Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!ucbvax!hplabs!hplabsb!mgsmith
From: mgsmith@hplabsb.HP.COM (Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: Re: Battlefield Robotics (?)
Message-ID: <5828@hplabsb.HP.COM>
Date: 30 Aug 90 16:00:48 GMT
References: <59189@bbn.BBN.COM> <19497@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Reply-To: mgsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (Michael Smith)
Distribution: na
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Labs, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 25

>In article <59189@bbn.BBN.COM> bpalmer@BBN.COM (Brian Palmer) writes:
>
>}The threat of chemical weapons in the Middle East has made me wonder about the
>}reality and future of battlefield robots.  
>
>}Can anyone share what we have now? (unclassified ... so I guess what we ADMIT
>}we have.) Army, navy, airforce drones etc.

What a stupid idea, but then when you look at other forms of vapor
technology (Star Wars, B2 Bomber, etc.) that the defense department spends
our money on, I'm not suprised that such technology is being pursued.

Why is this stupid?  Because the whole purpose of war is to make the
other side acquiesce by making them suffer.  Iraq of course would not
attack robots with nerve gas.  No suffering involved.  Instead they would 
find human targets.  If the military consists of robots, they would kill 
civilians.  Imagine nerve gas in New York.  Not a pretty sight.

There are plenty of tasks that robots can perform that are directly
beneficial to society.  These include hazardous jobs such as painting
and welding, and difficult jobs such as high volume or high accuracy
assembly.  This is where we should be spending our resources.

Mike Smith
HP Labs