only discusses such machines in their potential war-fighting capacity, with the danger they pose for increased civilian casualties and reduced accountability. But there's another danger that the same software, with somewhat different hardware, could pose to liberty. The same targeting routines and combat routines could be used in machines equipped with non-lethal as well as lethal weaponry for the purpose of crowd control, riot suppression, and crackdowns on dissent.

Every revolution that has ever happened has happened because a government became so unpopular and so out of touch with the needs of the people that its own soldiers deserted it. But if the soldiers are robots, that can't happen. For the first time in history, this technology creates the real possibility that a government could impose its rule on its own people by force.

That's a scary thought. I strongly feel this should not be allowed to go forward.

[michael3]

This could be the final phase of the State, part of a larger Transhumanist goal that might see the near-extinction of the true Human Race.

With some further related implications of Moore's Law, the 'Terminator' movies could resemble more Prophesy than fiction.

Consider this abstract, from Dr. Anthony Begrlas;

http://berglas.org/Articles/AIKillGrand ... ldren.html

"AI will kill our grandchildren."

[Someone5]

Here's an article I found today that discusses robot soldiers, or "killer robots." http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/11/19/ban-killer-robots-it-s-too-late

The article only discusses such machines in their potential war-fighting capacity, with the danger they pose for increased civilian casualties and reduced accountability. But there's another danger that the same software, with somewhat different hardware, could pose to liberty. The same targeting routines and combat routines could be used in machines equipped with non-lethal as well as lethal weaponry for the purpose of crowd control, riot suppression, and crackdowns on dissent.

Every revolution that has ever happened has happened because a government became so unpopular and so out of touch with the needs of the people that its own soldiers deserted it. But if the soldiers are robots, that can't happen. For the first time in history, this technology creates the real possibility that a government could impose its rule on its own people by force.

That's a scary thought. I strongly feel this should not be allowed to go forward.

The capital requirements to actually replace the soldiers with robots would be extreme (and only viable in a few niche areas, like UAVs)... and a move to replace human soldiers with robots would itself make it likely that soldiers would desert the state.

[Malatant of Shadow]

The capital requirements to actually replace the soldiers with robots would be extreme (and only viable in a few niche areas, like UAVs)... and a move to replace human soldiers with robots would itself make it likely that soldiers would desert the state.

The latter would be unlikely if it was a phase in over time rather than a sudden across-the-board replacement. Soldiers, police, etc. could be guaranteed their jobs until ready to retire, but replaced by machines rather than people, when it comes time to replace them anyway.

This would also ease the capital cost by stretching it out. The capital exists to do it (or would if the technology was perfected which it's not yet), and so the only question would be whether the powers that be would find it worthwhile.

But consider: We are on track to the end of capitalism's political viability because automation in other areas is depressing the need for labor. I can see an economy of the future in which almost everyone is either in a low-paying job that's not worth automating because labor in that role is so cheap (burger-flippers, WalMart associates), a few very high-paid positions that are too complex to be automated or require a human touch for some reason, the true rich (the investor class), and a large mass of unemployed living on the public dole. If I can see this, then there are bound to be some people running things in big business who can see it, too. That kind of situation in which people have no hope and no prospects is what sparks uprisings and revolutions.

Investing the necessary capital to have a robot police force could give the corporate state effective immunity to revolution. For the first time in history, the enforcers of order would be absolutely reliable. I realize the expense would be great, but I imagine they would find it worth what it costs.

[SolarCross]

"We are Anonymous, we are legion, we do not forgive, we do not forget, expect us."

I wonder how long it will be before Anonymous cracks robo-cop and sends off him to suppress his owners.

[Elect G-Max]

Humans have "common sense". We can adapt. We can cause chaos and respond to chaos. Robots... I dunno, man. Have you ever spilled beer on a computer?

[youtube]timfETD-N4o[/youtube]

[Someone5]

The latter would be unlikely if it was a phase in over time rather than a sudden across-the-board replacement. Soldiers, police, etc. could be guaranteed their jobs until ready to retire, but replaced by machines rather than people, when it comes time to replace them anyway.

I think you seriously misunderstand the psychology at work in these fields if you think there would not be wide-spread dissent from such a phase-out. Among other things, they would have no faith that the promise would be upheld without a continuing social contract enforced by their replacements.

This would also ease the capital cost by stretching it out. The capital exists to do it (or would if the technology was perfected which it's not yet), and so the only question would be whether the powers that be would find it worthwhile.

I have my doubts that robots will ever make decent soldiers, let alone exemplary ones.

But consider: We are on track to the end of capitalism's political viability because automation in other areas is depressing the need for labor. I can see an economy of the future in which almost everyone is either in a low-paying job that's not worth automating because labor in that role is so cheap (burger-flippers, WalMart associates), a few very high-paid positions that are too complex to be automated or require a human touch for some reason, the true rich (the investor class), and a large mass of unemployed living on the public dole. If I can see this, then there are bound to be some people running things in big business who can see it, too. That kind of situation in which people have no hope and no prospects is what sparks uprisings and revolutions.

Robotic soldiers would not be of any great assistance in such a situation; they would lack the social cohesion to aggregate capital in order to field robotic soldiers. If, you know, half the working-age population wants work but can't find it, society has pretty much collapsed and no one is going to be fielding any kind of army--much less a terribly expensive robotic one. That sort of fancy toy is the sort of thing that only states with massively powerful economies can field--it's not the sort of thing that neo-feudal anti-industrial states can bother with.

Let's not forget that leaders have never had much trouble compelling enough people to fight in their armies if cost is no object.

Investing the necessary capital to have a robot police force could give the corporate state effective immunity to revolution.

Except, you know, they'd face a revolution and their robots would be destroyed by far more capable human beings--and make no mistake, humans with machine assistance are far, far more capable than machines with human assistance. Do not forget that a revolution is more than a military event--they will also face a collapse in their economic power, which makes a capital-intensive option like a robotic police force a terrible idea.

[Someone5]

"We are Anonymous, we are legion, we do not forgive, we do not forget, expect us."

I wonder how long it will be before Anonymous cracks robo-cop and sends off him to suppress his owners.

And, indeed, that would also be a likely response.

[Malatant of Shadow]

I think you seriously misunderstand the psychology at work in these fields if you think there would not be wide-spread dissent from such a phase-out. Among other things, they would have no faith that the promise would be upheld without a continuing social contract enforced by their replacements.

I'm pretty sure it could be done if it was done gradually.

I have my doubts that robots will ever make decent soldiers, let alone exemplary ones.

Even if that's true, they wouldn't have to. I am talking about them being used like National Guard troops putting down a riot, not like front-line combat fighters.

Robotic soldiers would not be of any great assistance in such a situation; they would lack the social cohesion to aggregate capital in order to field robotic soldiers.

What? That didn't make any sense. Can you rephrase it?

If, you know, half the working-age population wants work but can't find it, society has pretty much collapsed and no one is going to be fielding any kind of army--much less a terribly expensive robotic one.

Machines are already doing the work (that's a premise here and it's well on the way), so as far as production is concerned, half the working-age population being unable to work is a non-problem. It's a problem from the demand side, but a high-rolling capitalist might well be satisfied with a bigger piece of a smaller pie. In fact, that's what they've been doing increasingly since the 1980s.

Let's not forget that leaders have never had much trouble compelling enough people to fight in their armies if cost is no object.

Again, I'm not talking about combat soldiers. I'm talking about troops being willing to fire on rebellious civilians. As a government becomes increasingly oppressive and unpopular, leaders often DO have trouble compelling people in their armies to do that. That's how governments fall.

Except, you know, they'd face a revolution and their robots would be destroyed by far more capable human beings--and make no mistake, humans with machine assistance are far, far more capable than machines with human assistance.

1. If the U.S. military (as it is presently constituted) is willing to fight against a civilian insurgency, do you believe that the rebels have a snowball's chance in hell? (If you think they would, well, you're thinking in terms of a Wild West fantasy, not the real world, and there's not much point continuing the discussion.)

2. If a robot army is armed similarly to the U.S. military as it is now -- VASTLY greater firepower than civilians can acquire, legally OR illegally -- do you believe that the rebels have a snowball's chance in hell? We are not talking about a level playing field or equivalent arms and other equipment. We are talking about so lopsided a fight that it would be a slaughter, a walkover, IF the government's troops are willing to fight -- and if they're robots, they will be.

Humans with machine assistance are weaker than machines with human assistance if the machines the humans have are automobiles, home-made explosives, and ordinary firearms protected by the Second Amendment, while the machines on the other side are armed with state-of-the-art military weapons and equipment. And that would be the case.

Revolution happens not because the people can win the fight, but because the fight doesn't occur.

Do not forget that a revolution is more than a military event--they will also face a collapse in their economic power, which makes a capital-intensive option like a robotic police force a terrible idea.

If they are not dependent on human labor, why would that be so?

The possibility of hacking is somewhat intriguing. That would depend on the machines being an open system rather than a closed one, but they might have to be.

[Someone5]

What? That didn't make any sense. Can you rephrase it?

If society reaches a postmodern anti-industrial state like you describe, it is essentially already in the process of collapsing. Thus, robotic soldiers will not save the elites in that society--because the society itself will be crumbling around them. They will not have enough infrastructure in place to aggregate enough capital to keep robots in the field--a far, far more expensive proposition than keeping human soldiers. Why? Because the "pie" will be shrinking, even if their shares are largest.

Machines are already doing the work (that's a premise here and it's well on the way), so as far as production is concerned, half the working-age population being unable to work is a non-problem. It's a problem from the demand side, but a high-rolling capitalist might well be satisfied with a bigger piece of a smaller pie. In fact, that's what they've been doing increasingly since the 1980s.

Production without demand is worthless. And that smaller pie is exactly why robotic soldiers would never be the economically optimal choice.

I'll go into more later.

[Rich]

Every revolution that has ever happened has happened because a government became so unpopular and so out of touch with the needs of the people that its own soldiers deserted it. But if the soldiers are robots, that can't happen. For the first time in history, this technology creates the real possibility that a government could impose its rule on its own people by force.

Please stop that drivel right there. Just because a constitutional democratic monarchy, many of whose members of Parliament harboured deep sympathy for the rebel cause, with primitive eighteen century technology at the end of a four thousand mile supply line, refraining virtually completely from using terror against the White Colonists and in a war with the other top world power France failed to impose its will, ever since American cretins have concluded that gaining Liberty is just some matter of will.

At least eighty percent of the Iraqi population wanted Saddam gone. Even most of the Sunni Arabs hated his guts. After the rising was put down in 91 only an outside force could liberate the Iraqi people. Its one of the great tragedies of history that a small part of the United States didn't suffer under Nazi rule like the Channel Islands. That might have put paid to this nonsense. Those arseholes like Jefferson couldn't see totalitarian tyranny when it was right in front of their face: slavery, that they were imposing through terror. The only place where the Black plantation slaves gained their liberty was Haiti and again that required special conditions. Look at the Russian February revolution. The Tsar had vast conscript armies. Such places as Czech, Denmark and Holland in WWII show that you only need a very small number of loyal troops who are willing to commit atrocities to keep a population under control.

This is why Libertarians are the most deadly enemy of liberty and freedom, because if they were to succeed in their goal of dismantling the democratic state, it would be relatively easy for a private company to take over and once they had taken over it would be impossible to remove them.

[Malatant of Shadow]

At least eighty percent of the Iraqi population wanted Saddam gone.

No, they didn't. If that had been the case, he'd have been gone. Saddam had the support of the majority of his population, at least tacitly. Just because a government doesn't meet our own approval doesn't mean its own people oppose it enough to take the actions that will tear it down.

By the way, the American Revolution isn't an example of what I'm talking about; in that instance we DID have to fight, because it was really an international war, not a revolution properly so called. The examples that show what I'm talking about are countries like:

The Soviet Union and all of its satellites
The Philippines
The recent uprisings of the Arab Spring

Take the first one. It was long a right-wing talking point that "tyrannies never give up power voluntarily" and yet when the people of the Soviet Union turned against their government, it fell -- almost without violence, certainly without any decisive violence. The tyranny didn't give up power voluntarily, but it sure did give it up.

People take all kinds of actions to support a government and the economy that upholds it. If they stop doing that, the government falls. There's no need to fight the government's troops (nor is there any way to beat them unless they totally suck).

This is why Libertarians are the most deadly enemy of liberty and freedom, because if they were to succeed in their goal of dismantling the democratic state, it would be relatively easy for a private company to take over and once they had taken over it would be impossible to remove them.

No, that wouldn't work. I'm not going to defend libertarianism, but there's no way that could work. Seriously, there has never been a country that has been governed by force, except from outside. A stronger country can hold a weaker one by force, but that's because it's supported voluntarily by its own people, and even then the cost in insurgencies, terrorist attacks, constant casualties, and expense is often too high to make it worthwhile. But there's no way a government can do this at all without serious support from somewhere.

Look again at what happened with the Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe. These were genuinely unpopular governments lacking support from their own people, but they were held in power for decades. Because they cracked down on dissent successfully? No, because they were being propped up by a much stronger country. Within a very short time after Gorbachev removed that support, they were all gone.

[Rich]

The rulers united will never be defeated.

In the Soviet union and its satelites in Central Europe, the elites were split. The illusion that regimes can be overthrown is only sustained because splits in the general populace tend to be reflected in the elite.

People take all kinds of actions to support a government and the economy that upholds it. If they stop doing that, the government falls. There's no need to fight the government's troops (nor is there any way to beat them unless they totally suck).

That's a ridiculous criteria for judging regime support. Collaboration with the Nazi occupiers was extremely high in WWII, in fact cooperation was often higher than with their previous indigenous governments. Of course a government would fall if everyone refused to economically cooperate with it but that never happens. In a way the closest thing to genuine non collaboration was in the Ukraine during collectivisation, I bet those peasants had far more balls than all the Tea party types, I'd love to see all the Tea baggers packed off to North Korea or even Saudi Arabia to experience some real tyranny. But in the end maybe even 6 million deaths was not enough to even shake the iron grip of the Communist party. The communist party of 1990 although oppressive was the palest shadow of the Totalitarian terror machine of the 1930s, that wasn't going anywhere without outside invasion.

When Saddam took over supreme power he announced that he'd uncovered a conspiracy with in the party's elite. He called out names one by one and each named person was led away. The remaining two thirds were delirious with relief to not be called out as a traitor. Saddam then got the surviving two thirds to shoot the alleged conspirators. That's terror. Saddam's terror machine extended right into the West. Nearly every Iraqi escapee had friends and relatives, people they cared about inside the country. Most dissidents learned to keep their anti regime views to themselves. It doesn't matter if the people oppose a regime if the regime believes in its self. We also saw this back in Feudal times. A few knights could keep upperty peasants in order. The vast majority of peasants hated the Feudal order, but the Feudal order believed that it had divine right to live off the backs of others. We see the same thing with the Brahminist filth in India. The problem for modern dictatorships is finding an alternative ideology that they really believe in. Even Qadaffi although he was only defeated through NATO airpower suffered from this. Even his son Saif talked about democrat and market orientated reform.

[Malatant of Shadow]

In the Soviet union and its satelites in Central Europe, the elites were split.

What are you talking about? What elites? The only ones in those countries were the Communist Party members, and the only significant split that occurred involved what to do about the growing public disaffection (which arose because too much of the country's wealth was going to internal and external security, and people were poor in a supposed workers' paradise). There was a "crack down" faction and a "liberalize and reform" faction, the latter headed by Gorbachev.

Nobody among the elites wanted to dissolve the country, until things had progressed to the point that at least one of them (Boris Yeltsin) saw a prospect for his own advancement by joining the people and leading them. Oh, yeah, that's another thing that always happens.

Besides, the elites are always divided. That's part of the nature of an elite. They're always competing with each other for who's going to be top dog.

That's a ridiculous criteria for judging regime support. Collaboration with the Nazi occupiers was extremely high in WWII, in fact cooperation was often higher than with their previous indigenous governments.

That collaboration occurred is of course true; that it was ever stronger than support for the indigenous governments is, however, absurd. Here's how you can self-test that idea. Imagine that in 1942 Churchill had been defeated by a vote of no confidence and Great Britain had made peace with Germany. Imagine that, for the sake of more manpower to fight in Russia, Hitler had pulled all German troops out of France and told the Vichy government, "Here's the north half of your country back, we gotta go. You're on your own, sorry about that." How long do you think Petain would have lasted?

Of course a government would fall if everyone refused to economically cooperate with it but that never happens.

The hell it doesn't. It HAS happened on many occasions.

In a way the closest thing to genuine non collaboration was in the Ukraine during collectivisation

No, the closest thing to genuine non collaboration can be seen in the list I posted earlier. (That was also non collaboration, but by too small a portion of the population.)

When Saddam took over supreme power he announced that he'd uncovered a conspiracy with in the party's elite. He called out names one by one and each named person was led away.

This is pretty much par for the course for fascists when they take power. Saddam was following Hitler's playbook from the Night of the Long Knives. But this constituted a division within the ruling elite. That kind of division might (otherwise) have resulted in Saddam being overthrown and replaced by some other tyrant, but this would have been an internal coup, not a revolution. Such disagreements within the elite are a constant and are irrelevant to what we're discussing.

[Malatant of Shadow]

If society reaches a postmodern anti-industrial state like you describe, it is essentially already in the process of collapsing. Thus, robotic soldiers will not save the elites in that society--because the society itself will be crumbling around them. They will not have enough infrastructure in place to aggregate enough capital to keep robots in the field--a far, far more expensive proposition than keeping human soldiers. Why? Because the "pie" will be shrinking, even if their shares are largest. . . .

Production without demand is worthless. And that smaller pie is exactly why robotic soldiers would never be the economically optimal choice.

I'll go into more later.

Ah, I understand now. If you want to go into more detail of course go ahead.

I'm going to suggest that as long as the capitalists have a way to crack down ruthlessly on dissent and are morally willing to have most of the country live in squalor, they don't need real prosperity of the kind we had in the 1960s. That's where the "bigger piece of a smaller pie" comes in. Suppose we had in this country a minimum guaranteed income paid by the government so everyone has a place to live and nobody goes hungry or does without medical care. Suppose that this guaranteed income was all that half the population ever saw, except maybe for some odd freelance income for those with the skills to pursue it.

Consumer demand would be considerably lower than it is now and the economy would contract -- yes. That's what you're saying and it's true, but if those at the top were raking off a bigger piece of this shrunken pie, then their share -- which in the end is all that matters here -- could still be larger than it is now. From this share come the funds to support the robot soldiers (which might actually be LESS than the cost to hire humans for the job, incidentally -- higher in up-front capital cost, but lower in ongoing costs). I haven't crunched the numbers but I'm pretty sure it could be done.

[Someone5]

Again, I'm not talking about combat soldiers. I'm talking about troops being willing to fire on rebellious civilians. As a government becomes increasingly oppressive and unpopular, leaders often DO have trouble compelling people in their armies to do that. That's how governments fall.

Umm, no. Most rulers throughout history have never really found it very hard to get their troops to fire on their own people. Some of the troops will dissent, but few overall will usually join. Militaries refusing to support leadership usually only happens when a specific leader's power base has abandoned him. You're not talking about a collapse of elite support for the government, you're talking about the ascendancy of elite power, which certainly isn't likely to result in a military refusal to oppress civilians.

1. If the U.S. military (as it is presently constituted) is willing to fight against a civilian insurgency, do you believe that the rebels have a snowball's chance in hell? (If you think they would, well, you're thinking in terms of a Wild West fantasy, not the real world, and there's not much point continuing the discussion.)

The U.S. Military is way the hell more competent than your hypothetical robotic army would be. That was my point. Even ill-trained rebels would walk all over robot soldiers inside three months--there is no way at all that a robotic army would be able to maintain itself in the field without human support. Advanced gear requires huge logistical support, not just at factories back home, but also out in the field itself and all throughout the supply chain. Just look at the trouble that modern militaries have keeping their equipment functional in harsh environments for an example of that. Magnify that many times over for a primarily robotic army.

It would be horrendously expensive and not very effective. I mean, it might work if you put guns on street cameras or something, but why do that when traditional methods of control work just fine? Elites rarely have much trouble keeping control over a population with regular human soldiers unless they're just completely excessive.

2. If a robot army is armed similarly to the U.S. military as it is now

I don't care what gun you put in the hands of a robotic soldier, there is no way he's going to get fuel as compact as food. There's no way he's going to be as versatile in the field as a member of a species that has evolved for millions of years to handle pretty much any terrain found on the planet. Even a poorly trained rebel group.

That's kind of the point here. No one wins a war with big guns, wars are always won with logistics (and very occasionally tenacity).

-- VASTLY greater firepower than civilians can acquire, legally OR illegally -- do you believe that the rebels have a snowball's chance in hell? We are not talking about a level playing field or equivalent arms and other equipment. We are talking about so lopsided a fight that it would be a slaughter, a walkover, IF the government's troops are willing to fight -- and if they're robots, they will be.

... Where is the economic or social benefit for elites in all of this? They spend a fortune to overarm incompetent robotic soldiers? Why, when humans work oh so much better, and are entirely possible to control through normal methods?

Humans with machine assistance are weaker than machines with human assistance if the machines the humans have are automobiles, home-made explosives, and ordinary firearms protected by the Second Amendment, while the machines on the other side are armed with state-of-the-art military weapons and equipment. And that would be the case.

Or, you know, the oppressed lower class just picks up some commonly available computer and radio gear and takes down the robotic army, which will probably be secured about as well as any other critical network. Computer security has never really been the military's strong suit.

Revolution happens not because the people can win the fight, but because the fight doesn't occur.

Oh, it happens in both cases often enough. Of course, it wouldn't need to reach that point because the economy you describe would have already destroyed society.

If they are not dependent on human labor, why would that be so?

Money stops being valuable at that point; people would just loot everything. Including the robots. And the factories. If people stop having a relationship with the means of production, they will literally just expropriate what they need. Elite power will collapse.

The possibility of hacking is somewhat intriguing. That would depend on the machines being an open system rather than a closed one, but they might have to be.

There would be no real alternative, and it would be extremely likely to be a wide open target.

[Elect G-Max]

Can we get back to the part where you can make a robot soldier stop working by pissing on it from a rooftop? You could probably also trick them into walking/rolling into a swimming pool if you covered it with astroturf or something. Robots aren't that smart.

[Malatant of Shadow]

Umm, no. Most rulers throughout history have never really found it very hard to get their troops to fire on their own people.

Yes, they have. Many times. Look into the details of ANY popular revolution and you will find the troops deserting the government en masse.

The U.S. Military is way the hell more competent than your hypothetical robotic army would be. That was my point.

With the robot army equipped with modern weaponry and any popular resistance limited to rifles, handguns, and homemade bombs, the robots would still win even if what you say here is true. That's mine.

Even ill-trained rebels would walk all over robot soldiers inside three months--there is no way at all that a robotic army would be able to maintain itself in the field without human support.

What makes you think it wouldn't have human support, even supposing that were true, which it wouldn't be?

It would be horrendously expensive and not very effective. I mean, it might work if you put guns on street cameras or something, but why do that when traditional methods of control work just fine?

Traditional methods of control DON'T work just fine under those conditions.

I don't care what gun you put in the hands of a robotic soldier, there is no way he's going to get fuel as compact as food.

A typical armored personnel carrier, which is probably a good model for this as far as physical requirements, carries an 80-100 gallon fuel tank, which is good for several days of operation. A robot would be somewhat more fuel efficient since it wouldn't need to cart around a platoon of soldiers. That tank might last twice as long, say a week. Fuel requirements could be met.

There's no way he's going to be as versatile in the field

No, but it wouldn't need to be. (Not sure why you keep giving a machine a gender.) Look, let me give you an analogy here. Suppose you put an unarmed Navy Seal up against an eighteen year old kid armed with an assault rifle in an open field with no hiding places and start them at 200 yards apart in a fight to the death. Who's the better soldier? The Seal, obviously. Who will likely win that fight, though?

That's kind of the point here. No one wins a war with big guns, wars are always won with logistics (and very occasionally tenacity).

You keep making these never and always statements that are so easily proven wrong. Wars have often been won with big guns. In fact, that's really the way to bet. The side with the bigger firepower wins. Occasionally it doesn't, but when that happens its noteworthy and deserves study, e.g. America's defeat in Vietnam.

Where is the economic or social benefit for elites in all of this? They spend a fortune to overarm incompetent robotic soldiers? Why, when humans work oh so much better, and are entirely possible to control through normal methods?

The point is that under those conditions humans are NOT controllable through normal methods. The economic benefit is to remain on top and not have to give anything to the masses beyond a crust of bread.

Or, you know, the oppressed lower class just picks up some commonly available computer and radio gear and takes down the robotic army, which will probably be secured about as well as any other critical network. Computer security has never really been the military's strong suit.

Given your track record above, you'll forgive me perhaps if I don't take your word for that. Do you have information on how often the military has been successfully hacked?

There would be no real alternative, and it would be extremely likely to be a wide open target.

Maybe, maybe not. As I said, your claim that the military isn't any good at cyber-security would be better for some support. At least you've raised a possibility here of successful resistance. All I can say is that I hope you're right.

[SolarCross]

I don't see there is any point in trying to plead with our masters not to build deathbots, its inevitable, they'll do it anyway. So what happens when (that's when not if) they start rolling them out on any kind of substantial scale. Well regimes maintain themselves by a inducing a combination of fear, apathy and stockholm syndrome style 'love' in their subjects, this complex we can call loyalty. Any regime also provokes a combination of hatred and contempt in their subjects which we can call disloyalty. A stable regime is one in which the loyalty complex is greater than the disloyalty complex, an unstable regime is one in which loyalty and disloyalty levels are approximately equal. When disloyalty is greater than loyalty then the regime is soon to fall.

The progressive increase in killer robots will likely result in an increase in disloyalty as it will certainly provoke additional hatred and contempt including in some of those in the human military and police. It will also likely cause a downward pressure on loyalty as more people are shaken out of apathy and those cowed into love for the regime begin to doubt their masters hidden humanity. Leaving regime support depending more and more on just one factor which is fear. The fear provoked by robotic killers may at first be enough to compensate for the loss of regime support they cause. However just as the regime will feel more confident in using robots for suppression than human soldiers and police, the suppressed in will also feel less hesitancy in destroying robots than they will feel in hurting or killing human police and soldiers. The likelyhood will then be a big increase in the number and intensity of physical conflicts between the regime and the subjects. Depending on the technology of the robots, their human opponents which will include ex-military personel will probably soon find ways of hacking or outsmarting the robots.. which in turn will demolish the human fear of them. The sum result will be a huge loss in loyalty to the regime and and a big increase in disloyalty to the regime which few regimes can survive. The technicians that keep the robots working will likely walk away, leak systems info to rebels and sabotage the machines. Soon the regime will have neither subjects nor any working forces of suppression.

[Someone5]

Yes, they have. Many times. Look into the details of ANY popular revolution and you will find the troops deserting the government en masse.

A) That's an extremely limited trend. It's not at all applicable in a majority of cases.
B) You also find plenty of troops willing to wash the streets in blood.

With the robot army equipped with modern weaponry and any popular resistance limited to rifles, handguns, and homemade bombs, the robots would still win even if what you say here is true. That's mine.

Weapons used according to poor strategy, by machines lacking versatility... are ineffective weapons in putting down popular movements.

What makes you think it wouldn't have human support, even supposing that were true, which it wouldn't be?

Your whole argument rests on the idea that there would be no human beings in the chain that puts theses robots against civilians. If you start having humans keeping the machines working, that makes the robots just as vulnerable to desertion as a human army. That eliminates even the slight command advantage that might come from using robots to suppress people.

Traditional methods of control DON'T work just fine under those conditions.

They work fine in >95% of the nations out there. Only in situations where elites go to very great excesses do they find their methods failing...

A typical armored personnel carrier, which is probably a good model for this as far as physical requirements, carries an 80-100 gallon fuel tank, which is good for several days of operation. A robot would be somewhat more fuel efficient since it wouldn't need to cart around a platoon of soldiers. That tank might last twice as long, say a week. Fuel requirements could be met.

That's a joke, at best.

No, but it wouldn't need to be. (Not sure why you keep giving a machine a gender.) Look, let me give you an analogy here. Suppose you put an unarmed Navy Seal up against an eighteen year old kid armed with an assault rifle in an open field with no hiding places and start them at 200 yards apart in a fight to the death. Who's the better soldier? The Seal, obviously. Who will likely win that fight, though?

Yeah, because killing power is really what matters in wars. Because certainly the people with the best guns have always been the people who win the war. Right.

You keep making these never and always statements that are so easily proven wrong. Wars have often been won with big guns. In fact, that's really the way to bet.

The correlation between victory and weaponry is weak; the correlation between victory and effective use of materials is immense. When you control for productive capacity, the weapons scarcely end up being important.

Or, in other words, so what if a Sherman tank can't beat a Tiger? That isn't going to give Germany the victory. In the same way--so what if any robot could kill any rebel? That still isn't going to secure the robots a victory.

The side with the bigger firepower wins. Occasionally it doesn't, but when that happens its noteworthy and deserves study, e.g. America's defeat in Vietnam.

The side with the bigger firepower usually has the production advantage too; your anti-industrial state would be in a state of free collapse, unable even to provide for its own members. It wouldn't last three months. If you want another example, consider the difficulties that Colombia--which has immense US backing--have with FARC, which has been able to stay in the fight for fifty years now.

The point is that under those conditions humans are NOT controllable through normal methods. The economic benefit is to remain on top and not have to give anything to the masses beyond a crust of bread.

Humans are easy to control; perhaps easier than the robots. Elites have no real trouble doing it.

Given your track record above, you'll forgive me perhaps if I don't take your word for that. Do you have information on how often the military has been successfully hacked?

The military is justifiably quiet on the subject, but their public-facing servers get successfully attacked fairly regularly. They don't talk about successful attacks on their internal networks if they can avoid it, but it's bound to be rather common. What stories have been leaked show a general disregard for even basic security practices--such as a rather infamous example of foreign intelligence agencies getting classified data with nothing but a key drive they got someone to hook up. Specifically relevant to our discussion--Researchers have repeatedly found easily exploitable vulnerabilities in UAV command and control packages. As in, exploitable with off-the-shelf, freely available packages.

To put this in a different context--consider how easily the US and Israel got stuxnet into "secure" computers hosting critical functions of Iran's nuclear program. Do you think the Iranians in charge of securing those computers were just exceptionally stupid, or do you think there isn't very much that anyone can do to keep their systems genuinely secure? Do you really think that the US military is immune to "cyber attacks", or do you think they might also have their share of idiots manning the fences?