The US's plans to automate as much as possible the execution of modern warfare is possibly more dangerous than nuclear proliferation. As a war with out consequence (ie. loss of human life) for an aggressor is a very dangerous thing indeed. Think about Vietnam, it still could be going on now if hadn't been for the thousands of body bags coming home to America.

If this was taken to far it could be very dangerous, who well question the actions in a fiercely nationalistic country like the US when there is no preceived cost.

Some thought has to given to this on an international level before things get out of hand, its not RotM i'm worried about its the humans that can send them out to do their bidding whilw they sit in relative safety that worries me.

Don't you get it ? This is not the work of humans ! The 'people' behind this are clearly themselves killer robots. This is how it starts, they'll unleash their army of flying gizmoids and WE will be the target, mark my words.

No Matron, no ! I...don't need any...more...medication.......

the US is not an aggressive empire building regime. It is much more profitable to compete economically. Also, just because you cannot measure the cost in lives does not mean that there are no costs.

Interesting that you should compare this development to that of the atomic bomb. Look carefully at history and see if you can figure out the number of lives that have been saved by the fear of the use of that monster. WWII cost millions of lives, and that style of warfare was accepted practice until the advent of the Bomb. Would Korea have sparked WWIII without the threat of mutually assured destruction hanging over the heads of the US and USSR? Would it have been the same with Vietnam? How about any of the minor little skirmishes around the globe since the end of WWII? The bomb however, managed to keep everyones head on straight through the cold war, and put a lot of incentive behind those that would find a peaceful solution to problems. In those days, a failure of the UN could cost more than sanctions. It was an ugly thing to be avoided, we have two examples of the outcome of failure to prevent use of the Bomb.

Now, as for Automated weaponry. We are not developing Cylons here. At least, not yet. It is hard enough to prosecute a war where the enemy hides among the civilian population and fights more through propaganda than through traditional combat with human guidance and control. We are far from turning over that sort of control to the machines, Captain Cyborg and malicious cyberloos not withstanding.

rather than with some delusional jingoist who thinks that the U.S. has any interest whatsoever in 'competing economically' - at least on anything resembling a level playing field. The whole point of our continuing military aggression is economic and political control: we just don't particularly care about the physical territory that happens to go along with it.

And, unfortunately, it is *not* 'hard enough to prosecute a war where the enemy hides among the civilian population': it was too easy in Vietnam (where we so seldom heard about anything but American casualties, though IIRC Vietnamese deaths out-paced ours by about 40:1), and has been even easier in Iraq (where the ratio is more like 200:1, last I heard). Get that ratio back down to 40:1 (or better yet under 10:1) and I suspect we'll become a much kinder, gentler neighbor: good for the rest of the world, and good for us as well (little though most of us may realize it).