Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!jhunix!ins_atge
From: ins_atge@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Thomas G Edwards)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: Re: Battlefield Robotics (?)
Summary: already have them
Message-ID: <6296@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>
Date: 1 Sep 90 00:35:16 GMT
References: <59189@bbn.BBN.COM> <19497@ttidca.TTI.COM> <5828@hplabsb.HP.COM>
Reply-To: ins_atge@jhunix.UUCP (Thomas G Edwards)
Distribution: na
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF
Lines: 17

In article <5828@hplabsb.HP.COM> mgsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (Michael Smith) writes:
...about robots in the battlefield...
>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.

Well, if they destroy the robots, then we would actually have to fight
them (shades of a Star Trek episode).

Actually, we have a large stockpile of battlefield robots, namely
ICBM's and cruise missiles.  Of course, these are only of use when
fighting and enemy who does not have them, and are too expensive
to deliver low yeild (i.e. conventional) explosives.

-Tom